Content uploaded by Lukas Mundelsee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lukas Mundelsee on May 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
Available online 6 May 2021
1041-6080/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration on students'
in-class participation
☆
Lukas Mundelsee
*
, Susanne Jurkowski
University of Erfurt, Germany
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Student hand raising
Student engagement
Cooperative learning
Shyness
Field experiment
ABSTRACT
Think-Pair-Share (TPS) is a teaching strategy thought to increase in-class participation, especially with shy
students. After thinking for themselves, students talk to their seatmate to exchange their ideas and nally show
their willingness to participate in-class by raising their hand. In the present eld study, we tested TPS with 393
ninth-grade students against two variations, Think-Share (TS; rst think, then raise hand) and Share (S; directly
raise hand). Students reported on their shyness, and reported in each condition on their hand raising, state
anxiety, and motives for (non-)hand raising. Analyses revealed that TPS led to more hand raising compared to the
S condition. Lower levels of hand raising in TS were fully mediated by state anxiety. Shy students reported social
evaluative concerns, and they raised their hand less frequently than their non-shy peers but also beneted from
TPS. These results indicate the importance of peer collaboration for in-class participation.
1. Introduction
Numerous studies have shown that engaging in activities, such as
asking questions and contributing to classroom discussions, can support
learning processes and enhance academic achievements (for a review,
see Rocca, 2010). However, students have only limited time to elaborate
and formulate their idea and to decide whether to raise their hand, for
example, to answer their teachers' questions in class (for reviews, see
Rowe, 1986; Tobin, 1987). Shyness may be a personal trait that hinders
students even more from participating in-class because shy students
struggle with speaking in front of peers, even though they have good
ideas to share (Evans, 2001). With the present study, we tested a
teaching strategy from cooperative learning referred to as Think-Pair-
Share (TPS) and investigated its effect on students' in-class participa-
tion and associated emotional and motivational processes.
1.1. Classroom engagement
Students with higher levels of engagement inside and outside the
classroom not only learn more than students with lower levels of
engagement (e.g., Howard et al., 2002; Howard & Henney, 1998; Tinto,
1997), they are also more successful in the long run both academically
and professionally (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Ladd & Dinella, 2009). Most
researchers agree that classroom engagement (also termed school
engagement or academic engagement) is a multi-dimensional construct.
However, the operational denitions and terminology vary widely in
published studies (for an overview, see Reschly & Christenson, 2012).
One of the most prominent models divides classroom engagement into
the following three aspects (Fredricks et al., 2004): Cognitive engagement
refers to the psychological ‘investment’ and the cognitive effort to learn,
understand, and acquire knowledge (Newmann et al., 1992). Emotional
engagement includes affective responses, such as interest, boredom,
condence, and fear in the classroom (e.g., Skinner & Belmont, 1993),
and also, in a more general sense, attitudes towards school, teachers, and
learning (e.g., Finn, 1989). Behavioral engagement refers both to the
general behavior of students, that is, adherence to (school) rules and
norms, and to all forms of behavior that are more directly related to
learning, including asking questions, lling-in worksheets, and other
forms of active learning activities (see also Fritschner, 2000). Thus, and
in contrast to cognitive and emotional engagement, this latter form is
about concrete, visible actions of learners, which is argued to be the
minimum threshold form of engaging activities (Chi, 2009; Chi & Wylie,
2014).
☆
This research was supported by a research grant of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
* Corresponding author at: University of Erfurt, Educational Science, Nordhaeuser Strasse 63, 99089 Erfurt, Germany.
E-mail address: lukas.mundelsee@uni-erfurt.de (L. Mundelsee).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102015
Received 11 May 2020; Received in revised form 17 January 2021; Accepted 23 January 2021
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
2
1.2. Hand raising as a gateway to in-class participation
Under the umbrella of behavioral engagement, in-class participation
plays a critical role for students and teachers alike, given that activities,
such as responding to teachers' questions, contributing to classroom
discussions, and other forms of speaking in front of the class, are often
included as part of the nal grade (e.g., Crosthwaite et al., 2015; Krieger,
2003; Rogers, 2011, for teacher surveys in Asia, Germany, and USA,
respectively). In Germany, in-class participation can be weighted as
much as 50% of the nal grade point average (GPA; Krieger, 2003).
Grading in-class participation makes sense because it fullls special
functions for classroom learning. First, in contrast to cognitive and
emotional engagement, in-class participation is immediately observable,
providing teachers with important insights into the learning progress of
their students (e.g., Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Second, in-class partic-
ipation enables teachers to interact with their students, for example, by
praising students' accomplishments or revising errors (see Mello, 2010).
These student-teacher interactions make in-class participation an
important precursor to higher-order learning (Chi, 2009). Third, stu-
dents are also able to elaborate on their ideas, which has been shown to
enhance learning in numerous studies (Cazden, 1988; Fassinger, 1995;
Howard et al., 1996; Wang & Eccles, 2012). Accordingly, studies with
university and college students have shown that in-class participation is
associated with higher levels of learning motivation (Frisby & Myers,
2008; Frymier & Houser, 2016), more critical thinking (Garside, 1996;
Smith, 1977), improvements in language skills (Dancer & Kamvounias,
2005), better performances on reading literacy tests (Sedova et al.,
2019), and better midterm and nal course grades (Handelsman et al.,
2005).
Before contributing in class, students across the globe are advised to
raise their hand before they speak (Dixon et al., 2009). Consequently,
B¨
oheim, Knogler, et al. (2020) argued that students' hand raising “rep-
resents an important gateway to create … learning opportunities in
classrooms for all students” (p. 2). In this and another recent study, the
authors showed hand raising to be related to students' motivation, their
cognitive engagement, and their school achievement (B¨
oheim, Urdan,
et al., 2020). Moreover, teachers often include hand raising when
assigning grades for in-class participation (Sacher, 1995). This again
stresses the importance of students' hand raising.
However, students' chances for hand raising are not equal. Studies
revealed that the average time between a teacher's question and calling
on the rst student with a raised hand ranges between less than 1.0 and
2.5 s (Heinze & Erhard, 2006; Rowe, 1986; Tobin, 1987), which offers
little time for students to elaborate on their initial thoughts, formulate
their answer and, nally, decide whether to raise their hand. This lack of
time favors high-performing students who elaborate faster and, hence,
can respond earlier than their low-performing peers (Brophy & Good,
1976; Lipowsky et al., 2007; Sacher, 1995), and it seems particularly
problematic for shy students who may have good ideas to share but
hesitate to raise their hand (Evans, 1987; Jacobs & Chase, 1992).
1.3. Shyness and in-class participation
The role of shyness within the school context is not a new research
topic (e.g., Evans, 1987) but of increasing interest in recent years (e.g.,
Coplan & Rudasill, 2016 ; Kalutskaya et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there is
still a disproportionate attention of teachers towards students with more
external behaviors (Keogh, 2003). Even though the expected proportion
of shy students in the classroom is unclear in research ndings, studies
have revealed that shyness affects many students, ranging from 10 to
15% and up to as much as 50% (Coplan & Rudasill, 2016; Hofmann
et al., 2006). These proportions make shyness an important topic for
educational research and teacher education.
As a temperamental trait, shyness is characterized by an inner con-
ict between the shy person's desire for social interaction (social-
approach motivation) and the simultaneous fear of social interaction
(social-avoidance motivation). This approach-avoidance conict
(Asendorpf, 1990) makes shy people prone to self-consciousness and
embarrassment in the face of social novelty or perceived social evalua-
tions (Crozier, 1995; Rubin et al., 2009). Given that schools are social
environments, classrooms come with many situations and requirements
that might be stressful for shy students, for example, being called on in
class, presenting in front of others, or nding a partner for group work
(Coplan & Rudasill, 2016; Kalutskaya et al., 2015). Self-consciousness
and embarrassment may interfere with learning when shy students
direct their attention away from relevant cues (e.g., a teacher's question)
to more irrelevant information (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Wine, 1971).
