The Collaborative Think Pair Share Method
Henny Henny and Rosita Qurotul Uyun
Nurul Fikri Islamic Education and Empowering Foundation, Nurul Fikri Islamic Integrated Senior High School, Indonesia
Keywords: Think pair share, adjusting entries, student’s achievement.
Abstract: When students are facing challenge especially difficult lesson and focus on teacher centre. The class condition
become individualist and student’s comprehension improve slowly. This phenomenon try to be take overed
by using think pair share (TPS) method. TPS method consist of three steps, there are think independently
(think step), pair discuss (pair step) and sharing the discussion result (share step). The aim of this action class
research were knowing how to implement the TPS and was the effort of implementing TPS method could
improve the student’s achievement in adjusting entries lesson. This research used qualitative description by
using the mastery learning as the indicator of achievement. The open quationare data processing result in
cycle 1 and observer’s note. The result showed that TPS could improve the student’s achievement with pre-
test 1 (pre cycle) score rate 72,74 (not mastering) increase to 80,14 (mastering) in pre-test 2 (cycle 1). In post-
test 1 (pre cycle) reach score rate 48,10 (not mastering) then in post-test 2 (cycle 1) increase to 85,06
(mastering). In post-test 3 (cycle 2) student mastery reach 100% with score rate 94,53.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Accounting for trading company is a continuation of
learning lessons at the level of the previous class, is
accounting service company.
The uniqueness of adjusting entries lesson make
this lesson has a high degree of difficulty compared
to other accounting lesson. This is also evident from
the initial condition of the class XII IPS students
while review the adjusting entries lesson that has been
taught during the class XI IPS.
Last year, a classroom action research with peer
tutor method was used to improve learning
achievement in the class XII IPS classroom
adjustment lesson. The result of peer tutor methods
proved to improve student achievement, although
most of the tutorial activities more done outside of
regular hours, so that the dynamics of peer tutors in
the class is not very visible because student’s sitting
position in the class was permanent with the common
model.
This year, researchers are interested in creating
more dynamic and attractive classroom conditions,
researchers are trying to implement the think pair
share method.
This action research implement TPS which prove
emotional intelligence can influence academic
achievement (Goleman, 2013). The emotional
intelligent presented by conditioning the class basic
rules, affective score board, etc.
Think pair share (Anita Lie, 2010) is one of
cooperative learning learning model. Cooperative
learning method is not only learning in groups. There
are basic elements of cooperative learning learning
that distinguishes it from the perfunctory group
division.
Roger and David Johnson (1999) said that not all
student’s group can be implemented cooperative
learning. To get maximum results, the five elements
of the mutual learning model should be applied, ie
positive interdependence, personal responsibility,
face-to-face, peer-to-peer communication, and group
process evaluation.
There have been three previous researches related
to Think-Pair-Share, which were conducted by Hana
Kurniawan (2012), Dino Sugiarto (2014) and Novi
Marlena (2015). Hana Kurniawan’s research
indicates that TPS was successful to improve
student’s learning motivation in accounting lesson.
Dino Sugiarto’s research was successful to improve
students’ ability in reading narrative texts. Moreover,
Novi Marlena showed that TPS implementation was
effective to improve student learning’s ability in self-
concept lesson.
Teachers as facilitators role manage the steps by
step, conditioned the classroom, conditioned the other
Henny, H. and Uyun, R.
The Collaborative Think Pair Share Method.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship (ICEEE 2017), pages 315-320
ISBN: 978-989-758-308-7
Copyright © 2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reser ved
315

students by making the system or rules during the
learning activities are done.
Based on the description above the researchers
tried to conduct research with the title " The
Implementation of Think Pair Share Method to
Improve Student’s Achievement in Adjusting Entries
Lesson Class XII Social 2 ISLAMIC
INTERGRATED SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL Nurul
Fikri ".
1.2 Success Indicator
Indicators of Think Pair Share (TPS) success are
assessed from five items:
1) Conformity of learning process with steps of
Think Pair Share (TPS) learning method.
