Think-Pair-Share Model on High Secondary School Students' Academic Outcomes in Human Reproduction

Nelsa Saragih 1 Indonesia , Adriana Y. D. Lumban Gaol 1 Indonesia
1 Department of Biology Education, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia
Link Copied!
Published 2026-09-03
Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026) PAGES 132-143
DOI 10.51574/ijrer.v6i1.5404
Views / Downloads 74 6

Teaching conceptually dense and sensitive biological topics, such as the human reproductive system, frequently presents pedagogical challenges in secondary science education. This study evaluated the empirical efficacy of the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) cooperative learning model on secondary students' tri-domain learning outcomes (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor). A quantitative quasi-experimental design featuring a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest structure was conducted with 60 eleventh-grade natural science students, divided into an experimental group (n=30, TPS model) and a control group (n=30, direct conventional instruction). Prior baseline equivalence was confirmed, and pretest variance was statistically controlled using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). After adjusting for baseline cognitive heterogeneity, the ANCOVA revealed a statistically significant main effect favoring the TPS model on cognitive performance (F(1,57)=65.73, p<.001, ηp2 =.536), representing a large effect size. Furthermore, inferential testing demonstrated significant parallel enhancements in the experimental group's affective engagement (d=1.91) and psychomotor collaboration (d=2.38) relative to the control group. These findings indicate that structured dyadic dialogue and socio-cognitive scaffolding within TPS effectively mitigate intrinsic cognitive load and psychological barriers when learning complex physiological mechanisms. Pedagogically, TPS offers a highly scalable, resource-efficient instructional strategy for secondary science educators seeking to optimize conceptual mastery alongside 21st-century collaborative competencies.

Saragih, N., & Gaol, A. Y. D. L. (2026). Think-Pair-Share Model on High Secondary School Students’ Academic Outcomes in Human Reproduction. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review , 6(1), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v6i1.5404
More Citation Formats
Download Citation