Earlier studies on classroom engagement pointed to an association
between lower levels of in-class participation and constructs related to
shyness, for example, neuroticism and insecurity (Williams, 1971),
reticence (Evans, 1987), communication apprehension (Bowers, 1986),
and social anxiety and private self-consciousness (Aamodt & Keller,
1981). Later, Asendorpf and Meier (1993) conrmed this pattern also for
shyness. Interestingly, they reported that shy children spoke less than
their non-shy peers in school situations, but no differences were found
for familiar situations at home. More recently, Coplan et al. (2004) re-
ported that teachers sometimes mistake students' shyness and their be-
haviors, such as refusal to speak, speaking quietly or briey, or not
voluteering to speak in a group, for lack of interest. Spooner et al. (2005)
found that approximately one-third of self-reported shy children were
not labeled as shy by their teachers and parents, leaving room for
caregivers' speculations about the reasons for the childrens' reluctant
behavior. These misperceptions are assumed to explain why shyness was
found to be linked to poorer academic achievements, for example, less
developed language skills (Evans, 2010) but unrelated to intelligence
(Hughes & Coplan, 2010).
In sum, these studies point to a desideratum for both researchers and
practitioners to nd teaching strategies and methods that can help shy
students increase their in-class participation (Evans, 2001; Howard
et al., 1996). Recently, Korem (2019) collected strategies for shy stu-
dents, for example, strengthening the bond between the shy students
and the teacher (Arbeau et al., 2010), verbalizing thoughts and feelings
in class (Coplan & Weeks, 2009), and cultivating a positive emotional
climate in the classroom (Kalutskaya et al., 2015). However, some of
these strategies have yet to be empirically validated, including the so-
called Think-Pair-Share strategy.
1.4. The potential of think-pair-share to increase hand raising
TPS is a teaching strategy that was developed within the framework
of cooperative learning (Günter et al., 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1987;
Lyman, 1981). For this instructional design, students think how to
address a question posed by their teacher in the following three steps:
(1) Think: each student thinks about the question individually and is
encouraged to take notes. (2) Pair: students are then grouped into pairs
(often together with their seatmate) to exchange and discuss their ideas.
Pairing not only allows students to check their own thoughts, but also to
consider the partner's ideas about the question. (3) Share: students share
their validated and maybe extended ideas to a larger group or to the
whole class.
Like other cooperative learning techniques, TPS is grounded in a
variety of theoretical approaches that complement each other. From a
motivational perspective, working together with others activates
learners because they experience feelings of group cohesion, social
relatedness, competence, and autonomy (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; E. G.
Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1987). In addition, according to
Vygotsky (1978), learners acquire knowledge because they share expe-
riences with peers, whereas Piaget focused on the benets of socio-
cognitive conicts occurring when people with different ideas or per-
spectives collaborate (Ginsburg & Opper, 1988). Cognitive elaboration
and the integration of new knowledge into existing cognitive structures
is also assumed to support knowledge acquisition in cooperative
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
3
learning. Students' communication and dialogue is at the heart of these
benets from cooperating (Jurkowski & H¨
anze, 2015; King, 1999;
Webb, 1989).
Empirical evidence supports the assumption that TPS can improve
the in-class participation of students and suggests that it might be
especially benecial for shy students. First, TPS prolongs the wait time
between a teacher's question and the response to the rst student's hand
raising (e.g., Tobin, 1987), thus enhancing higher-order thinking
(Cooper & Robinson, 2000; Kaddoura, 2013). Second, the combined
effect of individual preparation and receiving validation of their ideas
from their partner might increase the self-condence of students (Fas-
singer, 1995; Neer & Kircher, 1989). These assumptions are in line with
studies from college classrooms linking in-class participation to students'
quality of preparation and emotional states such as condence and fear
(e.g., Bowers, 1986; Fassinger, 1996; Howard et al., 2002; Howard &
Henney, 1998; Weaver & Qi, 2005).
With more time for individual elaboration and increased condence
from peer support, TPS might allow shy students to experience gradual
exposure to fear-arousing situations, which in turn might help them
overcome the difculties of participating in classroom discussions
(Korem, 2019). These purported advantages of TPS have prompted re-
searchers in the eld of shyness to propose TPS as a supportive teaching
strategy for shy students (Coplan & Rudasill, 2016, p. 95; Korem, 2019,
p. 6). Even though a few reports have suggested that TPS can benet
students in general (Kothiyal et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2015), no
empirical study has yet systematically investigated how TPS effects hand
raising of (shy) students.
1.5. The present study
Summarizing the theoretical background and empirical research,
students' in-class participation is an important precursor of academic
achievements. Against the background of the short time between
teachers' questions and calling on the rst student, hand raising as the
gateway to in-class participation requires students to elaborate and
formulate their ideas in a short time. TPS can be assumed to provide
students with the opportunity to elaborate their ideas and gain more
condence from peer support, which might be of special importance for
shy students. By reducing anxiety and augment condence, TPS should
increase hand raising and thus open the gateway to in-class participation
particularly in shy students.
In a preregistered experimental eld study, we investigated the ef-
fects of TPS on students' hand raising. The following three conditions
were implemented: (1) a complete Think-Pair-Share condition (TPS), (2)
a condition with a think phase for idea elaboration but without a
collaborative pair phase (TS), and (3) a condition in which students are
asked to raise their hand to share their thoughts with the class imme-
diately after the question was posited, thus, without thinking or pairing
before (S). Moreover, we investigated the processes involved in hand
raising by including state measures to analyze factors that either moti-
vate or prevent students from raising their hand. The following hy-
potheses were formulated:
(1a) TPS enhances students' hand raising more than TS and S,
whereas TS leads to more hand raising than S.
(1b) Shy students raise their hand less frequently than their non-shy
peers.
(1c) Shy students particularly benet from the prolonged wait time
in both TPS and TS, as well as from the validation from their partner
in TPS. Thus, shyness moderates the postulated effects of hypothesis
1a on hand raising.
(2a) TPS reduces state anxiety more than TS, whereas TS leads to
lower levels of state anxiety than S.
(2b) Shyness moderates the effects of the postulated effects of hy-
pothesis 2a because S has the highest potential of inducing
embarrassment and fear of social evaluation, TS the second highest,
and TPS the lowest.
(2c) State anxiety mediates the effect of the teaching strategy on
hand raising.
(2d) Shyness moderates the postulated mediation of hypothesis 2c.
(3a) Students report more motives for (non-)hand raising related to
lacking condence and to fear of social evaluation in S compared to
TS, and more in TS than in TPS.
(3b) Shy students report these motives more often than their non-shy
peers.
(3c) Shyness moderates the postulated effects of hypothesis 3a.
2. Material and methods
Data collection was part of a larger project in which we gave two-day
communication trainings for ninth-grade classes during regular school
hours. For experimental reasons and to ensure the validity of the
trainings, six professional trainers conducted the trainings. In this
article, we report how we obtained our sample and refer to the docu-
mentation of all measures examined as part of the present study.
2.1. Participants
The initial sample of the larger project consisted of 651 ninth-grade
students from 23 classes in four secondary schools in Germany. A total of
481 students in 16 different classes, participated in the present study.
For analyses, we included only students who provided complete data for
the relevant variables, resulting in a nal sample of 393 participants
(213 females, 3 unspecied; M
age
=14.36, SD
age
=0.60) for whom their
parents had given written informed consent. Participation was on a
voluntary basis. Students could withdraw from the study at any time.
2.2. Procedure
All experimental procedures were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the institutional or national research committee and with
the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable
ethical standards. The study was approved by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research.
Participants sat at tables for two in their regular classrooms.
Research has shown different effects of cooperative learning depending
on the academic level of the students working together (Lou et al.,
1996). To gain more general conclusions, dyads were randomly assigned
when students entered the room. The TPS experiment took place at the
beginning of the communication training. The trainers introduced
themselves and started class with information about the procedure. The
students then completed a questionnaire that consisted of demographic,
shyness, and other items. Next, the main topic of the training was
introduced (i.e., the worldwide problem of hunger). The trainer showed
the so-called world hunger map and presented photos of families from
different countries and their weekly food rations. Then, in short class-
room discussions, the trainer asked the students what they noticed about
the photos and to guess which country each family might come from.
