18354629 Owen Gates

102098:
Contemporary Teacher Leadership

Assessment 1 – Parts A and B

Owen Gates
18354629
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/gEpFtVS87j8
18354629 Owen Gates

Contemporary Teacher Leadership – Assessment 1 Part A: Project Proposal

Project Team Number – Team 4B: Tuesday (4:30 pm)

Roger Lee - 95444332

Harpreet Kaur Mudhli - 19654401
Armin Kaur Panag - 19729738
Papa Arthur - 18806364
Owen Gates - 18354629

Title: Teacher-Run Numeracy Improvement Program (T.R.N.I.P)

The strand: Making a Numerate Community 

Background

Bellfield College is a coeducational, independent Muslim school located in Rossmore, NSW,

catering to almost 800 students from Kindergarten to Year 12. At least 64% of the student
population has a Language Background Other Than English (LBOTE), with many
households speaking Arabic, Dari or Urdu as their primary language over English (ACARA,
2021). In recent years, Numeracy has been identified as a priority area for student
development by the school, with particular focus being afforded to learning in the Early
Years (K to 2) to build foundational skills in line with current research (Bellfield College,
2019). However, whilst early Primary students received greater attention, early Secondary
students have received basic supports: access to online learning tools since 2018; and in Term
1 2021, targeted small group sessions during Mathematics classes (Bellfield College, 2019).
NAPLAN data monitoring the development of students during Stage 4 indicates that whilst
Bellfield’s students are improving in line with peers from similar school contexts (SES,
LBOTE etc) they remain developmentally behind the Australian average with negligible
progress to closing the gap (ACARA, 2021). It should also be noted that although Bellfield
College teaches the NSW Curriculum and provides HSC courses to Stage 6, due to
historically low student and staff numbers HSC courses are taught via Compression - students
take three subjects per year and progress through both Year 11 and 12 content for each
subject in a single year (Bellfield College, 2019). Due to the demands of such a course,
enrolment in Mathematics at Bellfield has excluded students in low ability Year 10 classes to
maintain pacing - requiring students interested in taking Mathematics in their HSC to
progress to a higher ability class to enrol. 
18354629 Owen Gates

Figure 1. Bellfield College 2017-2019 NAPLAN numeracy scores. Note that whilst Bellfield
has managed to ensure growth matching other students with similar backgrounds, there is still
a significant gap between Bellfield students and the national average.

Scenario

The following program is targeted towards further supporting Numeracy as one of Bellfield
College’s identified priority areas for improvement by utilising a more systemically
integrated model. Stage 4 will be the primary focus group as it acts as the foundational years
for Secondary education and will provide the greatest long-term impact for the investment in
the program.
Over a 3-year period student numeracy skills will be developed and monitored utilising a
cycle of continuous improvement.

Teachers across all Key Learning Areas (KLAs) of the College’s Secondary school will be
connected to develop a Professional Learning Community (PLC) dedicated to implementing
coordinated inclusion of Numeracy as a cross-curriculum priority (Harris & Jones 2019).
Staff will be engaged in targeted professional development on a cyclical basis dependent
upon their own needs through research, collaboration with colleagues (including the STEM
department), and expert training - promoting teacher agency, capacity and confidence in
 18354629 Owen Gates

including numeracy (Averill & McRae, 2019; Gajda & Cravedi, 2006). Staff development
will follow a cycle of continuous improvement with term by term and yearly reviews as the
program progresses (Harris & Jones 2019). 

Student capacity for numeracy will be developed through use of numeracy inclusions across
KLAs, numeracy skill catalogues for each subject area, implementation of the “Think Aloud”
strategy for mathematics, (Kani & Shahrill, 2015). Improved numeracy capacity will assist
students both in their future education and in long term life outcomes. Lack of numeracy
inhibits learning across KLAs including science, geography, history and music as students are
unable to access and comprehend concepts necessary to success in these disciplines
(Bennison, 2015; Blow et al. 2012; Quinnell et al. 2013). Likewise, higher capacity for
numeracy is predictive of better financial decision making, enabling students greater success
throughout adulthood (Graffeo et al., 2015). Further to this, increased numeracy of students
enables access to Bellfield’s compression Mathematics Advanced course in Stage 6,
promoting greater success in university and adulthood over those who take Mathematics
Standard or no maths (Manny et al., 2019).

Project Plan

(a)   Goal of the action research project to be undertaken outside the faculty.

The aim of this action research project is to develop the Numeracy capacity of the Bellfield
College community by focused development of Stage 4 teachers and students.
The following goals have been defined:

 Improve Stage 4 students’ comprehension of and capacity to solve Numeracy related

problems. 
 Reduce the gap between Bellfield College students and the national Australian
average in the Numeracy section of NAPLAN (Year 7 and Year 9).
 Increase teacher competence and confidence in integrating Numeracy as a cross-
curriculum priority through development of a Professional Learning Community -
improving instances of numeracy included across subject areas.
 18354629 Owen Gates

(b)   Type of intervention that you intend to undertake?

