Think-Pair-Share-Compare:An organizational principle for deeper learning
Glenn Amon MAGEEEnglish Education Center, Institute for Education and Student Support, Ehime University（Daniels, 2005）into a framework

Introductionthat promotes deeper thinking based on a dialectic

Language learning in Japanese junior and senior highschools is often characterized as predominantly passive inbetween mentor and mentee, or between a student
and a more capable peer. Another is,nature（Harumi, 2001）. Students remain silent when asked（Tomlinson, 1999）, which seeks to address the

direct questions by teachers, and many of them ﬁnd itdiﬃculty facing teachers of increasingly large class sizesdiﬃcult to speak aloud in front of other students, preferring

through introducing diﬀerent routes to learning in classes.

either to mumble answers, or to directly avoid questions

Finally,

by looking down at their desks, avoiding eye contact withseeks to involve learners directly in the educative process

the teacher. Indeed, experiencing the ubiquitous（Bonwell & Eison, 1991）which

Wall ofthrough the co-construction of knowledge and facilitatessilence （Helgeson, 1993）, characterized by silence as a

deeper thinking through speciﬁc thinking routines such as

predominant feature of the classroom, seems ever-present

Socratic questioning. In particular, there is strong support

for many present day teachers in Japan.

for Socratic questioning in neuroscientiﬁc literature with

Two decades since Helgeson s observations andregard to the facilitation of information retrieval as a more

recommendations for scaling the wall of silence, theeﬀective approach to study than the mere repetition ofproblem of active engagement in classes still represents

content（Karpicke & Blunt, 2011）. I drew on all three

a considerable challenge for educational reform inof these frameworks when adapting material for theJapan（Asanuma, 2015）. However, it is clear that having

incorporation of thinking routines.

students actively engaged in the learning process is very
important in order for the youth of Japan to become
participants in the governments proposed vision ofWhat are thinking routines?

globalization. MEXT, the Japanese Ministry of Education,

Thinking routines are an easily observable facet ofCulture, Sports, Science and Technology in particularmost classrooms. These routines are how teachers arrange

aims to enhance students

ability in language related

instruction in their classes, according to their teachingskills（MEXT, 2014）through the use of active learning

goals. Indeed, there are many diﬀering permutationsin the classroom. The idea is that classes structured byof routine in individual teachers

active learning will have a positive impact on student

onmotivation, interest, and a resulting positive dispositionacquisition（Tomlinson, 2003）. However, used poorly,

toward communication. However, what is unstated is how

routines become relegated to techniques, or skills, that

active learning could be operationalized within classroom

are discontinuous and do not lend well to helping students

theirbeliefs

regardingclassrooms basedlearning

andlanguagecontexts and speciﬁcally, how this might be done in an

create connections between study points both within andEnglish as a foreign language（EFL）classroom context.

between classes.

Fortunately, language teachers have a rich body ofBroadly speaking, the use of routines in EFL

research to draw upon. In the last two decades, thereclassrooms can be characterized on a cline toward

has been an increasing interest in the cognitive basis ofeitherlanguage learning. Indeed, it is quite uncontroversial to2002）. Synthetic instructional routines direct learneror

instruction（Beglar & Hunt,state that learning should require some form of thinking

attention toward grammar, words, and categorization,or reﬂection on the process of learning. One well known

whereas, analytic routines learners are focused on

approach is to use

meaningful communication and experience without pre-（Walqui and Van Lier,2010）, which draws on Vygotskian theory of

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

speciﬁcation of language to be learned by the teacher

127

Glenn Amon MAGEEor textbook. An analytic approach is the preference of(Bergman and Sams, 2012）, because it would provide

textbook writers（Cunningsworth, 1995）, and reﬂects

for additional time in class devoted to application of

the inﬂuence research into second language acquisition

textbook material. Key material from the textbook was

has had on textbook design. An inductive approach

set for pre-study before each class, and student textbooks

facilitates an increase in interaction between learners as

were reviewed at the beginning of classes, to make surethey work together to negotiate the meaning of language

students had understood the basic grammar and language

presented in the textbook（Hedge, 2010）. However, there

focus of each unit. The amount of pre-study required foris a further dimension which needs to be considered if we

students prior to each class was calculated to take no more

are to see our learners as more than passive recipients ofthan ten to twenty minutes of additional study time（seeinformation, and indeed more than passive participants.

Staﬀord, 2013, pp. 3-4 for an example of assigned work forThis dimension is the consideration of how diﬀerentiatedpre-study）.

instruction can be expedited through speciﬁc routines

Most students completed only the language focus

facilitating deeper processing in the brain, and awarenesssection of the pre-study, even though the following classesof learning, or metacognition, as a vital deliberation for

short test was based on the grammar practice page.

teachers.