This questioning initiated the following experiment: In three consecu-
tive rounds, students were asked how six keywords could relate to
worldwide hunger. Each round started with two keywords presented
simultaneously via a projected slide presentation (round 1: natural di-
sasters and wars; round 2: illnesses and corrupt politicians; round 3:
poverty and education). Presenting two keywords at once was chosen to
reduce the confounding with specic knowledge to a minimum, and,
thus, to be able to generalize the results. For each round, one of the three
experimental conditions (i.e., TPS, TS, or S) was implemented in coun-
terbalanced order. Fig. 1 illustrates the procedure using an example.
In the think phase, students were given 1 min to think about the
relation between the two presented keywords and worldwide hunger
and to take notes. We collected these notes after the experiment. In the
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
4
two-minute pair phase, the dyads exchanged and discussed their ideas.
Each share phase started with the following trainer question: “So what
does … have to do with worldwide hunger?” Then, the trainer waited for
10 s during which students could raise their hands to share their ideas.
Hand raising was documented by an assistant, who was sitting in the
back of the classroom. Before calling on several students, the trainer
asked all participants to complete a short questionnaire on their hand
raising, their anxiety state, and motives for raising or not raising their
hand. Finally, students who had raised their hand were called on to
share their ideas with the class. Then, the next round started.
2.3. Design
The study employed a within-subjects controlled crossover design in
which participants ran through three rounds representing the three
conditions (i.e., TPS, TS, S) that were randomly assigned to the classes in
counterbalanced order (e.g., class 1: TPS-TS-S; class 2: TS-S-TPS; class 3:
S-TPS-TS, and so on).
Hand raising, state anxiety, and motives as reported by students after
each round served as dependent variables. The instructional design,
dispositional shyness and their interaction served as independent vari-
ables. Moreover, in hypothesis 2c, state anxiety served as mediator. In
addition, the following control variables were measured because they
have been shown to be linked to in-class classroom participation (for a
review see again Rocca, 2010): GPA, liking for the seatmate, and class
climate were obtained at the beginning of the training, and positive
attitude towards the trainer was measured at the end of the training. We
additionally collected students' notes from the two think phases and
assistants counted the number of students with their hand raised in each
round to conrm the validity of the self-reported hand raising.
2.4. Measures
2.4.1. Shyness
We used the ve items of the shyness subscale from the Hierarchical
Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 1999;
German translation by Bleidorn & Ostendorf, 2009) and four items from
the Children's Shyness Questionnaire (CSQ; Crozier, 1995). Given the time
constraints, we selected and translated only four items from the CSQ,
which assesses aspects of shyness that is not assessed by the HiPIC-
subscale. Students rated the items on a 5-point scale (1 =“I do not
agree at all”; 5 =“I totally agree”).
To test this scale, a principal factor analysis (PFA; with oblique
rotation) was conducted with randomly selected data that equaled half
of the dataset. With the other half of the sample, a conrmatory factor
analysis (CFA; based on a correlation matrix) was conducted. The par-
allel analysis of the PFA revealed a two-factor structure. In the rotated
solution, all but one item loaded sufciently on one of the two forced
factors (>0.40; Field et al., 2012). The three items that clustered on
factor 1 suggest that this factor represents social uncertainty (sample
item: “When I join a larger group, I often feel uncomfortable.”), and the
ve items that loaded on factor 2 represents social approach-avoidance
(sample item: “Sometimes I wish I could just talk to people. But that's
often difcult for me.”). These results are in line with the construct of
shyness (Asendorpf, 1990; Crozier, 1995). This solution was conrmed
by the CFA with a general and two subordinate factors (RMSEA =0.04;
CFI =0.98). Cronbach's alpha coefcient of the full scale was 0.82.
2.4.2. State anxiety
Students reported on the subscale “emotionality” from the German
Short State Anxiety Inventory (STAI-SKD; Englert et al., 2011), which is
a short version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al.,
1970). The subscale comprises three items (e.g., “Right now I feel ner-
vous”) on a 6-point scale (0 =“not at all”; 5 =“totally”). In this study,
Cronbach's alpha was 0.83, 0.86, and 0.87 for the three conditions,
respectively.
2.4.3. Hand raising
Hand raising was measured after each round with the single item,
“Have you just raised your hand?”. This question required students'
“yes” or “no” response and served as binary outcome variable in the
analyses. Throughout the three conditions, the participants raised their
hands approximately once (see Table 1).
To check the validity of the self-reported data, an assistant counted
the number of raised hands in each round. Correlations of these
observed frequencies with the self-reported data were strong for all three
conditions (r
TPS
=0.83, r
TS
=0.84, r
S
=0.89; p <.001).
As further validity check, we tested whether the quality of students'
notes collected from the think phases in the TS and TPS conditions
signicantly predicted hand raising. An independent rater evaluated the
notes based on an a priori dened rubric (0 pts. =no answer or answer
not substantially meaningful; 1 pt. =answer substantially meaningful; 2
Round 2
1. Presentation of the keywords “illnesses” and “corrupt politicians”
2. TPS condition: 1 min think time Æ2 min pair phase Æteacher question Æ10 s wait
time for hand raising
3. Short questionnaire (state anxiety, hand raising, motives for (non-)hand raising)
4. Share phase (some students who had raised their hand shared their ideas with class)
Round 1
1. Presentation of the keywords “natural disasters” and “wars”
2. TS condition: 1 min think time Æteacher question Æ10 s wait time for hand raising
3. Short questionnaire (state anxiety, hand raising, motives for (non-)hand raising)
4. Share phase (some students who had raised their hand shared their ideas with class)
Round 3
1. Presentation of the keywords “poverty” and “education”
2. S condition: teacher question Æ10 s wait time for hand raising
3. Short questionnaire (state anxiety, hand raising, motives for (non-)hand raising)
4. Share phase (some students who had raised their hand shared their ideas with class)
Fig. 1. Procedure using an example order of the three conditions.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
5
pts. =answer very good and substantially meaningful). Given the two
keywords in each round, a maximum of 4 points per round could be
attained. A t-test revealed no signicant difference between the TPS and
the TS conditions (t(701) = − 1.11, p =.27.; M
TPS
=2.80, SD
TPS
=0.99;
M
TS
=2.88, SD
TS
=1.00). A binomial generalized linear mixed-effects
model (GLMM; with self-reported hand raising and note quality on
level 1, participants on level 2, and dyads on level 3) conrmed the
validity of students' self-reports (B =0.26; SE =0.11; p <.05).
2.4.4. Motives for (non-)hand raising
We designed a list of 10 options based on studies on motivation for
in-class participation (Dallimore et al., 2004; Rocca, 2010; Turner &
Patrick, 2004; for sample items see Tables 3 and 4). The students could
tick as many options as they wanted. On average, six options were ticked
when students had raised their hand and three options when they did
not participate.
2.4.5. Grade point average
The average of specic grades of the past school year (subjects:
German, math, biology, geography) served as an indicator for the GPA
(reverse coded; note that grades in the German school system range from
1 to 6 with lower numbers indicating higher performances). Cronbach's
alpha coefcient was 0.77.
2.4.6. Liking for seatmate and trainer
Students were asked to rate liking for their randomly assigned
seatmate and positive attitude towards the trainer with two single items
(“I like my seatmate” and “The teacher was friendly to me”) on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 =“not at all” to 5 =“totally”.
2.4.7. Class climate
The subscale “social relatedness” of a German learning experience
scale was employed (H¨
anze et al., 2009). The scale consists of 5 items on
a 5-point scale (1 =“I do not agree at all”; 5 =“I totally agree”; sample
item: “From my perspective, the atmosphere in our class is relaxed”). In
this study, Cronbach's alpha was 0.86.