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
  1. Assaraf, O. B. Z., Dodick, J., & Tripto, J. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the human body system. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9245-2
  2. Aumann, A., Schnebel, S., & Weitzel, H. (2024). Teaching biology lessons using digital technology: A contextualized mixed-methods study on pre-service biology teachers’ enacted TPACK. Education Sciences, 14(5), 538. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050538
  3. Baharuddin, R., & Umar, M. F. (2026). Assessing High School Students' Misconceptions of the Human Reproductive System Using a Three-Tier Diagnostic Test. Pro-Life, 13(2), 186-203. https://doi.org/10.33541/pro-life.v13i2.8236
  4. Bhardwaj, V., Zhang, S., Tan, Y. Q., & Pandey, V. (2025). Redefining learning: student-centered strategies for academic and personal growth. Frontiers in Education (Vol. 10, p. 1518602). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602
  5. Botes, W., & Blennis, F. (2025). The role of improvised teaching materials in the teaching of human reproduction in grade 12 life sciences. Education. Innovation. Diversity, 1(10), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.17770/eid2025.1.8369
  6. Dyachenko, A., Mukanova, R., & Erkibayeva, M. (2024). Integration of interdisciplinary connections between chemistry, physics, and biology in the education of secondary school students. International Journal of Educational Reform, 10567879241290180. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879241290180
  7. González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493
  8. Hasanah, A. N., Baharudin, B., & Hasnanto, A. T. (2025). Think of Pair Share Learning Model on Student Learning Activity in Science Subjects at State Elementary Madrasah. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review, 5(1), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v5i1.4200
  9. Karimi-Aghdam, S. (2017). Zone of proximal development (ZPD) as an emergent system: A dynamic systems theory perspective. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(1), 76-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9359-1
  10. Kurniawati, E. (2022). Pengaruh Model Kooperatif Tipe Think Pair Share Terhadap Hasil Belajar Siswa Pada Mata Pelajaran Biologi. al-Hikmah: Jurnal Studi Islam, 3(4), 118-126. https://ejournal.kopertais4.or.id/sasambo/index.php/alhikmah/article/view/5629
  11. Marginson, S., & Dang, T. K. A. (2017). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in the context of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(1), 116-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1216827
  12. Ness, I. J. (2023). Zone of proximal development. The palgrave encyclopedia of the possible (pp. 1781-1786). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_60
  13. Nurlaika, F., Sahade, S., & Rijal, A. (2024). The effect of cooperative learning model type Think Pair Share (TPS) on student learning outcomes. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 4(2), 641-653. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v4i2.648
  14. Ozkan, G., & Umdu Topsakal, U. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of STEAM education on students’ conceptual understanding of force and energy topics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(4), 441-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1769586
  15. Raslan, G. (2024). The impact of the zone of proximal development concept (scaffolding) on the students problem solving skills and learning outcomes. BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2023: Multidisciplinary Studies (pp. 59-66). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56121-4_6
  16. Renau, M. L. R. (2023). Exploring methodological approaches in secondary education in Castellón, Spain: A comparative analysis of traditional, blended, and innovative teaching. Futurity Education, 3(4), 232-254. https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2023.12.25.14
  17. Rosyida, N., Evitasari, A. D., & Utaminingtyas, S. (2023). Elevating Science Education: Igniting Learning through Mindmapping and Collaborative Strategies. International Journal of Learning Reformation in Elementary Education, 2(03), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.56741/ijlree.v2i03.405
  18. Saifuddin, T., & Matloob, F. (2025). Transforming Classrooms Through Collaboration: Enhancing Engagement and Achievement in Secondary Science Education through Action Research. Social Science Review Archives, 3(3), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.70670/sra.v3i3.863
  19. Salsabil, A. M., Arifah, F. N., & Prima, E. C. (2026). The effectiveness of integrated think-pair-share and make-a-match models on students' critical thinking in biology learning. Assimilation: Indonesian Journal of Biology Education, 9(2), 169-180. https://ejournal-science.upi.edu/aijbe/article/view/945
  20. Sauwera, A., Zakaria, P., Machmud, T., Ismail, Y., & Isa, D. R. (2023). Model Pembelajaran Kooperatif Tipe Think Pair Share Berbantuan Video Pembelajaran Materi Relasi Dan Fungsi. Research in the Mathematical and Natural Sciences, 2(2), 72-79. https://doi.org/10.55657/rmns.v2i2.122
  21. Sembiring, D. A. E. P., & Yusuf, M. (2025). How do students understand biological concepts? A study on science literacy in basic education. Jurnal Sinar Edukasi| JSE|, 6(03), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.61346/jse.v6i03.289
  22. Sobar, M. A., Fatoni, A., & Febriani, E. (2026). Cooperative Learning Model Think-Pair-Share Type: Learning Independence and Student Self-Consistency at High School Students. ETDC: Indonesian Journal of Research and Educational Review, 5(3), 1618-1629. https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v5i3.4883
  23. Sukra, I. W., Widiyanti, N. L. P. M., & Sholekah, M. Y. (2023). The comparison of students’ critical thinking skill by the implementation of think pair share and student teams achievement division cooperative learning model in biology instruction at SMAN 2 Singaraja. Wahana Matematika Dan Sains: Jurnal Matematika, Sains, Dan Pembelajarannya, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.23887/wms.v17i1.61915
  24. Sweller, J. (2024). Cognitive load theory and individual differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 110, 102423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423
  25. Tal, T., & Tsaushu, M. (2018). Student-centered introductory biology course: evidence for deep learning. Journal of biological education, 52(4), 376-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1385508
  26. Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J. M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., ... & Lubart, T. (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054
  27. Tzuriel, D. (2021). The socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky. Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability (pp. 53-66). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75692-5_3
  28. Vegara-Meseguer, J. M., Carazo-Díaz, C., Mancheño-Maciá, E., Cerón-Carrasco, J. P., & Pérez-Sánchez, H. (2026). Beyond the Traditional Classroom: Effects of Guided Inquiry on Learning and Scientific Communication in Higher Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-026-10297-6
  29. Xian, J., Wu, J. G., & Li, H. (2026). Effects of virtual reality-based instruction on secondary school learners’ computational thinking, biological knowledge acquisition, and motivation during oocyte meiosis learning. Computers & Education: X Reality, 9, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2026.100167
  30. Wilton, M., Gonzalez-Niño, E., McPartlan, P., Terner, Z., Christoffersen, R. E., & Rothman, J. H. (2019). Improving academic performance, belonging, and retention through increasing structure of an introductory biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar53. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0155
  31. Yaqin, M. A., Indriwati, S. E., & Susilo, H. (2018). Think-pair-square learning: Improving student’s collaborative skills and cognitive learning outcome on animal diversity course. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 4(2), 135-142. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5514
  32. Zhong, Y., Li, C., Jiang, J., Fryer, L. K., & Shum, A. (2026). Can virtual reality promote cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning? A synthesis of systematic reviews and meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 07356331261434358. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331261434358

Copyright (c) 2026 Nelsa Saragih, Adriana Y. D. Lumban Gaol

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Similar Articles

<< < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Dimension Badge

Downloads

Downloads
Crossmark Badge
Crossmark Badge
Section
Articles
Keywords
Biology Education Cognitive Load Cooperative Learning Human Reproductive System Think-Pair-Share