The core of the project is developing a PLC dedicated to promoting a numerate College
community. This is a teacher-led project designed to promote teacher leadership, agency and
collaborative development around numeracy (Averill & McRae, 2019). Teacher quality is the
primary factor affecting student achievement that can be altered via intervention (Hattie,
2003). As such, Stage 4 teachers will be engaged in surveys, onboarding sessions and focus
groups to involve them personally within the project from the start to identify individual
professional development needs related to numeracy teaching within their KLAs, maximising
employee engagement and subsequent efficacy of the program (Harris & Jones 2019). Staff
training will be conducted prior to the implementation of the program to enable skill
development and application to developing teaching materials that include numeracy, Think
Alouds and multilingual scaffolding (Gajda & Cravedi, 2006). Throughout the program
further cyclical development will occur in annual and term-by-term increments via self-
directed staff research and further identification of professional learning needs following
program review milestones (Averill & McRae, 2019; Gajda & Cravedi, 2006).

Students will be coached through modelling, direct instruction and student-centred activities
in the “Think Aloud” strategy for problem solving to develop thinking, comprehension and
subsequent numeracy skills. Think Alouds emphasise verbalisation of cognition, improving
student capacity to articulate and analyse their own and others thinking as well as transfer this
comprehension to written answers (Bernadowski, 2016; Fisher et al. 2011; Kani & Shahrill,
2015; Yusuf et al. 2018). Teacher demonstration normalises use of Think Alouds whilst also
exposing students to the numeracy problem solving strategies of others which they may adopt
themselves (Bernadowski, 2016). This is especially effective in peer-teaching scenarios
where students rapidly share their thinking and understanding to generate a collective
problem-solving capacity as a class (Kani & Shahrill, 2015). This is particularly
advantageous for the highly social classroom dynamic found within the College’s student
population (Yusuf et al. 2018).

In order to foster accessible metacognition and self-monitoring of student development, Stage

4 students will be provided with numeracy skill catalogues for each KLA to keep in their
books (Bernadowski, 2016). These catalogues will allow students to identify what numeracy
 18354629 Owen Gates

skills they currently have, will learn in the next term and eventually what skills they have
learnt in the preceding teaching period (Bernadowski, 2016; Ghanizadeh, 2017). End of term
testing will provide students and teachers clear indicators of student capacity and growth
throughout the program. This will allow for greater student agency and metacognition as they
consistently track their development based upon numeracy skill milestones in each subject
area, enhancing engagement and success of the program (Ghanizadeh, 2017; Holton &
Clarke, 2006; Taub et al., 2020).

Multilingual scaffolding supports will be implemented to assist the large proportion of the
school population identified as LBOTE using designed and interactional scaffolding,
providing a spectrum of scaffolding based on student comprehension (Bakker et al., 2015;
Smit, 2013) . Posters in classrooms will provide explanations of KLA specific numeracy in
both English and Arabic to assist student comprehension, whilst tasks and diagrams which
require interpretation by students will be designed with Arabic and English, English-only and
no-text to support students according to their current ability - e.g. use of textual explanations
to support comprehension of graphs or diagrams (Bakker et al., 2015; Smit, 2013). 

(c)   How do you intend to measure improvement? Measure outcomes.

The project will utilise a mixed-methods approach to evaluating the efficacy of the project in
achieving its goals. As the project aims to evaluate both student and teacher development,
dual design research will be utilised (Gravemeijer & Eerde 2009).
Student comprehension of and capacity to solve Numeracy related problems will be assessed
through annual NAPLAN data (analysed through Scout), in-school assessments and term-by-
term testing of numeracy skills (Gaciu, 2020). Numeracy skill catalogues provide evidence of
progressive development of students across the program, whilst NAPLAN and in-school
assessment data provides statistics to compare students pre and post program implementation
(Jackson, 2020). Progression towards national average in NAPLAN numeracy testing will be
analysed using a t-test comparing actual student scores vs. predicted scores to determine
statistical significance (Jackson, 2020). Teacher competency and confidence in providing
numeracy inclusions across KLAs will be measured via pre and post project surveys as well
as yearly focus groups to evaluate progressive development.
Overall efficacy will be evaluated based upon the capacity of the program to achieve
 18354629 Owen Gates

progressive growth towards goals, not purely based on outright achievement of goals -
reflecting growth mindset practices.

(d)   Outline the timeline for the project? 