2.5. Analyses
All analyses were performed using RStudio (version 3.6.3), the
packages “lme4” (Bates et al., 2015), “emmeans” (Lenth, 2020), and
“mediation” (Tingley et al., 2014). We ensured that the entered data
fullled their assumptions, that is, no collinearity and no overdispersion
existed, and random effects were distributed approximately normally
(Field et al., 2012; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Variables were centered
according to Enders and Toghi (2007).
Given the multilevel structure of the data (hand raising in the three
conditions was nested in the participants, which were nested in dyads,
classes, and schools), we ran mixed models with random effects to ac-
count for variability across the levels. We checked for the intraclass
correlation (ICC) of these cluster variables. Following the guidelines in
Hox (2010), we included levels with ICC >0.10 in the following mixed
models and report on the included variables for each model separately in
the results section. For all hypotheses, a basic model with all parameters
being xed was tested against several random effects models by exam-
ining the Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and the Schwarz's
Bayesian criterion (BIC). The best tting model was selected for the
main analysis. Estimated marginal means (EMM) were computed for all
generalized linear mixed models (GLMM).
For the control variables, we followed the guidelines of Ranganathan
et al. (2017) by rst running univariate analyses with each control
variable as a single predictor and including variables in the following
models that reached a signicance of p <.10.
Mediation models were calculated following the guidelines in Ting-
ley et al. (2014). First, a mediator model and an outcome model were
specied as mixed models as described above, except that a potential
third level could not be included. To date, the “mediation” package does
not support more than two levels per model (Tingley et al., 2014).
Second, the mediate function was used with bias-corrected and accel-
erated condence intervals as CI estimation to calculate the average
causal mediation effects (ACME) and the average direct effects (ADE) for
each of 2000 simulations. The 95% condence interval was computed
by determining ADE and ACME at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
3.1.1. Outliers
Variables were screened for outliers, as proposed by Tabachnick and
Fidell (2013). Three cases showed a critical Mahalanobis distance value,
χ
2
(5) =20.52. Thus, the nal sample consisted of 390 participants.
3.1.2. Analyses of confounding variables
We checked whether the six different trainers or the sequence of the
three conditions had an impact on the dependent variable (i.e., hand
raising). Two GLMM with random intercepts were calculated. In the rst
model, students' hand raising and the sequence of the conditions (simple
effect coded) were entered on level 1, participants on level 2 (ICC =
0.35), and dyads on level 3 (ICC =0.15). In the second model, students'
hand raising and the trainer (simple effect coded) were entered on level
1, participants on level 2 (ICC =0.36), and dyads on level 3 (ICC =
0.14). An inspection of Wald
χ
2
tests revealed that neither the sequence
of the conditions (
χ
2
(5) =2.21, p =.82) nor the trainers (
χ
2
(5) =2.45, p
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Hand raising in total 1.25 1.15
2. Hand raising in TPS 0.45 0.50 0.77**
3. Hand raising in TS 0.41 0.49 0.79** 0.41**
4. Hand raising in S 0.38 0.49 0.78** 0.40** 0.43**
5. Shyness 2.49 0.73 −0.13* −0.07 −0.13** −0.09
6. State anxiety in TPS 0.69 0.93 −0.10 0.01 −0.10* −0.14** 0.18**
7. State anxiety in TS 0.79 1.01 −0.08 0.03 −0.13* −0.09 0.16** 0.68**
8. State anxiety in S 0.77 1.04 −0.10* 0.04 −0.13* −0.15** 0.20** 0.77** 0.71**
9. Liking for seatmate 4.00 1.05 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.08 −0.08 −0.04 0.01 −0.04
10. Class climate 3.62 0.83 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.02 −0.31** −0.05 −0.07 −0.06 0.13*
11. GPA
a,b
4.17 0.75 0.30** 0.25** 0.22** 0.22** 0.05 −0.07 0.04 −0.03 0.20** 0.02
12. Pos. attitude to the trainer
a
4.39 0.94 0.14** 0.16** 0.08 0.10 −0.03 −0.06 −0.09 −0.06 0.15** 0.03 0.17**
a
Correlations were calculated for these variables with the group-mean centered around the respective class mean.
b
Reverse coded because the grades in the German school system range from 1 to 6 with lower numbers indicating higher performances.
*
p <.05.
**
p <.01.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
6
=.78) signicantly inuenced students' hand raising.
3.2. Main analyses
Table 1 summarizes all means, standard deviations, and correlations
of the main variables of the following analyses.
To test hypothesis 1a, a GLMM with binomial distribution and
random intercepts was computed. On level 1, the condition (i.e., TPS,
TS, and S; simple effect coded) served as the predictor variable and hand
raising as the outcome variable. Level 2 was specied as the participant
variable (ICC =0.38) and level 3 as the dyad variable (ICC =0.10).
Pseudo-R
2
was 0.10, which corresponds to f =0.33, representing a
medium effect size according to Cohen (1992). Results of the xed ef-
fects are reported in Table 2. Contrasts (EMM) revealed a signicant
difference in hand raising in the TPS condition compared to the S con-
dition partly conrming hypothesis 1a, whereas no signicant differ-
ences were found for the other two contrasts.
To test whether shyness had a main effect on hand raising (hypoth-
esis 1b) and whether shyness moderated the effects of the conditions on
hand raising (hypothesis 1c), shyness (grand mean centered) and its
interaction with the conditions were entered into the model used to test
hypothesis 1a with participants on level 2 (ICC =0.48). Pseudo-R
2
was
0.12 for this model, corresponding to a medium effect size of f =0.37
(Cohen, 1992). In support of hypothesis 1b, the analysis revealed a
signicant negative main effect of shyness on hand raising. The main
effect of the condition remained signicant. However, and in contrast to
hypothesis 1c, no signicant interaction effect of shyness with the
conditions was found (see the right section of Table 2).
For testing whether TPS reduced state anxiety more than TS and TS
more than S (hypothesis 2a) and whether shyness moderated these ef-
fects (hypothesis 2b), we computed a linear mixed model (LMM; with
random intercepts) with state anxiety as dependent variable and the
condition, shyness, and its interaction with the conditions as indepen-
dent variables on level 1 and participants on level 2 (ICC =0.72).
Cohen's f for this model was 0.20 (pseudo-R
2
=0.04), representing a
small effect size (Cohen, 1992). Shyness signicantly predicted state
anxiety (B =0.25, SE =0.06, p <.01). In partial support of hypothesis
2a, the inspection of the conditions' contrasts revealed signicantly
lower levels of state anxiety in the TPS condition compared to the TS
condition (EMM = − 0.10, SE =0.04, p <.05), but no signicant dif-
ferences were found for the other two contrasts. Moreover, the estima-
tion of the slopes of the trend of shyness for each condition revealed that
the slopes did not signicantly differ, indicating no interaction effects of
shyness on state anxiety, thus contradicting hypothesis 2b.
Next, we tested the mediation hypothesis 2c whether state anxiety
mediated the effect of the teaching strategy on hand raising. As shyness
neither moderated the effects of the conditions on hand raising (see
hypothesis 1b) nor the effects of the conditions on state anxiety (see
hypothesis 2b), we withdrew the hypothesized moderating effect of
shyness within the mediation (hypothesis 2d) and only included its main
effect into the mediation models. By conducting a GLMM (participants
on level 2; ICC =0.51) we rst checked whether the mediator state
anxiety inuenced the dependent variable hand raising. Cohen's f for
this model was 0.23 (Pseudo-R
2
=0.05), representing a small effect size
(Cohen, 1992). State anxiety signicantly negatively predicted hand
raising (odds ratio =0.77, 95% CI [0.62, 0.96], p <.05). Secondly, we
calculated three mediation models comparing two of the three condi-
tions (dummy coded), respectively. In line with hypothesis 2c, the in-
spection of the contrasts revealed a signicant indirect effect for TPS
when checked against TS (ACME =0.004, 95% CI [0.001, 0.01], p <.05)
and a signicant direct effect and a marginal indirect effect when
comparing TPS to S (ADE =0.08, 95% CI [0.02, 0.13], p <.01; ACME =
0.003, 95% CI [0.001, 0.01], p <.10), indicating that the positive effect
of TPS on hand raising was mediated via lower levels of state anxiety. TS
and S did not differ in terms of the mediating effect of state anxiety.