Reasons why students did not focus on the grammar
activities was not part of this classroom based research.

Adapting textbook activities

However, there are two distinct possibilities that could
account for non-completion. First, all of the grammar

Even for teachers bound to a ﬁxed curriculum,practice activities have been encountered by students

textbook activities can be adapted to facilitate deeper

during their time at junior and senior high school.

processing through the incorporation of routines that

Therefore, students might not have seen further study

emphasize critical-thinking skills and student generated

outside class as necessary. Secondly, some of the practice

input over pre-speciﬁcation of words and phrases to be

pages are complex and require time for students tolearned. As Helgeson（2003）suggests, putting students

understand how to complete the activity. It is possible

together and expecting them to have instant conversations

that students reviewed grammar material using readily

often results in shallow processing. That is, students willavailable Japanese language based books for revising

only produce language which they have automatized, andgrammar points.

this language may well be unrelated or inappropriate to
the topic for many non-English major university freshmen
in Japan.

Think-Pair-Share

The importance of critical-thinking and student

The Think-Pair-Share routine aims to facilitate deeper

generated input should not be overlooked, as both havethinking through small group discussion. The format ofa direct impact on learner self-eﬃcacy. The eﬃcacy of

the routine allows students to discuss and generate ideas

student beliefs about their ability to learn, in turn, positively

without placing to great a demand on them to speak out

or negatively inﬂuences their actual performance（Hattie,

in front of the class.

2012）. Hence, looking one speciﬁc thinking routine,

At the beginning of a class, students were given time

Lyman, 1987）, I will consider how thisto think and discuss the topic of the textbook unit. The

particular routine facilitates critical-thinking, and deeper

ﬁrst ten minutes, students worked in small groups to thinklearning, through the adaptation of university textbook

and write out a word map（see Figure 1 for an example）ofmaterial. Before this, it is important to create time forwhat they already knew about the topic. During classes,

adaptation within the classroom, and so I will next brieﬂya speciﬁc instruction was given to students to focus on

introduce how this was achieved.

writing down language they thought would be useful fora conversation on the textbook topic set for each class.

Creating time for adapted materials:
The Flipped classroom model

Deeper thinking was facilitated by the use of set questions:In-line with MEXTs promotion of active learning(MEXT, 2014）, I chose a ﬂipped classroom model

128

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

Think-Pair-Share-Compare : An organizational principle for deeper learning

Figure 1

What words and phrases do you already know

on the predictive nature of the brain to not only activate

related to the topic?

prior knowledge related to a topic, but to also use that

What words and phrases do you think will beknowledge to make guesses about what might be useful in

useful in conversation?

class, and how new learning builds on and connects with

What words and phrases from last class do you

prior experiences during the course. Second, the answers

think will be useful in today s class?

to these questions are visible expressions of thought on
an individual level, within a group, between the student

These questions support critical thinking in two main

and teacher, and with the class as a whole which areways. First, they cause learners to reﬂect on their priorconsidered foundational increating a classroom culture

experiences. That is, they help learners become aware ofthat feels intellectually engaging （Ritchhart, Church &what they already know and what gaps need to be ﬁlled

Morrison, 2011, p.31）

in their existing second language knowledge. In contrast

From a cognitive perspective, the simple action of

to questions aimed at the simple recall of facts throughanswering questions is causative for students to recombine

a very common routine known as theWantexisting knowledge through associative thought, drawing

Learned （K-W-L）routine（Ogle, 1986）

on language and experiences students already have.

which was developed to aid reading, my questions focus

Associative thinking is also linked to better predictive

to know , and大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

Know ,

129

Glenn Amon MAGEE

skills（Bar, 2007）, and in terms of classroom practice, thisintroduce to the class. In some classes where students

means that students can no longer be passive recipients

had written pragmatically inappropriate items, it wasof teacher input, but are actively required to think aboutan opportunity for me to observe individual students

and make predictions on language they can use later onthinking processes and to lead individual or class levelin class speaking activities, and how students generated

discussion. In large classes of over thirty students it islanguage relates to previous lessons during the course.

still possible to miss some items though, and so I asked

It is important to note that this does not guarantee

students to upload their favorite phrases and questions tothat all students will engage actively in thinking, and so,

the university online learning system, Moodle, after eachin order to guard against passivity, where less competentclass. This allowed me to further look at student output

or motivated learners might write nothing, the sharing

on an individual and class level in case further feedback

part of the routine requires learners to add words andwas necessary.