 Pre-project teacher surveys will gather data on teacher confidence and competence
implementing numeracy in the classroom. 
 Staff onboarding will introduce Stage 4 staff to the project and subsequent focus
groups will enable teacher voice and ownership of the project by identifying current
teacher capabilities and areas for development. Training materials will be developed
as a result to be delivered to staff alongside training by external providers.
 Staff training will be delivered late 2021, with time allotted for development and
integration of cross-curriculum numeracy materials into teaching programs for the
following year prior to commencement of the project.
 The three-year teaching and testing period will begin with initial student diagnostics
to provide data to staff and allow students to catalogue their own numeracy capacities
in each KLA and track their learning.
 At the end of every term, student numeracy development will be assessed via short
formal tests to update student numeracy skill catalogues and evaluate efficacy of
numeracy inclusions, Think Aloud and multilingual scaffolding across KLAs 
 Annual project evaluations and reviews occur with all staff to further engage in a
cycle of continuous improvement. Impact of project interventions will be assessed to
dictate further targeted research and staff development to be utilised in the following
year.
 Project will conclude with post-project teacher surveys to gather final data regarding
development of teacher competence/confidence and staff will be debriefed 
 18354629 Owen Gates

(e)   How does this lead to a cycle of continuous improvement?

By instigating a PLC focused on the common goal of improving Stage 4 students’ numeracy
within this program a cycle of continuous improvement develops (Hargreaves & Fullan,
2012;Harris & Jones 2019). The pre-implementation phase consists of the onboarding of staff
with the teacher-led vision of the program, identifying areas for targeted improvement in
collaboration with teachers and actively engaging staff in self-determined professional
learning mirrors the Plan-Do-Evaluate-Act model for continuous improvement (Tichnor-
Wagner et al., 2017). Further to this, throughout the project are predetermined checkpoints
annually and by term enabling teachers to assess the efficacy of their individual and
collective pedagogy using clear quantitative data to identify and address further areas for
development (Harris & Jones, 2019; Hattie, 2003). The collaborative nature of a teacher-led
 18354629 Owen Gates

program within a PLC ensures optimal staff engagement coupled with long-term, cyclical
professional development. The PLC developed through this program will enable
collaboration across KLAs and form a basis for future programs to improve the school
community and solidify staff relations.

Reference List:

ACARA. (2021). Bellfield College. My School. Retrieved 1 April 2021, from

https://www.myschool.edu.au/school/

Averill, R., & McRae, H. (2019). Culturally Sustaining Initial Teacher Education: Developing

Student Teacher Confidence and Competence to Teach Indigenous Learners. The

Educational Forum, 83(3), 294-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1599657

Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics

education: Introduction and review. ZDM, 47(7), 1047–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-

015-0738-8

Bellfield College. (2019). Annual Report. Bellfield College. http://www.bellfield.nsw.edu.au/wp-

content/uploads/2020/08/2019-Bellfield-College-Annual-Report.pdf

Bennison, A. (2015). Supporting teachers to embed numeracy across the curriculum: a sociocultural

approach. ZDM, 47(4), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0706-3

Bernadowski, C. (2016). "I can't "evn" get why she would make me "rite" in her class:" Using think-

alouds in middle school math for "at-risk" students. Middle School Journal, 47(4), 3-14.

Retrieved April 8, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44321066

Blow, F., Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2012). Time and chronology: Conjoined twins or distant cousins?

Teaching History, 147, 26–34.

 18354629 Owen Gates

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2011).  Coaching middle-level teachers to think aloud improves

comprehension instruction and student reading achievement. The Teacher Educator, 46(3),

231-243. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2011.580043

Gaciu, N. (2020). Understanding quantitative data in educational research (1st ed). SAGE

Publications.

Gajda, R., & Cravedi, L. (2006). Assimilating “Real” Teachers in Teacher Education: Benefits and

Limitations of a Professional Development School Course Delivery Model. Action In

Teacher Education, 28(3), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2006.10463418

Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring,

and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1), 101–114.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y

Graffeo, M., Polonio, L., & Bonini, N. (2015). Individual differences in competent consumer choice:

the role of cognitive reflection and numeracy skills. Frontiers In Psychology, 6.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00844

Gravemeijer, K., & van Eerde, D. (2009). Design Research as a Means for Building a Knowledge

Base for Teachers and Teaching in Mathematics Education. The Elementary School Journal,

109(5), 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1086/596999

Harris, A. & Jones, M. (2019) Teacher leadership and educational change. School Leadership &

Management, 39:2, 123-126, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1574964

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school.

Teachers College Press.

 18354629 Owen Gates

Hattie, J.A.C. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper

presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research

Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of

Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390500285818

Jackson, C. J. (2020). The utility of NAPLAN for improving teaching and learning.[thesis]

https://doi.org/10.26199/0NCJ-M091

Kani, N., & Shahrill, M., (2015). Applying the Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving Strategy in

Mathematics Lessons. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 4(2).