Finally, we tested whether students reported more motives for (non-)
hand raising related to lacking condence and to fear of social evalua-
tion in S compared to TS, and more of these motives in TS than in TPS
(hypotheses 3a), whether shy students reported these motives more
often than their non-shy peers (hypothesis 3b), and whether shyness
moderated the effects of hypothesis 3a (hypothesis 3c). Therefore, we
calculated a binomial GLMM for each motive with random intercepts
and the motives for (non-)hand raising (dummy coded) as outcome
variables. In all models, the main effects of shyness and the condition
and their interaction served as independent variables on level 1. Level 2
was specied as the participant variable (0.10 <ICC <0.98) and level 3
as the dyad variable in some models (0.12 <ICC <0.26). Results are
summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Throughout the motives, we found no
signicant main effects of condition, contradicting hypothesis 3a.
However, in line with hypothesis 3b, we found signicant main effects of
shyness for two motives. Shy students chose the non-hand raising mo-
tives “I was unsure of my answer” (odds ratio =2.73, 95% CI [1.63,
4.57], p <.01) and “I didn't want to be the center of attention” (odds
ratio =23.10, 95% CI [4.42, 121.00], p <.05) more often than their
non-shy peers. Moreover, and in support of hypothesis 3c, we found
signicant interaction effects (p <.05) between shyness and condition
with two motives. Shy students agreed less frequently with the motive “I
wanted to share my ideas” in the TPS condition than in the TS (odds
ratio = − 3.64, 95% CI [−6.72, −0.57]) and S conditions (odds ratio =
−3.26, 95% CI [−6.10, −0.41]). The motive “I didn't want to embarrass
myself” was chosen less frequently by shy students in the TS condition
compared to the S condition (odds ratio = − 1.85, 95% CI [−3.67,
Table 2
Results for predicting hand raising.
Hypothesis 1a Hypotheses 1b and 1c
B (SE)
a
95% CI for odds ratio B (SE)
a
95% CI for odds ratio
Lower OR Upper Lower OR Upper
Intercept −0.56 (0.13)** −0.57 (0.12)**
TPS vs. S 0.52 (0.19)* 1.17 1.69 2.45 0.53 (0.19)** 1.17 1.70 2.47
TS vs. S 0.27 (0.19) 0.90 1.30 1.89 0.26 (0.19) 0.90 1.30 1.88
GPA 1.02 (0.19)** 1.91 2.77 4.03 1.08 (0.19)** 2.03 2.95 4.28
Liking for seatmate 0.07 (0.12) 0.84 1.16 1.36 0.04 (0.12) 0.83 1.04 1.32
Pos. attitude to the trainer 0.26 (0.14) 0.97 1.29 1.71 0.25 (0.14) 0.97 1.29 1.71
Shyness −0.48 (0.17)** 0.44 0.62 0.87
TPS vs. S ×shyness 0.22 (0.26) 0.74 1.24 2.08
TS vs. S ×shyness −0.12 (0.27) 0.53 0.89 1.50
Note. TPS =Think-Pair-Share condition, TS =Think-Share condition, S =Share condition, GPA =Grade point average, OR =odds ratio.
a
Signicance adjustment for contrasts by Tukey method using estimated marginal means for main effects and estimates of slopes of the covariate trend for each
condition for interaction effects.
*
p <.05.
**
p <.01.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
7
−0.02]).
4. Discussion
Before participating in-class, students around the globe are asked to
raise their hand, which makes hand raising the central gateway for in-
class participation and thus, for academic achievements. However, the
time available for students to decide to raise their hands is limited,
which reduces chances to participate in-class for students who hesitate,
for example, shy students. The aim of the present research was to
analyze whether the teaching strategy named Think-Pair-Share (John-
son & Johnson, 1987; Lyman, 1981) can increase hand raising of stu-
dents in general and of shy students in particular. Furthermore, the
study explored emotional and motivational processes associated with
hand raising.
As partly hypothesized, TPS increased students' hand raising
compared to the S condition. More specically, the odds of hand raising
were about 1.7 times higher when using the TPS method compared to
the S condition. In contrast to our expectations, TS led to the same fre-
quency of hand raising as the S condition. These results stayed stable
when including possibly confounding variables, that is, the positive
attitude to the trainer and GPA. A possible explanation stems from
empirical research linking individual preparation and condence to in-
class participation (e.g., Bowers, 1986; Fassinger, 1996; Howard et al.,
2002; Howard & Henney, 1998; Weaver & Qi, 2005). Maybe, students'
individual preparation in the TS condition resulted in insufcient con-
dence, but peer collaboration in TPS boosted condence sufciently to
participate. In peer collaboration, students may have gained condence
in their ideas through peer feedback and through getting additional
ideas from their partner (Tolmie et al., 2010).
This assumption is supported by our mediation analyses. As ex-
pected, students reported lower levels of state anxiety in TPS than in TS,
whereas S ranged between the two other conditions, but without sig-
nicant differences. This ts well with ndings that peer collaboration is
a positive experience for students (Ellison et al., 2005; H¨
anze & Berger,
2007). Accordingly, students reported high levels of liking for their
seatmate in the present study. Moreover, state anxiety fully mediated
the relationship of TS with hand raising when compared to TPS, whereas
this relationship was only partially mediated when S was contrasted to
TPS. In sum, these results strengthen the assumption that peer collabo-
ration in TPS helped students to gain condence in their ideas, reduced
their state anxiety, and thus, increased the odds of hand raising. In
contrast, higher levels of state anxiety occurred in TS and, in turn, led to
lower odds of hand raising. Therefore, state anxiety becomes apparent as
one underlying mechanism for (non-)hand raising.
A possible explanation for the slight differences between the TS and S
Table 3
Results for predicting motives for hand raising.
HR-Motive 1
a,b
(“I was relatively sure of
my answer.”)
HR-Motive 2
a
(“I wanted to share
my idea.”)
HR-Motive 3
a
(“I felt that the trainer takes all
answers seriously.”)
HR-Motive 4
a
(“I trusted the others not to laugh at me
when it was wrong.”)
HR-Motive 5
a
(“The task was very
easy.”)
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
Intercept 1.63 (0.22)** 8.24 (0.96)** −1.05 (0.37)** −1.93 (0.64)** 0.62 (0.20)**
TPS vs. S 0.04 (0.32) 1.14 (0.68) −0.18 (0.39) −0.07 (0.40) 0.21 (0.33)
TS vs. S −0.31 (0.32) 1.18 (0.72) −0.07 (0.40) −0.34 (0.41) −0.06 (0.33)
Shyness −0.17 (0.22) 0.03 (0.67) −0.56 (0.42) −0.01 (0.43) −0.47 (0.28)
TPS vs. S ×
shyness
−0.21 (0.47) −3.25 (1.22)* −0.31 (0.57) 0.72 (0.61) 0.02 (0.49)
TS vs. S ×
shyness
−0.34 (0.45) 0.39 (1.11) −1.28 (0.58) −0.03 (0.59) −0.01 (0.48)
Note. TPS =Think-Pair-Share condition, TS =Think-Share condition, S =Share condition, HR =hand raising.
a
Level 2 =individuals.
b
Level 3 =dyads.
c
Signicance adjustment for contrasts by Tukey method using estimated marginal means for main effects and estimates of slopes of the covariate trend for each
condition for interaction effects.
*
p <.05.
**
p <.01.
Table 4
Results for predicting motives for non-hand raising.
NHR-Motive 1
a,b
(“I was unsure of my
answer.”)
NHR-Motive 2
a
(“I didn't want to be the center of
attention.”)
NHR-Motive 3
a
(“I feared a negative reaction from
the trainer.”)