2) Students master learning if they get a minimum
score of ≥80 and a maximum score of 100 or
gain learning achievement of at least 80% on the
assessment of the results of the average answers
to questions on post-test 2 during cycle 1, post-
test 3 during cycle 2 and there is an increase in
the average value between Pre-test 1 and pre-
test 2, post-test 1 and post-test 2.
3) The success of the class is assessed from at least
85% of the students in the class are completely
studied during quiz 1 and post-test 3.
4) Activity participation and student’s culture talk
succeeded when achieved 80% success with the
value of mastery 80.
Researchers can identify constraints during
learning and find solutions to solve it.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 One other development economist
who pays attention Think Pair Share
The strategy of think pair share (TPS) is a type of
cooperative learning designed to influence the pattern
of student interaction. The strategy of think pair share
(tps) is developed from cooperative learning research.
The strategy of think pair share (tps) was first
developed by Frank Lyman and Colleagues at the
Maryland University in 1981.
In Kagan (1989) think pair share is divided into
three steps, the first step, the students think to
themselves about the topic or problems conveyed by
the teacher, then the students discuss in pairs on the
topic that has been thought by each student, then they
share the ideas or the result of their discussion in front
of the class.
Think pair share is one form of cooperative
learning method or cooperative learning. According
to Slavin (1997), cooperative learning is a method of
learning with students working in groups that have
heterogeneous capabilities. All the methods of
cooperative learning contribute to the idea that
students who work together in learning and
responsible for their teammates are able to make
themselves learn as well.
2.2 Student’s Achievement
Achievement of learning according to experts
(Habsari, 2005) argue are:
a. Ngalim Purwanto (1978) states: "Learning
achievement is the learning outcomes that have
been given by teachers to students or by
lecturers to students within a certain period."
b. Abu Ahmadi (1978) states: "Achievement
learning is the result achieved in an effort
learning to make changes or achieve goals."
From the descriptions above, learning
achievement is always associated with the results
achieved because of an effort, science and skills.
There are internal and external factors that affect
achievement. Internal factors are Intelligence
Quotient, Emotional Quotient, Spiritual Quotient,
Creativity Quotient, and Adversity Quotient.
Even according to research conducted Goleman in
America there is a relationship between emotional
intelligence with learning achievement while
research in Indonesia by Sri Lanawati (1999) in
Setiabudhi (2002) there is no relationship between
emotional intelligence and learning achievement, but
there is a significant relationship IQ with learning
achievement. This happens because the education
system in Indonesia is more oriented to the
development of rational intelligence, less oriented to
the developer of emotional intelligence in the learning
process.
2.3 Adjusting Entries
According to Weygandt (2007) in order for revenues
to be recorded in the period in which they are earned,
and for expenses to be recognized in the period in
which they are incurred, companies make adjusting
entries. Adjusting entries ensure that the revenue
recognition and expense recognition principles are
followed.
Adjusting entries are necessary because the trial
balance the first pulling together of the transaction
data may not contain up-to-date and complete data.
ICEEE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship
316

Adjusting entries are required every time a
company prepares financial statements. The company
analyzes each account in the trial balance to
determine whether it is complete and up to date for
financial statement purposes. Every adjusting entry
will include one income statement account and one
balance sheet account.
3 METHODS
The design of this research is participatory classroom
action research. The research procedure follows the
basic principles proposed by Kemmis & McTaggart.
According to Kemmis and McTaggart (1992) in Ary
Gumanti, et al (2016), action research can be viewed
as a spiral that begins with planning, action,
observation, and reflection which may then be
followed by the next spiral cycle.
The subject of the research is the twelfth grader
of Nurul Fikri Islamic Integrated Senior High School
Class XII social 2, which consist of 32 female
students. The instrument used in this research are
written test with minimum mastery criteria (MMC)
80, open questionnaire. The purpose of using
questionnaire to get student’s perspective about their
self-reflection (Xiaohong, 2003) and their feeling
when implement TPS. The purpose of observation to
look student’s performance and affective score
through score board. Moreover, it will interpret the
comprehension of the student’s assessment in team
work. The questionnaire will be given at the end of
every cycle, and it will measure the student’s
comprehension in adjusting entries lesson and
improvement teaching method.
