SINTA

0.0

Impact

Scholar

6

H-Index

Journal of Chemical Learning Innovation

an Open Access Journal

Activating Classroom Interaction through Think–Pair–Share: Evidence from Chemistry Learning

Roswati Roswati
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau ROR
Indonesia
rswtrosswaatii21@gmail.com
Iin Wahyuni
Madrasah Aliyah (MA) Mu’alimin Muhammadiyah Bangkinang
Indonesia
Romi Afriani
Madrasah Aliyah (MA) Mu’alimin Muhammadiyah Bangkinang
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: The purpose of this study is to improve the chemistry learning outcomes of class X students at the Muallimin Muhammadiyah Bangkinang Islamic Boarding School on the main material of electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions through the application of the Think Pair Share type cooperative learning model.

    Methodology: The subjects of this research were 10th grade students of the Muallimin Muhammadiyah Bangkinang Islamic Boarding School. The number of students was 24 students consisting of 10 male students and 14 female students. The stages passed in the classroom action research were: 1) Planning/preparation of action, 2) Implementation of action, 3) Observation, and 4) Reflection.

    Main Findings: Based on the analysis of research results and discussion, it was concluded that the application of the Think Pair Share type of cooperative learning model can improve the chemistry learning outcomes of class X students of the Muallimin Muhammadiyah Bangkinang Islamic Boarding School. This is illustrated by the results of the learning completion obtained by students in accordance with the learning completion requirements set in the class. Student learning outcomes have met the minimum completion criteria as determined, where out of 24 students, 20 students have completed the learning, or are above the classical completion (75%).

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The novelty of this study is to determine the effectiveness of applying the think pair share type cooperative learning model to improve chemistry learning outcomes in the discussion of electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    R. Roswati, I. . Wahyuni, and R. . Afriani, “Activating Classroom Interaction through Think–Pair–Share: Evidence from Chemistry Learning”, Jor. Chem. Lea. Inn, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 151–158, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jocli.v2i2.2046.