NHR-Motive 4
a
(“I didn't want to embarrass
myself.”)
NHR-Motive 5
a
(“The task was too
difcult.”)
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
B (SE)
c
Intercept 0.28 (0.19) −8.44 (0.82)** −10.33 (1.18)** −8.76 (0.76)** −7.90 (0.82)**
TPS vs. S 0.61 (0.28) 0.64 (0.64) 0.21 (0.96) 0.68 (0.65) −0.08 (0.58)
TS vs. S 0.60 (0.27) 1.05 (0.63) −2.03 (1.26) 0.72 (0.61) −0.16 (0.57)
Shyness 1.01 (0.26)** 1.65 (0.75)* 0.82 (0.85) 1.33 (0.72) −0.02 (0.53)
TPS vs. S ×
shyness
0.49 (0.38) 0.28 (0.78) 0.21 (1.06) −1.40 (0.79) −1.25 (0.84)
TS vs. S ×
shyness
0.31 (0.38) −1.23 (0.76) 1.40 (1.33) −1.85 (0.78)* 0.77 (0.79)
Note. TPS =Think-Pair-Share condition, TS =Think-Share condition, S =Share condition, NHR =non-hand raising.
a
Level 2 =individuals.
b
Level 3 =dyads.
c
Signicance adjustment for contrasts by Tukey method using estimated marginal means for main effects and estimates of slopes of the covariate trend for each
condition for interaction effects.
*
p <.05.
**
p <.01.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
8
condition regarding state anxiety and its mediating effect on hand
raising builds on the Control-Value-Theory (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al.,
2007). According to this theory, achievement emotions are determined
by control appraisals and value appraisals. Therefore, the higher levels
of state anxiety and their mediating effect on hand raising in TS might
have been the result of students' moderate expectancies as implied by a
partial lack of control and their focus on failure. In contrast to the S
condition, students in TS had more time to think and prepare their an-
swers. This extra time might have induced the students fear that the
teacher expected more elaborated answers, which also led to a higher
possibility of failure in TS than in S (see also Pekrun, 1992). In addition,
the S condition resembled a typical classroom interaction and was
therefore more likely to have come across to the students as routine
(Mercer & Dawes, 2014). This familiarity could also explain why state
anxiety was lower in S than in TS.
Besides the main effects of the different teaching methods, we
investigated whether these methods particularly affect shy students.
Shyness has been linked to a number of disadvantages in the school
context (Kalutskaya et al., 2015). Consistently, shyness was a strong
negative predictor of hand raising in the present sample. TPS has been
proposed as a teaching strategy that might increase the frequency of shy
students' in-class participation (Coplan & Rudasill, 2016; Evans, 2001;
Howard et al., 1996). We found no differences between the shy students
and their peers in hand raising after engaging in the TPS method. In
contrast to our assumptions, shyness only had a direct negative effect on
state anxiety and no moderated effect on the reduction of state anxiety
between the conditions. The positive effect of the TPS versus the S
condition, however, remained signicant when shyness was entered into
the prediction model of hand raising. Thus, shy students benet from
TPS to a similar extent as their non-shy peers.
One explanation of why shy students did not particularly benet
from collaboration might be that shy students who did not raise their
hand might have exchanged ideas with a more outgoing or more skilled
seatmate and then became discouraged. This assumption is consistent
with empirical ndings about the threatening effects of the learning
partner's competence (Buchs & Butera, 2009). Furthermore, research
has shown the positive effects of working with a friend or a self-selected
partner on being more outgoing with peers (e.g., Hodges et al., 1999).
Thus, shy students might benet more from pairing with a peer when
they can choose their partner. This assumption needs to be tested with
further research on the effects of group compositions for shy students.
Results of the reported motives for (non-)hand raising provide
further insights as to why some (shy) students did not participate.
Interestingly, we found no differences in students' reports between the
three conditions, but we found main and interaction effects of shyness.
This result ts well with the idea that shyness is characterized by
heightened self-consciousness (Buss, 1986; Crozier, 2010). Throughout
the conditions, shy students who did not raise their hand stated more
frequently than their non-shy peers that they were unsure of their
answer and that they did not want to be the center of attention. These
reasons are in line with a study by Howard and Henney (1998) who
found students' “concerns about how they appear in the eyes of their
classmates and … appearing unintelligent” to be major reasons for their
nonparticipation (pp. 402–403). In a similar manner, Crozier and Hos-
tettler (2003) interpreted their ndings of shy children's lower perfor-
mances in one-to-one testing compared to group testing to have been the
result of shy students' anxiety from being the center of attention. These
ndings stress the importance of teachers in helping to reduce the social
pressure that shy students feel when they are required to raise their hand
to participate in-class. Some strategies for this purpose can be found in
other publications (Coplan & Rudasill, 2016; Evans, 2001). This pattern
seems to be even more important for shy students in the S condition
compared to TS because they picked a third motive for non-hand raising
related to concerns about social evaluations (“I didn't want to embarrass
myself”) more often in the S condition than in the TS condition. How-
ever, the comparison between TPS and TS slightly failed signicance.
Apart from the motives for non-hand raising, further inspection of
the motives of shy students who raised their hands is warranted. For
example, shy students in both the conditions without collaboration (i.e.,
TS and S) stated more frequently that they liked to explain their ideas.
Thus, students (including the shy students) participated in the TPS
condition more frequently than in the S condition, but shy students were
less eager. Although TPS increased their condence about their ideas,
their need to talk might have been satised after having collaborated
with a peer. This result ts well with several studies showing that shy
people talk less in general (e.g., Asendorpf & Meier, 1993; Evans, 1987)
and even less after they have spoken to a partner (Stewart & Rubin,
1995). However, this nding does preclude the value of the pairing
phase. A recent study on student learning showed that speaking in front
of the whole class is not necessarily important for academic achievement
but to simply have the opportunity to talk (Sedova et al., 2019). Not all
students can be called by teachers to share their ideas because of the
limited class time. TPS seems to be a good alternative to provide espe-
cially shy students the opportunity to speak more, even if some of them
choose to not raise their hand to speak in front of the whole class in the
following share phase.
In sum, our ndings on students' emotions and motives for (non-)
hand raising indicate that students' state anxiety can close the gate to in-
class participation. In shy students, this anxiety may stem from their
insecurity about their ideas and from their concern about embarrassing
themselves. These results emphasize the point that over and above
students' knowledge, social processes in class play an important role for
in-class participation (see, e.g., Roorda et al., 2011).
4.1. Limitations and future directions
Although the present study shows positive effects of TPS on reduced
state anxiety and increased hand raising, limitations of our anxiety
measure and the design need to be discussed. First, students generally
reported very low levels of anxiety and they reported on their state
anxiety after they had raised their hand. This procedure leaves room for
speculation as to whether the anxiety arose before, during, or after
raising hands. Future studies testing hand raising could examine psy-
chophysiological arousal, which offers a more direct access to the
emotions in such situations (Hofmann et al., 2006). This method would
also address another limitation. We explored students' anxiety and
motives as close as possible to when students decide whether to raise
their hands. Thus, we asked them to complete the state questionnaire
before they could tell the class about their ideas. Some students might
have been demotivated by this procedure. We speculate that this expe-
rience particularly affected shy students because shy people feel
demotivated faster and give up faster after failure (see again Stewart &
Rubin, 1995). Additionally, whether condence is a second mediating
process variable (at least in the TPS condition) remains an open research
question. Therefore, future studies examining the TPS method should
include a measure for condence.
One limitation of our study was the high rate of excluded partici-
pants. Reasons for this data loss are that some students failed to report
on relevant variables, and some students sat alone with no chance to
discuss their thoughts in the pair phase (e.g., because of an uneven
number of students in class).
Another limitation is that our main outcome variable, hand raising,
was based on students' self-reported behavior, not the behavior itself.
