The effect of think pair share method and students’ creativity on students’ learning outcome


The aim of this study was to explore the effect of think pair share method and students’ creativity toward students’ learning outcome. This research was begun by doing the related surveys for current situation of social science in the history subject where teaching the subject did not provide yet the expected learning outcome. For that reason, it needed a think pair share method to strengthen students’ creativity in order to improve student’s learning outcome as well as their self-evaluation in enhancing their creativity and learning competence. This research used quantitative approach with survey method. The collection of the data used questionnaires, interviews, documentary studies, and field notes. Quantitative data were analyzed by using an experimental method. Data analysis used multiple linear regression and correlation test. The experimental results on the three classes showed that think pair share method and students’ creativity can improve students’ learning outcomebetter than conventional class, but there is no interaction between the think pair share method and creativity with the eighth grade students’ learning outcomes. Teacher could use this model to Junior High School students’ level for improving students’ learning outcome in the lesson of social science.


think pair share, students’ creativity, learning outcome


  1. Al-Dababneh, K. A., Al-Zboon, E. K., & Ahmad, J. (2017). The creative environment: teachers’ perceptions, self-efficacy, and teaching experience for fostering children’s creativity. Early Child Development and Care, 0(0), 1–18.
  2. Cooper, F. (2018). A Modification of Think Pair Share to Make it More Learner-Centered by Using Student-Generated Questions. College Teaching, 66(1), 34–34.
  3. Creswell W John. (2014). Research Design, Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publication, Inc.
  4. Hwang, S. Y. (2017). Rethinking creativity: Present in expression in creative learning communities*. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(3), 220–230.
  5. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 37.
  6. Lawrence, C., Foster, V. A., & Tieso, C. L. (2015). Creating Creative Clinicians: Incorporating Creativity Into Counselor Education. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 10(2), 166–180.
  7. Leyshon, C. (2014). Critical issues in social science climate change research. Contemporary Social Science, 9(4), 359–373.
  8. Ozkal, N. (2014). Relationships between teachers creativity fostering behaviors and their self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(18), 724–733.
  9. Palmer, J. A. (1992). Connoisseurship and creativity: Monitoring creative thinking abilities in primary school children in england. Journal of Environmental Education, 23(3), 17–27.
  10. Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. (2003). Why not be creative when we enhance creativity (In J. H. B). New York: Teachers College Press.
  11. Rubenstein, L. D. V., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for Creativity Scales: An Instrument to Examine Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors That Allow for the Teaching of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334.
  12. Sulaiman Keshta, A., & Seif, A. (2013). Evaluating the Higher Order Thinking Skills in Reading of English for Palestine Grade Eight. Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 1(1), 2321–2454.
  13. Yang, K. K., Lee, L., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2016). Investigation of effective strategies for developing creative science thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2133–2151.