phrases to other students

papers. In some classes,

where less competent learners had written seemingly
unconnected words, their peers were encouraged to write
thought provoking questions on their partner s paper
such as,Why did you choose this word? , or clariﬁcationquestions such as

What? ,

Homework is not only necessary, it has a signiﬁcant
impact on student learning（Hattie, 2012, p.13）. The

Why? , andhomework set for this course served as a further cycle

This was the ﬁrst part of sharing in the routineof learning compelling students to reﬂect on and review

where students showed their initial thoughts to a partner.

their previous class whilst maintaining the continuity

Critical thinking is most eﬀective when it takes into

between in-class work and work done outside class hours.

account an individual s perception based on experience

In particular, homework that is purposive, reinforces

and prior knowledge（Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2014, p.195）.

class activities, maximizes the possibility that it will be

How?

Where? ,Homework

As an organizational principle the Think-Pair-Sharecompleted, and incorporates teacher feedback is moreroutine continues in cycles throughout the class. Fromeﬀective than no homework, or homework that lacks

sharing with a partner, students in turn share their ideas

purposiveness（Marzano and Pickering, 2007）.

in a group, electing one student to feedback ideas to the

In the ﬁrst few classes, students unsurprisinglyclass. Using a cyclical process, where the same routine

uploaded both appropriate and inappropriate responses tois repeated both in class and outside of class, is one

the system（see Table 1 and 2 for an overview of one classclear reason why we should distinguish a routine as anfocused on language used when meeting a person for theorganizational principle, and not as a sequence or techniqueﬁrst time）. However, as students became used to taking

that would relegate thinking to the kind of discontinuous

charge of their own learning, and with my feedback on

activity that is presented in many textbooks, even thosetheir uploads in the following class, there was a noticeable

that claim, as Cunningworth（1995）points out, to include

change in the quality of what the students uploaded toan analytical approach as their organizing principle. In

the system. In addition to collecting this data, I also asked

fact, as an organizational principle, cycling the routine

students to write at least 50 words on what they felt was

throughout the class promotes increased opportunity forgood about their conversations in class. Speciﬁcally, I asked

critical thinking and encourages students to associatestudents to write about good experiences, and reminded

their learning with self-reﬂection and awareness of theirstudents who uploaded negative reviews of the class, theirown thoughts（Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2010, p.122）.

peers, or life in general, that the focus was to look for

A further component was added to the routine whichinteresting and valuable ideas inside conversations. The

is more speciﬁcally suited to language learning contexts;

reason for this was to utilize homework as a way of priming. In eﬀect making the organizational principle:

student attention toward positive aspects of the class, andThink-Pair-Share-Compare. Learners having written out

to reinforce teacher and peer credibility in class througha draft list of sentences or questions as models for classthe use of positive messages（Beatty and Benke,1980）toconversation then are given the opportunity to compare

support social learning. Two signiﬁcant points that support

their ideas with the teacher. During the time students

this view, from neuroscientiﬁc research, are that thought

were writing their word maps I was able to review theand emotion are not separate things. That is, how welist of phrases and questions they thought they would

feel about our classes has an important eﬀect on the way

130

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

Think-Pair-Share-Compare : An organizational principle for deeper learning

Table 1 ： Appropriate responses

Greeting

MiddleClosing

How are you?

What s your name?

Bye.

Nice to meet you.

Please call me…

Good bye.

Good morning.

Where are you from?

Have a nice day.

Excuse me.

What did you do last year?

Thank you. See you again.

Hello.

What was your high school name?

May I ask your name?

Where do you live now?

I m glad to see you.

What is your hobby?
May I ask you a question?

Table 2 ： Inappropriate Responses

successful predictions about their learning.

PhraseSurface learning focuses solely on what students

What are you doing?

know, and whether they can apply this knowledge, but

May I ask you a favor?

deeper learning involves making predictions, and testing

Did you sleep well?

out those predictions and ideas with others, as a way to

How about lunch with me?

cyclically reﬂect on learning in and outside of class. Surface

I haven t seen you in a long time.

learning is the predominant mode of teaching in junior

Do you like cat?

and senior high schools where teachers present material,
students practice, and then are expected to perform using

Would you tell me the way to the station?

that language within a lesson. As these students come toThis is xxxx speaking.

university, they are set to predict that learning will takeIs xxxx home?

the same form. Teacher directed learning, where students

I m free now

are passive recipients, unengaged, and often very sleepy.
Using the Think-Pair-Share-Compare routine wasa new experience for students, and it took a number of

we feel about and approach studying. In addition, criticalclasses for them to get used to the routine. However, as

thinking and learning involves taking in information fromstudents mastered the basic idea of the word map, andothers through their words and actions, and recreating

through constructing their own learning, they reported

that experience internally（Immordino-Yang, 2011）. From

increased conﬁdence and engagement with the classa Vygotskian perspective, this is complimentary to the idea

through the reports they uploaded to Moodle.

that learning ﬁrst exists on anlevel（between

One student pointed out that even with limited words

people）and is subsequently either rejected or shifts tothey felt conﬁdent in communicating in English. In thisanlevel（internalized）where there is still aclass, students were engaged in talking about pictures

possibility that information is rejected, but can also lead

during the latter part of the course where there was noto consolidated learning（Daniels, 2005）.

speciﬁc topic set in the textbook.