We undertook two attempts to conrm the validity of this measure: The
students' self-reports were associated with the quality of their notes and
with the number of raised hands in class rated by our assistants. Thus,
and in line with other research, students' self-reports might be an eco-
nomic and reliable method of measuring hand raising (see, e.g., Krohn
et al., 2011). However, future studies should further conrm this
nding.
The extent that TPS is an effective teaching strategy for teachers (as
opposed to trainers in the present study) also needs to be discussed. The
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
9
stronger routines of teachers might result in no effect of the method. In
contrast, given the unfamiliarity of the trainer, the experimental setting,
and the seating arrangement, the effects of the method might even be
stronger in more familiar settings with students' regular teachers.
The selection of the three conditions also poses a limitation to our
ndings. More specically, the time between presenting the keywords
and hand raising (share phase) was not equal in the three conditions (S
<TS <TPS). We chose these three conditions to test scenarios that are as
close to real-world settings as possible and, thus, to increase ecological
validity. Nevertheless, the time differences make it difcult to disen-
tangle whether the results, especially the comparison between TPS and
TS, are due to the added time or to the collaboration. However, the result
pattern of the three conditions is too inconsistent to be attributed to a
time effect alone (e.g., the nonsignicant differences in hand raising
between TS and S as well as the higher levels of state anxiety in TS than
in TPS, but not in S). Future studies should systemically vary the time
intervals of the conditions to further check these ndings (e.g., more
time to think or to pair).
4.2. Conclusions
This study indicates that Think-Pair-Share can increase the rate of
hand raising as an important gateway to in-class participation compared
to the classical teaching method by which teachers ask a question and
wait for the students to raise their hands and then directly share their
thoughts or give the correct answers. We found this positive relationship
only for TPS and not for TS, suggesting that exchanging ideas with a
partner is an essential condition to foster elaboration of ideas and con-
dence in sharing them in class. Our mediation analysis indicates that
the lower levels of hand raising in TS can be partially attributed to
higher levels of state anxiety in this condition. Furthermore, our results
failed to support the hypothesis that shy students particularly benet
from both the prolonged wait time and peer validation. Social evaluative
concerns were the leading motive for shy students' reluctance to raise
their hand, pointing to the relevance of social processes in class.
Nevertheless, they benet from TPS to the same extent as their non-shy
peers. The importance of TPS as a teaching strategy becomes clearer
with the result that TPS was the only condition in which state anxiety
was unrelated to hand raising. Thus, TPS seems to abate the effects of
students' state anxiety on their hand raising. We think that the present
study contributes to Think-Pair-Share as an evidence-based teaching
strategy and provides insights into a deeper understanding of the pro-
cesses involved in in-class participation of (shy) students.
Author note
We embrace the values of openness and transparency in science
(Sch¨
onbrodt et al., 2015; https://osf.io/4dvkw). We therefore prereg-
istered the present study in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.
io/32gcu).
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Aamodt, M. G., & Keller, R. J. (1981). Using the self-consciousness scale to predict
student discussion group participation. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 176–177. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top0803_18.
Arbeau, K. A., Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Shyness, teacher-child relationships,
and socio-emotional adjustment in grade 1. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 34, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409350959.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer
avoidance. Human Development, 33, 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276522.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier, G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in
everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to
social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1072–1083. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.1072.
Bates, D., M¨
achler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects
models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/
10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Bleidorn, W., & Ostendorf, F. (2009). Ein Big Five-Inventar für Kinder und Jugendliche:
Die deutsche Version des Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC) [A
Big Five-inventory for children and adolescents: The German version of the
Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children (HiPIC)]. Diagnostica, 55, 160–173.
https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.55.3.160.
B¨
oheim, R., Knogler, M., Kosel, C., & Seidel, T. (2020). Exploring student hand-raising
across two school subjects using mixed methods: An investigation of an everyday
classroom behavior from a motivational perspective. Learning and Instruction, 65,
101250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101250.
B¨
oheim, R., Urdan, T., Knogler, M., & Seidel, T. (2020). Student hand-raising as an
indicator of behavioral engagement and its role in classroom learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 62, 101894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2020.101894.
Bowers, J. W. (1986). Classroom communication apprehension: A survey. Communication
Education, 35, 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388361.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1976). Die Lehrer-Schüler-Interaktion [The teacher-student
interaction]. Munich, Germany: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual
knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in
honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (doi:10.43249781315044408-13. pp.
393-345).
Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Is a partner’s competence threatening during dyadic
cooperative work? It depends on resource interdependence. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 24, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173007.
Buss, A. (1986). A theory of shyness. In W. Jones, J. Cheek, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness:
Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 39–46). NY: Plenum. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4899-0525-3_4.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and
social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 545–568. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90039-1.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for
differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to
active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small
groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543064001001.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Cooper, J. L., & Robinson, P. (2000). Getting started: Informal small-group strategies in
large classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000, 17–24. https://doi.org/
10.1002/tl.8102.
Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you “want” to play?
Distinguishing between conicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.40.2.244.
Coplan, R. J., & Rudasill, K. M. (2016). Quiet at school: An educator’s guide to shy children.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2009). Shy and soft-spoken: Shyness, pragmatic language,
and socio-emotional adjustment in early childhood. Infant and Child Development, 18,
238–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.622.
Crosthwaite, P. R., Bailey, D. R., & Meeker, A. (2015). Assessing in-class participation for
EFL: Considerations of effectiveness and fairness for different learning styles.
Language Testing in Asia, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-015-0017-1.
Crozier, W. R. (1995). Shyness and self-esteem in middle childhood. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 65, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.
tb01133.x.
Crozier, W. R. (2010). Shyness and the development of embarrassment and the self-
conscious emotions. In K. H. Rubin, & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness
and social withdrawal (pp. 42–63). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Crozier, W. R., & Hostettler, K. (2003). The inuence of shyness on children’s test
performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 317–328. https://doi.org/
10.1348/000709903322275858.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and
discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53,
103–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000135805.
Dancer, D., & Kamvounias, P. (2005). Student involvement in assessment: A project
designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 30, 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099235.
Dixon, J. K., Egendoerfer, L. A., & Clements, T. (2009). Do they really need to raise their
hands? Challenging a traditional social norm in a second grade mathematics
classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1067–1076. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2009.04.011.
Ellison, C. M., Boykin, A. W., Tyler, K. M., & Dillihunt, M. L. (2005). Examining
classroom learning preferences among elementary school students. Social Behavior
and Personality, 33, 699–708. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.7.699.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
10
Enders, C. K., & Toghi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121.
Englert, C., Bertrams, A., & Dickh¨
auser, O. (2011). Entwicklung der Fünf-Item-Kurzskala
STAI-SKD zur Messung von Zustandsangst [Development of the ve-item short scale
STAI-SKD for measuring anxiety]. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie [Journal of
Health Psychology], 19, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149/a000049.
Evans, M. A. (1987). Discourse characteristics of reticent children. Applied
PsychoLinguistics, 8, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400000199.
Evans, M. A. (2001). Shyness in the classroom and home. In W. R. Crozier, & L. E. Alden
(Eds.), International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research, and interventions
relating to the self and shyness (pp. 159–183). Westport, CT: Wiley.
Evans, M. A. (2010). Language, performance, academic performance, and signs of
shyness: A comprehensive review. In K. H. Rubin, & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The
development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 179–212). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’
contributions to students’ silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2943952.
Fassinger, P. A. (1996). Professors’ and students’ perceptions of why students participate
in class. Teaching Sociology, 24, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318895.
Field, A. P., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59,
117–142. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059002117.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter?
In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 97–131). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4614-2018-7_5.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of
the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
Frisby, B. N., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The relationships among perceived instructor
rapport, student participation, and student learning outcomes. Texas Speech
Communication Journal, 33, 27–34.
Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and
students differ on the meaning of student participation. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71, 342–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649294.
Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2016). The role of oral participation in student
engagement. Communication Education, 65, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03634523.2015.1066019.
Garside, C. (1996). Look who's talking: A comparison of lecture and group discussion
teaching strategies in developing critical thinking skills. Communication Education,
45, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379050.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Günter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. H. (1999). Instruction: A models approach (3 ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college
student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184–192.
https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.98.3.184-192.