    More Citation Formats

  • 122
    Abstract views
    124
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. U. D. Agwu and J. Nmadu, “Students’ interactive engagement, academic achievement and self concept in chemistry: an evaluation of cooperative learning pedagogy,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 688–705, 2023, doi: 10.1039/D2RP00148A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00148A
    2. F.-Z. Chen et al., “Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes in life sciences: implementing interactive learning environments and flipped classroom models,” Discov. Educ., vol. 4, no. 1, p. 102, May 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00501-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00501-x
    3. Miterianifa, Ashadi, S. Saputro, and Suciati, “A conceptual framework for empowering students’ critical thinking through problem based learning in chemistry,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 1842, no. 1, p. 012046, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012046
    4. M. Arsyad, S. Guna, and S. Barus, “Enhancing chemistry education through problem-based learning: Analyzing student engagement, motivation, and critical thinking,” Int. J. Curric. Dev. Teach. Learn. Innov., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 110–117, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35335/curriculum.v2i3.178
    5. D. M. Ferreira, F. C. Sentanin, K. N. Parra, V. M. Negrao Bonini, M. de Castro, and A. C. Kasseboehmer, “Implementation of inquiry-based science in the classroom and its repercussion on the motivation to learn chemistry,” J. Chem. Educ., vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 578–591, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00287
    6. J. Musengimana, E. Kampire, and P. Ntawiha, “Effect of task-based learning on students’ understanding of chemical reactions among selected rwandan lower secondary school students,” J. Balt. Sci. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 140–155, 2022, doi: 10.33225/jbse/22.21.140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.140
    7. C. Ngendabanga, J. B. Nkurunziza, and L. R. Mugabo, “Innovative approaches in chemistry teaching: a systematic review on the use of improvised chemicals for student engagement and performance,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 566–577, 2025, doi: 10.1039/D4RP00302K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00302K
    8. J. W. Reid et al., “Investigating patterns of student engagement during collaborative activities in undergraduate chemistry courses,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 173–188, 2022, doi: 10.1039/D1RP00227A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00227A
    9. C. C. Ceneciro, M. R. Estoques, and J. V. Chavez, “Analysis of debate skills to the learners’ confidence and anxiety in the use of the english language in academic engagements,” J. Namibian Stud., vol. 33, pp. 4544–4569, 2023, doi: 10.59670/jns.v33i.2812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.2812
    10. B. Hajiyeva, “Language anxiety in ESL learners: Causes, effects, and mitigation strategies,” EuroGlobal J. Linguist. Lang. Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 119–133, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.69760/pn9wgv05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.69760/pn9wgv05
    11. J. Hao, “Research on the impact of competency-based curriculum design on student learning outcomes,” J. Mod. Educ. Theory Pract., vol. 1, no. 2, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.70767/jmetp.v1i2.272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.70767/jmetp.v1i2.272
    12. T. Açıkgöz and M. C. Babadoğan, “Competency-based education: Theory and practice,” Psycho-Educational Res. Rev., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 67–95, 2021, doi: 10.52963/PERR. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V10.N3.06
    13. K. A. Nguyen et al., “Instructor strategies to aid implementation of active learning: a systematic literature review,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 9, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00270-7
    14. N. Kerimbayev, Z. Umirzakova, R. Shadiev, and V. Jotsov, “A student-centered approach using modern technologies in distance learning: a systematic review of the literature,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 61, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00280-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00280-8
    15. M. G. Shaik, “Pedagogical approaches to collaborative learning: An analytical study,” in International Conference On Innovative Approaches In Engineering & Technology: ICIAET-24, 2025, p. 050001. doi: 10.1063/5.0248162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0248162
    16. A. Nguyen, S. Järvelä, C. Rosé, H. Järvenoja, and J. Malmberg, “Examining socially shared regulation and shared physiological arousal events with multimodal learning analytics,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 293–312, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13280
    17. H. Silva, J. Lopes, C. Dominguez, and E. Morais, “Think-Pair-Share and roundtable: Two cooperative learning structures to enhance critical thinking skills of 4th graders,” Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2022, doi: 10.26822/iejee.2022.274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2022.274
    18. D. Sunandar, “Enhancing mathematics education through collaborative learning: A Study of Two Stay Two Stray (Ts-Ts) and Think-Pair-Share (TPS) models within realistic mathematics education,” Int. J. Enterp. Model., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 130–138, 2023, [Online]. Available: www.ieia.ristek.or.id
    19. H. Rahmawati and H. Haeriah, “Enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes through the implementation of the TPS (Think Pair Share) cooperative learning model,” Prism. Sains J. Pengkaj. Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Mat. dan IPA IKIP Mataram, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 836–843, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.33394/j-ps.v11i3.8718. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v11i3.8718
    20. R. K. | Ahmad, “Enhancing student engagement and performance in indonesian language learning through the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) model with question card media,” J. Educ. Innov. Curric. Dev., vol. 03, no. 01, pp. 30–37, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://journals.iarn.or.id/index.php/educur/index
    21. L. Niekrenz and C. Spreckelsen, “How to design effective educational videos for teaching evidence-based medicine to undergraduate learners–systematic review with complementing qualitative research to develop a practicable guide,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10872981.2024.2339569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2339569
    22. T. Shyiramunda, “Group discussions in secondary school chemistry: Unveiling pedagogical alchemy for academic advancement,” J. Pedagog. Res., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1–24, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202533653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202533653
    23. J. N. Nnoli, “Enhancing senior secondary school students’ academic performance in chemistry through the implementation of Think-Pair-Share strategy,” Soc. Educ. Res., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 370–379, 2024, doi: 10.37256/ser.5220244727. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.5220244727
    24. M. Wulansari, M. Hadeli L, and R. Aini, “Implementation of the Think Pair Share (TPS) cooperative learning model to improve chemistry learning outcomes for class X TKJ 1 SMKN 2 Palembang Students,” Pedagog. Rev., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 62–68, 2022, doi: 10.61436/pedagogy/v1i2.pp62-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61436/pedagogy/v1i2.pp62-68
    25. M. Nazari, “Plan, act, observe, reflect, identity: exploring teacher identity construction across the stages of action research,” RELC J., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 672–685, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1177/0033688220972456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220972456
