Improving Students’ Class Participation by Optimizing The Use of Think-Pair-Share Technique
Abstract
An effective and successful language learning process can only be achieved when students actively participate in the class. This research aimed to improve students’ class participation by the optimization of Think Pair Share (TPS) technique. This research was conducted as classroom action research whose subject was the tenth grade students of DPIB B class in a vocational highschool in Surakarta in the academic year of 2018/2019. The data were gathered from the research instruments, such as: observation, interview, questionnaire, research diary, and photographs. The data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative. The findings of the research showed that implementation of TPS was successful in improving students’ participation with the increase in the number of: (1) students asking and answering questions; (2) students’ interaction during the class; (3) students paying their attention during the class; (4) students interacting during group discussion; and (5) students speaking in front of the class. There were also some challenges that the researcher faced during the implementation of TPS technique, such as: (1) the familiarity of the technique to the students; (2) teacher’s control of the class; (3) students’ readiness in receiving the lesson; (4) difficulty in expressing opinion and ideas; (5) lack of confidence in speaking; (6) low grammar mastery; and (7) lack of vocabulary.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Allen, J. (2007). Inside words: Tools for teaching academic vocabulary, grades 4-12 (p. 119). Portland: Stenhouse Publishers. Researchgate
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-1-118-76155-7
Brown, C. T. & Pruis, J. J. (1958). Encouraging participation in classroom discussion, The Speech Teacher, 7:4, 344-346. crossref
Burns, A. (2009). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for prac-titioners(1sted). New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415991452
Butler, A., Phillmann, K. B., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: As-sessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises. Teaching of Psychology, 28(4), 257-259. crossref
Caplow, J. A. H., & Kardash, C. M. (1995). Collaborative learning activities in graduate courses. Innovative Higher Education, 19(3), 207-221. Google Schoolar
Cohen, M. (1991). Making class participation a reality. PS: Political Science & Poli-tics, 24(4), 699-703. Google Schoolar
Fassinger, P. A. (1996). Professors' and students' perceptions of why students participate in class. Teaching sociology, 24:1, 25-33. crossref
Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and stu-dents differ on the meaning of student participation. The journal of higher educa¬tion, 71(3), 342-362.Google Schoolar
Liu, J. (2001). Asian students' classroom communication patterns in US universities: An emic perspective. California: Greenwood Publishing Group. Google Schoolar
McTighe, J., & Lyman Jr, F. T. (1988). Cueing thinking in the classroom: The promise of theory-embedded tools. Educational Leadership, 45(7), 18-24. Google Schoolar
Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43–50. crossref
Vandrick, S. (2000).Language, Culture, Class, Gender, and Class Participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Lan-guages.Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, March 14-18, 2000. Google Schoolar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological pro-cesses. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Google Schoolar
Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College stu-dents' perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601. Google Schoolar
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.