H¨
anze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student
characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct
instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29–41. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004.
H¨
anze, M., Berger, R., & Bianchy, K. (2009). F¨
ordern Schulnoten die Motivation? Eine
quasi-experimentelle Studie zum Einuss der Benotungserwartung auf selbst
berichtete und verhaltensnah erhobene Motivationsqualit¨
aten [How does the
prospect of grading inuence self reported and behaviour-based motivational
qualities? A quasi-experimental study]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht
[Psychology in Education and Teaching], 56, 258–270.
Heinze, A., & Erhard, M. (2006). How much time do students have to think about teacher
questions? An investigation of the quick succession of teacher questions and student
responses in the German mathematics classroom. ZDM, 38, 388–398. https://doi.
org/10.1007/bf02652800.
Hodges, E. V., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship:
Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.94.
Hofmann, S. G., Moscovitch, D. A., & Kim, H.-J. (2006). Autonomic correlates of social
anxiety and embarrassment in shy and non-shy individuals. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 61, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.09.003.
Howard, J. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the
mixed-age college classroom. The Journal of Higher Education, 69, 384–405. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2649271.
Howard, J. R., James, G. H. I., & Taylor, D. R. (2002). The consolidation of responsibility
in the mixed-age college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 30, 214–234. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3211384.
Howard, J. R., Short, L. B., & Clark, S. M. (1996). Students’ participation in the mixed-
age college classroom. Teaching Sociology, 24, 8–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/
1318894.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2 ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279.
Hughes, K., & Coplan, R. J. (2010). Exploring processes linking shyness and academic
achievement in childhood. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 213–222. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0022070.
Jacobs, L. C., & Chase, C. I. (1992). Developing and using tests effectively: A guide for faculty.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (2 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jurkowski, S., & H¨
anze, M. (2015). How to increase the benets of cooperation: Effects of
training in transactive communication on cooperative learning. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12077.
Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students'
critical thinking. Educational Research Quarterly, 36, 3–24.
Kalutskaya, I. N., Archbell, K. A., Rudasill, K. M., & Coplan, R. J. (2015). Shy children in
the classroom: From research to educational practice. Translational Issues in
Psychological Science, 1, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000024.
Keogh, B. K. (2003). Temperament in the classroom: Understanding individual differences.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
King, A. (1999). Discourse patterns for mediating peer learning. In A. O’Donnell, &
A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603715.
Korem, A. (2019). Supporting shy students in the classroom: A review. European
Psychologist, 24, 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000343.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Murthy, S., & Iyer, S. (2013). Effect of think-pair-share in a
large CS1 class. In Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on
international computing education research (pp. 137–144). Association for Computing
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493408.
Krieger, R. (2003). Das sogenannte Mündliche: Eine Befragung von Beurteilten und
Beurteilern zur Praxis und Problematik der Bewertung mündlicher Leistungen [The
so-called oral: A survey of assessors and evaluators on the practice and problems of
evaluating oral performances]. Bildung und Erziehung [Education and Training], 56,
75–92. https://doi.org/10.7788/bue.2003.56.1.75.
Krohn, K. R., Foster, L. N., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nalls, M. L., Quillivan, C. C.,
… Williams, R. L. (2011). Reliability of students’ self-recorded participation in class
discussion. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 43–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0098628310390846.
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school engagement:
Predictive of children’s achievement trajectories from rst to eighth grade? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101, 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013153.
Lenth, R. (2020). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means (R
package version 1.4.5). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., & Klieme, E. (2007). Gleicher Unterricht
- gleiche Chancen für alle? Die Verteilung von Schülerbeitr¨
agen im Klassenunterricht
[Equal teaching - equal opportunities for all? The distribution of student
contributions in classroom teaching]. Unterrichtswissenschaft [Educational Science],
35, 125–147.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996).
Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004423.
Lyman, F. T. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students.
In A. S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest. College Park, MD: University of
Maryland.
Mello, J. A. (2010). The good, the bad and the controversial: The practicalities and
pitfalls of the grading of class participation. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal, 14, 77–97.
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from
the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 430–445. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03054985.2014.934087.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (1999). Construction of the Hierarchical Personality
Inventory for Children (HiPIC). In Proceedings of the eight European Conference on
Personality Psychology (pp. 107–127). Tilburg University Press. https://lib.ugent.
be/catalog/pug01:119616.
Neer, M. R., & Kircher, W. F. (1989). Apprehensives’ perception of classroom factors
inuencing their class participation. Communication Research Reports, 6, 70–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824098909359836.
Newmann, F., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The signicance and sources of
student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in
American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pekrun, R. (1992). Expectancy-value theory of anxiety: Overview and implications. In
Anxiety: Recent developments in cognitive, psychophysiological, and health research (pp.
23–41). Washington, DC, U.S.: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,
corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational
Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9.
Pekrun, R., Frenzel, A., G¨
otz, T., & Perry, R. (2007). The control-value theory of
achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In
P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). Amsterdam:
Academic Press.
Ranganathan, P., Pramesh, C., & Aggarwal, R. (2017). Common pitfalls in statistical
analysis: Logistic regression. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8, 148–151. https://doi.
org/10.4103/picr.PICR_87_17.
Reddy, P. D., Mishra, S., Ramakrishnan, G., & Murthy, S. (2015). Thinking, pairing, and
sharing to improve learning and engagement in a data structures and algorithms
(DSA) class. In Proceedings of the international conference on learning and teaching in
computing and engineering (pp. 144–151). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/
10.1109/latice.2015.41.
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness:
Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson,
A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp.
3–19). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
Learning and Individual Dierences 88 (2021) 102015
11
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended
multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59, 185–213. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03634520903505936.
Rogers, S. L. (2011). Grading participation in college courses: Instructor attitudes and
practices (Doctoral dissertation). University of New York at Albany, New York, NY.
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The inuence of affective
teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A
meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654311421793.
Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of
Teacher Education, 37, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.60.110707.163642.
Sacher, W. (1995). Meldungen und Aufrufe im Unterrichtsgespr¨
ach: Theoretische Grundlagen,
Forschungsergebnisse, Trainingselemente und Diagnoseverfahren [Hand raising and calls
in the classroom: Theoretical principles, research results, training elements, and diagnostic
procedures]. Augsburg, Germany: Wissner.
Sch¨
onbrodt, F. D., Maier, M., Heene, M., & Zehetleitner, M. (2015). Voluntary commitment
to research transparency. Researchtransparency. http://www.researchtransparency.
org.
Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., Svaricek, R., Majcik, M., Navratilova, J., Drexlerova, A.,
Kychler, J., & Salamounova, Z. (2019). Do those who talk more learn more? The
relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and
Instruction, 63, 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects
of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571.
Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.180.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety
inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spooner, A. L., Evans, M. A., & Santos, R. (2005). Hidden shyness in children:
Discrepancies between self-perceptions and the perceptions of parents and teachers.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 437–466. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0028.
Stewart, S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1995). The social problem-solving skills of anxious-
withdrawn children. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 323–336. https://doi.org/
10.1017/s0954579400006532.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Harlow, United
Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Tingley, D., Teppei, H., Mit, Y., Keele, L., State, P., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R
package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59. https://doi.
org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599–623. https://doi.org/
10.2307/2959965.
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of
Educational Research, 57, 69–95. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057001069.
Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., …
Thurston, A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools.
Learning and Instruction, 20, 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2009.01.005.
Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational inuences on student participation in
classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106, 1759–1785. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00404.x.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational
success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x.
Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom organization and participation: College
students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 570–601. https://doi.org/
10.1353/jhe.2005.0038.
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13, 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1.
Williams, R. L. (1971). Relationship of class participation to personality, ability, and
achievement variables. The Journal of Social Psychology, 83, 193–198. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224545.1971.9922462.
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76,
92–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031332.
L. Mundelsee and S. Jurkowski