    26. Yunisa and A. H. Lubis, “Improving elementary school students’ reading skills using picture word cards: How is this possible?,” J. Indones. Prim. Sch., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 9–18, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.62945/jips.v1i2.95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/jips.v1i2.95
    27. M. A. Adeoye, “Review of sampling techniques for education,” ASEAN J. Sci. Educ., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 87–94, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal.bumipublikasinusantara.id/index.php/ajsed
    28. A. Septiyanto, D. Oetomo, and N. Y. Indriyanti, “Students’ interests and attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 379–389, 2024, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v13i1.25040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i1.25040
    29. S. Donkoh, “Application of triangulation in qualitative research,” J. Appl. Biotechnol. Bioeng., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 6–9, 2023, doi: 10.15406/jabb.2023.10.00319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/jabb.2023.10.00319
    30. A. Cu, S. Meister, B. Lefebvre, and V. Ridde, “Assessing healthcare access using the Levesque’s conceptual framework– a scoping review,” Int. J. Equity Health, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 116, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01416-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01416-3
    31. I. Apriyanti, Leginem, and S. Rahayu, “Efforts to Improve student learning outcomes through the problem based learning model in islamic education learning at SD Negeri 104325 Kampung Manggis,” J. Indones. Prim. Sch., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 61–68, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.62945/jips.v1i2.346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/jips.v1i2.346
    32. M. F. Sya, H. T. Adri, A. Kholik, D. H. Sudjani, Z. K. Latifah, and Uslan, “Indonesian learning: Towards the academic achievement of communicative competence,” Indones. J. Soc. Res., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 183–189, 2021, doi: 10.30997/ijsr.v3i3.152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30997/ijsr.v3i3.152
    33. J.-C. Hsiao, S.-K. Chen, W. Chen, and S. S. J. Lin, “Developing a plugged-in class observation protocol in high-school blended STEM classes: Student engagement, teacher behaviors and student-teacher interaction patterns,” Comput. Educ., vol. 178, p. 104403, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104403
    34. M. M. Chusni, S. Saputro, S. B. Rahardjo, and S. Suranto, “Student’s critical thinking skills through discovery learning model using e-learning on environmental change subject matter,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1123–1135, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1123
    35. R. Rachmadtullah, B. Setiawan, A. J. A. Wasesa, and J. W. Wicaksono, “Elementary school teachers’ perceptions of the potential of metaverse technology as a transformation of interactive learning media in Indonesia,” Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Stud., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 128–136, 2023, doi: 10.53894/ijirss.v6i1.1119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v6i1.1119
    36. E. M. Pupah and U. Sholihah, “Enhancing EFL students’ reading learning process in COVID-19 pandemic through Nearpod,” Englisia J. Lang. Educ. Humanit., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 17–31, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.22373/ej.v9i2.10400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v9i2.10400
    37. L. Misqa, W. Oviana, Z. Hayati, and M. Jannah, “Improving student learning outcomes in mathematics learning through a contextual teaching and learning approach in elementary schools,” J. Indones. Prim. Sch., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 19–26, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.62945/jips.v1i2.34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62945/jips.v1i2.34
    38. S. Basri and J. Jahara, “Improving indonesian language learning outcomes through the demonstration method among eighth-grade students at SMPN Batu, Polewali Mandar Regency,” Austronesian J. Lang. Sci. Lit., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 75–88, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.59011/austronesian.4.2.2025.75-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59011/austronesian.4.2.2025.75-88
    39. S. Kartikasari and A. Abudarin, “STEM-project based learning with learning guides on electrolyte and non-electrolyte solutions to improve higher order thinking skills of high school students,” J. Pendidik. MIPA, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1214–1223, 2022, doi: 10.23960/jpmipa/v23i3.pp1214-1223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v23i3.pp1214-1223
    40. T. M. Sihombing, M. Rusdi, and A. Afrida, “Development of contextual-based interactive learning videos assisted by Edpuzzle on electrolyte and non-electrolyte solution materials,” Alacrity J. Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 402–409, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.52121/alacrity.v5i1.636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52121/alacrity.v5i1.636
    41. Y. Chen and R. Techawitthayachinda, “Developing deep learning in science classrooms: Tactics to manage epistemic uncertainty during whole‐class discussion,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1083–1116, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1002/tea.21693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21693
    42. A. Fakoya, M. Ndrio, and K. J. McCarthy, “Facilitating active collaborative learning in medical education; A literature review of peer instruction method,” Adv. Med. Educ. Pract., vol. 14, pp. 1087–1099, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S421400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S421400
    43. A. I. Chinedum, S. A. Danladi, and C. O. Okoro, “Comparative analysis of Jigsaw and Think-Pair-Share instructional strategies on academic achievement in civic education among secondary school students in rivers state,” Int. J. Innoative Psychol. Soc. Dev., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 25–39, 2024.
    44. H. T. Nennig et al., “Exploring social and cognitive engagement in small groups through a community of learners (CoL) lens,” Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1077–1099, 2023, doi: 10.1039/D3RP00071K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00071K
    45. F. Nurlaika, S. Sahade, and A. Rijal, “The effect of cooperative learning model type Think Pair Share (TPS) on student learning outcomes,” Golden Ratio Data Summ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 641–653, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.52970/grdis.v4i2.648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v4i2.648
    46. I. Irmayani and A. Adriana, “Implementation of the Think-Pair-Share cooperative model to improve reading comprehension skills of fifth grade students at MIN 25 Pidie,” J. Media Learn. Technol., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2025.
    47. N. R. Mishra, “Constructivist approach to learning: An analysis of pedagogical models of social constructivist learning theory,” J. Res. Dev., vol. 6, no. 01, pp. 22–29, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227
    48. S. Gannar and C. Kilani, “Contextualized learning and social constructivism: Implementing a project-based approach in information systems development education,” J. Sci. Learn., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 15–24, 2025, doi: 10.17509/jsl.v8i1.72667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v8i1.72667
    49. S. Irshad, M. F. Maan, H. Batool, and A. Hanif, “Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): An evaluative tool for language learning and social development in early childhood education,” Multicult. Educ., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 234–242, 2021, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4940172.
    50. A. V. Kolly-Shamne, “The concept of zone of proximal development and its derivatives: Problems and prospects of modern interpretations,” Sci. Bull. Mukachevo State Univ. Ser. “Pedagogy Psychol., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 81–95, 2022, doi: 10.52534/msu-pp.8(3).2022.81-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52534/msu-pp.8(3).2022.81-95