3.1 Pre Cycle
Pre cycle was done to get authentic data about
student’s academic achievement and their basic
modality to learn adjusting entries. In the first phase
of the study, which was also the beginning of the pre
planning for change cycle, we started formal pre-test
and post-test 1. After that, students wrote their
general views on learning adjusting entries as subject
in open questionnaire. The common problem raised
was that adjusting entries involves teaching about
very abstract concepts which learners find difficult to
comprehend. The problem seemed to be compounded
by lack of active learner involvement in class,
because the subject was mostly taught from a teacher-
centred approach.
Table 1: Recapitulation Result of Pre Test dan Post Test 1
No.
Score result
Pre-test 1
Post Test 1
N
%
N
%
1
Above MMC
12
38.71
1
3.45
2
MMC
2
6.45
0
0.00
3
Under MMC
17
54.84
28
96.55
Sum
31
100.00
29
100.00
Average
72.74
48.10
Based on table 1 it showed that many students
didn’t master the lesson, 54,84% under MMC for pre
Test 1 and 96,66% under MMC for post-test 1. In
accordance with the open questionnaires result,
students stated that they need review lesson for
adjusting entries.
3.2 Cycle 1
The first step before implemented TPS method, we
make a lesson plan completely, including the Alfa
zone and warmer activities. We also prepared the
scoreboard and emoticon stamps.
Students enjoyed the TPS method. They were
quick to understand the TPS steps and get a good
cooperation to each other. Although they still need to
do the exercise to improve their learning ability.
Table 2: Recapitulation Result of Pre Test, Post Test and Quiz (Cycle 1)
No
Score Result
Pre-test 1
Pre-test 2
Post Test 1
Post Test 2
Quiz
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
1
Above MMC
12
38.71
12
40.00
1
3.45
24
77.42
31
96.88
2
MMC
2
6.45
8
26.67
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
Under MMC
17
54.84
10
33.33
28
96.55
7
22.58
1
3.13
Sum
31
100.00
30
100.00
29
100.00
31
100.00
32
100.00
Average
72,74
80,17
48,1
85,06
96,28
The Collaborative Think Pair Share Method
317

The data above illustrates that mastery learning
target (80%) isn’t fulfilled in pre-test 1, pre-test 2,
post-test 1 and only reach 77,42%. Meanwhile the
average rate has increased especially from post-test 1
to post-test 2, and in the quiz result has fulfilled
mastery learning target with 96,88%.
Table 3: Question Analysis Quiz (Cycle 1)
Question
No.
Question Items
Correct Answer
Information
n
%
1
Defferal Transaction (recorded as assets)
29
90.63
9,37% wrong in nominal counting
2
COGS & Income Summary Approach
31
96.88
wrong in record name of account
3
Supplies using
30
93.75
wrong in nominal counting
4
Vehicle Depreciation
32
100.00
5
Defferal Transaction (recorded as lialibities)
32
100.00
6
Defferal Transaction (recorded as expenses)
16
50.00
43,75% wrong in nominal
counting
3,125% wrong in account
position
3,125% wrong in nominal
counting and account name
7
Accrual transaction (Accrued revenues)
31
96.88
wrong in nominal counting and
account name
8
Accrual Transaction (Accrued expenses)
31
96.88
wrong in nominal counting and
account name
Average
90.63
Based on table 3 illustrates that generally students
have mastered adjusting entries lesson with average
mastery score 90,63. But, students who haven’t
mastered mostly in deferral transaction (recorded as
expenses) only 50% with the biggest mistake on
nominal counting.
Table 4: Recapitulation Emoticon Sum in Scoreboard
No.
Emoticon
Sum
Criteria
N=32
n
%
1
> 12
Very good
4
12.50
2
9-12
Good
21
65.63
3
5-8
Quite Good
6
18.75
4
1-4
Poor
1
3.13
Sum
32
100.00
Average
9,84
Most of the students had a good criteria. Its mean
they have good presence, quite active and had a good
score (MMC or above MMC).
