Improving Student Performance Using the Think-Pair-Share Strategy

This study determined the effectiveness of the Think-Pair-Share strategy in improving the mathematics performance of Grade 10 students at South East-Asia Institute Of Trade & Technology, Fairview, Quezon City during the school year 2025-2026. The study used a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group design involving 64 students from two intact Grade 10 classes, with 32 students assigned to the experimental group and 32 students assigned to the control group. A 40-item researcher-made mathematics achievement test covering selected Grade 10 competencies on quadratic equations, quadratic functions, and problem solving served as the main instrument. The test was validated by mathematics teachers and yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.84. The experimental group was taught through the Think-Pair-Share strategy for six weeks, while the control group was taught through the usual lecture-discussion method. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, paired-samples t-test, and independent-samples t-test. The results showed that the two groups had comparable pretest scores, but the experimental group obtained a higher posttest mean and a greater mean gain than the control group. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the posttest scores of the two groups at the 0.05 level. The findings indicate that Think-Pair-Share is an effective strategy for improving the mathematics performance of Grade 10 students. The study recommends the use of Think-Pair-Share in mathematics instruction to promote active participation and stronger academic performance

Think-Pair-Share, cooperative learning, mathematics performance, quasi-experimental, Grade 10, active learning

1. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interde-pendence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest (pp. 109-113). University of Maryland, College of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 785-791. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study