Conclusion
What makes thinking routines powerful is their ability
to function as an organizing principle in the classroom
to facilitate deeper learning through an understandingof research on the brain that supports eﬀective teaching.
The ﬁrst point is engaging pre-existing knowledge asa catalyst to focus student attention toward making

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017131

Glenn Amon MAGEE

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A.（2012）.

（Student Data, 2016）.
Eﬀective thinking routines, are simple to learn throughuse, and they are also transferable to other domains. As

Washington, DC: International Society for Technology
in Education.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A.（2013, June）. The ﬂipped

one student writes in their review of the class.

classroom: A survey of the research. In（Vol. 30, No. 9）.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A.（1991）.
. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George
Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630,
Washington, DC 20036-1183.
（Student Data,

Cunningsworth, A.（1995）.

.

United Kingdom, Oxford: Heinemann.

2016）

Daniels, H.（ 20 05）.

.

In this short review I have discussed some of the ways

Psychology Press. United Kingdom, Oxford: Routledge.

I have adapted material for my classes through the use ofHarumi, S.（2001）. The use of silence by Japanese EFL

thinking routines. More than routines, however, is the kindlearners. In M. Swanson & D. McMurray,（Eds）.
, 27-34.

of thinking done by the teacher in the classroom, and howthat is expressed toward the learners through instruction.

Hattie, J.（ 2 012）.
. United Kingdom,

It is quite possible to pick up a thinking routine and use it
ineﬀectually in class, if it is not supported by appropriate
teacher input as part of the critical thinking process. With

Oxford: Routledge.
Hedge, T.（2010）.
. United K ingdom, Oxford: Oxford

this in mind, I would encourage teachers to consider thetype of learning they want their students to engage inand to frame their planning based on information thatis supported by ﬁndings from neuroscience, psychology,

University Press.
Helgesen, M.（1993）. Dismantling a wall of silence:theEnglish conversation

class.

and education, because these ﬁndings help us understand, 37-49.

deeply what we might feel instinctually eﬀective in ourHelgesen,classrooms.

M.（2003）.

Adapting

andsupplementing

textbooks to include language planning. In

References
Asanuma, S.（2015）. Japanese Teachers.
Struggle for

Active Learning. Retrieved on 27 June 2016 from:

Immordino-Yang, H.（2011）. Implications of aﬀective
and social neuroscience for educational theory.
Vol. 43, No. 1,

http://www.cie.aichi-edu.ac.jp/icues2015/
2011.

ﬁles/proceedings/151101g2̲5.pdf
Bar, M.（2007）. The proactive brain: using analogies

Think-pair-share: An expanding

teaching technique.

and associations to generate predictions.

MAA-CIE Cooperative News

1.1:1-2.

, 280-289.
Beatty, M.J., & Benke, R.R.（1980）. Teacher credibility as
a function of verbal content and paralinguistic cues.

Ogle, D.M.（1986）. K-W-L: A teaching model that develops
active reading of expository text.

,

39, 564-570.

, 28:1, 55-59.
Beglar, D., & Hunt, A.（2002）. Implementing task-

Karpicke, J.D., & Blunt, J.R.（2011）. Retrieval practiceproduces more learning than elaborative studying

based language teaching.
, 96-106.

132

Lyman, F.（1987）.

with concept mapping.

,（6018）, 772-775.

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017

Think-Pair-Share-Compare : An organizational principle for deeper learning

MEXT.（2014）.

.
Retrieved on June 26 2016 from:http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/1356541.htm
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K.（2011）.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Staﬀord, M.（2013）.
. Tokyo, Japan.
Tomlinson,

B.（Ed.）（2003）.
.
. United Kingdom, London:

Continuum.
Tomlinson,

C.

A.（1999）.
. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tokuhama-Espinosa, T.（2010）.
. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Tokuhama-Espinosa,

T.（2014）.
New York, NY: Norton.

Walqui, A., & Van Lier, L.（2010）.
. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第15号 2017133