Table 5: Criteria Interpretation
Criteria
Interpretation
Very good
Full present, all test ≥ MMC, full participant
Good
Full present, 3-4 test ≥ MMC, 3-4 participant
Quite
good
Half present, 1-2 test ≥ MMC, 1-2 participant
Poor
Poor present, 1 test ≥ MMC or 1 participant
3.3 Cycle 2
Based on reflection step in cycle 1, we made several
changes in lesson plan specially assessment rubric to
make easier assessments and more communicative
score. Furthermore, there was no more scoreboard in
cycle 2 because we had limited time in this research.
Students had a very busy schedule to face their school
exam.
Table 6: Recapitulation Score in Quiz and Post-test 3
No.
Score
Quiz (Cycle
1)
Post-test 3
(Cycle 2)
n
%
n
%
1
Above MMC
31
96.88
31
96.88
2
MMC
0
0.00
1
3.13
3
Under MMC
1
3.13
0
0.00
Total
32
100.00
32
100.00
Average
96,28
94,53
The score that shows on table 6 it’s a normal
situation because in cycle 2 the closing journal and
worksheet lesson are easier than adjusting entries. It’s
reasonable if students could have a very good score,
quiz has a very good average cause it helped by drill
method along the TPS implementation in cycle 1.
ICEEE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship
318

Table 7: Observation Result
No
Score
Participation
Talking Manner
n
%
n
%
1
above 80
31
96.88
32
100.00
2
80
0
0.00
0
0.00
3
under 80
1
3.13
0
0.00
Sum
32
100.00
32
100.00
Average
89,53
97,81
Based on table 7 student’s participation and
talking manner had implemented very well. Student’s
enjoyed the class and they had the same frequency to
build their nearest dream, the dream to face the
college world. According to student’s says about the
implementation of think pair share method, they felt
more responsible to each other, more focus, and some
of their bad habit change, like sleeping in the
classroom, forget to bring their learning tools, etc.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Pre Cycle
The students didn’t mastered the adjusting entries
lesson yet. The average score only 48,10 and they
thought adjusting entries is a difficult lesson.
The students needed to review the adjusting
entries for Service Company first before entering
adjusting entries for trading company and students
still enjoyed the teacher centre model.
4.2 Cycle 1
The students had understood TPS method from the
first time teacher gave explanation and did
simulation. Although there were three student who
still needed adaption for the pair step. They believed
more to ask their teacher directly than ask their friend.
The student had a great cooperative involvement
so they could get a progressive improvement and get
ready to drill the exercise. Moreover the average
score improve from 48,10 to 85,06.
The students felt the different method, felt the
benefit of TPS and they could understand teacher’s
aim when implement TPS.
4.3 Cycle 2
The implementation of TPS was done easier because
the closing journal lesson is also easier than adjusting
entries. It’s no wonder if they could reach 100% for
the minimum mastery criteria (MMC).
The students felt more fun and attractive class.
They just needed to follow the TPS steps timing.
4.4 Discussion
Data were analyzed based on indicators of Think Pair
Share (TPS) success of five items: (1) Conformity of
learning process with steps of Think Pair Share (TPS)
learning method. (a) Cycle 1 is already running
according to the steps of the think pair share method
with the addition of peer tutor and drill method
because of the difficulty level of the lesson. In the
share step is also modified with presentation of the
representation group. (b)The cycle 2 also runs quite
in accordance with the steps of the think pair share
method with modifications to the step of sharing that
the presentation is done in the internal group because
of limited facilities in the class that have not been
prepared before. (2) Students are said to be master
learning if they get a minimum score of ≥80 and the
highest score of 100 or gain learning achievement of
at least 80% on the assessment of the average results
of answers to questions on post-test 2 during cycle 1.
(3) The success of the class is assessed from at least
85% of the students in the class are completely
studied when the quiz is in cycle 1 and post-test 3 at
cycle 2.(4) Participation and student talk culture is
said to succeed when achieved 80% success with the
value of 80. (5) Researchers can identify constraints
during learning and find solutions to their solutions.
Based on self-reflection in cycle 1 and cycle 2
researchers can identify problems and attempt to
make improvements in subsequent learning.
This in line with Ledlow (2001) Think-Pair-Share
is a low-risk strategy to get many students actively
involved in classes of any size. The procedure is
simple: after asking a question, tell students to think
silently about their answers. As a variation, you might
have them write their individual answers. (Depending
on the complexity of the question and the amount of
time I think is appropriate for the activity, I give them
anywhere from 10 seconds to five minutes to work
individually.) Then ask them to pair up with a partner
to compare or discuss their responses.
Moreover, Anita Lie (2010) stated that the
implementation of cooperative learning model
procedures correctly will possibly make the teachers
to manage the class more effectively.
The Collaborative Think Pair Share Method
319

5 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the research can be concluded
that the implementation of Think Pair Share (TPS)
can implement in a big class (over than 30-40
students). TPS method can be combined with
discussion methods, drill and peer teaching method.
TPS method can be adjusted duration of time
depending on the lesson’s difficulty.
Student learning outcomes increased and the
student’s positive character also improved very well
specially in team building and their concern to each
other.
REFERENCES
Goleman, Daniel, Richard E. Boyatzis and ,Annie McKee.
2013. Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of
Emotional Intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
Gumanti, Tatang Ary, Yunidar dan Syahruddin. 2016.
Metode Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Mitra Wacana
Media.
Hana Kurniawan & Andian Ari Istiningrum. 2012.
Penerapan Metode Pembelajaran Kooperatif Teknik
Think Pair Share Untuk Meningkatkan Motivasi
Belajar Akuntansi Kompetensi Dasar Menghitung
Mutasi Dana Kas Kecil Siswa Kelas X Akuntansi 2
SMK Negeri 7 Yogyakarta Tahun Ajaran 2011/2012.
Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi Indonesia Vol. X. Hal.
114 – 134
Henny dan Hendrastuti Retno Harsari. 2016. Action Class
Research,“Penerapan Metode Pembelajaran Tutor
Teman Sebaya Terhadap Peningkatan Prestasi &
Motivasi Belajar dalam Remedial Materi Jurnal
Penyesuaian, Harga Pokok Penjualan, dan Laba (Rugi)
Perusahaan Dagang Perusahaan Dagang Kelas XII
IPS”.
Johnson, David W. and Roger T. Johnson. 1999. Making
Cooperative Learning Work. Theory in to Pratice.
Spring 99, Vol 38 Issue 2. The Ohio University.
Kagan, Spencer. 1989. The Structural Approach to
Cooperative Learning.
Ledlow, Susan. 2001. Using Think-Pair-Share in the
College Classroom Arizona State University
Lie, Anita. 2010. Cooperative Learning. Mempraktikkan
Cooperative Learning di Ruang-Ruang Kelas. Jakarta:
PT. Grasindo Widia Sarana Indonesia.
Madjid, Abdul, M. Pd. 2016. Strategi Pembelajaran.
Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Marlena, Novi, Renny Dwijayanti dan Retno Mustika
Dewi. Penerapan Pembelajaran Think Pair Share (TPS)
untuk Meningkatkan Hasil Belajar Dan Respon
Mahasiswa pada Materi Konsep Diri Mata Kuliah
Pengembangan Kepribadian. Universitas Negeri
Surabaya: Prosiding Seminar Nasional 9 Mei 2015
Mudlofir, Ali dan Evi Fatimatur Rusydiyah. 2016. Desain
Pembelajaran Inovatif dari Teori ke Praktik. Jakarta: PT
Rajagrafindo Persada.
Mulyatiningsih, Dr. Endang. 2012. Metode Penelitian
Terapan Bidang Pendidikan. Bandung: CV Alfabeta,
Bandung.
Slavin, Robert E. 2005. Cooperative Learning Teori, Riset
dan Praktik. Bandung: Penerbit Nusa Media
Sugiarto, Dino and Puji Sumarsono. 2014. The
Implementation of Think-Pair-Share Model to Improve
Students’ Ability in Reading Narrative Texts.
International Journal of English and Education Volume
3.
Weygandt, Kimmel & Kieso. Accounting Principles 10th
Edition. 2007. Amerika: John Wiley & Sons.
Xiaohong, Zhao. 2003. An Action Research Inquiry into
Integrated Skills of English. China: Guyuan Teachers’
Collage.
ICEEE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Economic Education and Entrepreneurship
320