Manny, A., Tam, H., Lipka, R. & Yin, Z. (2019). Data Analysis: The impact of senior secondary

study choices on success at university. Universities Admissions Centre.

Quinnell, R., Thompson, R., & LeBard, R. (2013). It’s not maths; it’s science: Exploring thinking

dispositions, learning thresholds and mindfulness in science learning. International Journal

of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(6), 808–816.

doi:10.1080/0020739X.2013.800598.

Smit, J, (2013). Scaffolding language in multilingual mathematics classrooms (Dissertation).

Utrecht: Utrecht University.

Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., & Lester, J. (2020). The agency effect: The

impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-

 18354629 Owen Gates

based learning environment. Computers & Education, 147, 103781.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103781

Tichnor-Wagner, A., Wachen, J., Cannata, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2017). Continuous improvement

in the public school context: Understanding how educators respond to plan–do–study–act

cycles. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-

9301-4

Yusuf, S., Nasir, C., & Rohiman, C. (2018). Using think-aloud method in teaching reading skill.

Studies In English Language And Education, 5(1), 148-159. doi: 10.24815/siele.v5i1.9898

18354629 Owen Gates

102098 CTL- Assessment 1 Part B: Critical Reflection

The following critical reflection will analyse the process through which our team

progressively developed from 5 distinct individuals to a collaborative team through

consistent iterations of interaction and the assimilation of educational theories related to

Teacher-leadership.

From the outset our group came together with a relatively positive, strengths-based

approach to teamwork which resulted in a positive first impression (Lopez & Louis, 2009).

Individually I am critically minded and cynical, which leads to negative experiences during

group projects – however our positive interactions early on solidified our capacity to

cooperate.

As a strong personality I actively attempted to maintain distributed leadership during the

starting weeks to avoid taking over the project and depriving my team members of

leadership opportunities and agency – instead only offering collegial guidance to support

our teams exploration into project (Averill & McRae, 2019; Harris, 2003). When selecting a

school and strand we followed a problem-based learning approach to good effect: first

identifying schools we had personal experience and connection to; and then identifying

strands related to issues we had experienced in those schools (Jumaat et al., 2017). This

enabled us to collaborate on a personal level in a highly engaged manner – deepening our

connection as a team and resulting in quality project development. This was, however,

where a complication arose as a result of my avoiding a lead role – our group became

indecisive as to the school and strand as a result of several quality options. To address this I

pushed for a democratic vote, resulting in our final choice: Bellfield College and the building

a numerate community strand. (Denise Mifsud, 2016) We noted the school’s listing of

Numeracy as a priority area for student development coupled with the school’s focus being
18354629 Owen Gates

directed towards their Primary campus predominantly (Bellfield College, 2019). This left a

significant need for a targeted numeracy development program coupled with instigation of

a professional learning community like our own given the schools relatively young age

(opened in 2008).

Our community of practice then began to further coalesce as we engaged in discussions to

interpret and define the requirements of our project and determine allocation of tasks and

roles (Wenger et al., 2002). Here we again adopted a strengths-based approach: I was

tasked with the background and scenario for the program as I had personal experience with

the school and its need for numeracy development; my team members assigned themselves

project timelining and research roles accordingly.

This lead to our, or rather my own, second challenge: waning engagement and subsequent

failure to meet responsibility. My team were dependent on my contributions to the

program plan, however, I did not complete my section in time as a result of a cynical, deficit

mindset. Thankfully due to the initiative of my team and our adherence to the model of

distributed leadership in a community of practice, they worked together to account for the

shortcoming (Harris, 2003). Consistent scheduling of zoom meetings helped maintain our

groups cohesion, review our progress and redirect our efforts (Wenger et al., 2002).

Furthermore the use of collaborative documents through Google Docs ensured we were

always up to date with one another’s work and could contribute constructive feedback and

edits in a timely fashion.

With the completion of our draft proforma and receival of feedback we again adopted a

strengths-based approach coupled with distributed leadership – with myself taking the role

of proforma and video editor (Harris, 2003; Lopez & Louis, 2009). This was partly due to my
18354629 Owen Gates

ICT and critical thinking strengths, but also an action to re-establish trust within our team on

account of my prior failing. Trust is fundamental to the effective functioning of any team,

but particularly for a community of practice where members are reliant on one another for

the success of the project (Erdem et al., 2003). Our team again made positive progression

through the cycle of continuous development – evaluating our project, researching

solutions, taking action and re-evaluating. Our project took on its final form: a coordinated

intervention to instil a community of practice utilising teacher-leadership practices to

accomplish a collective goal of improving student numeracy across KLAs – all utilising

research based pedagogical strategies. We recognised the importance of teacher

development to learning first and foremost – committing the program to cyclical

professional learning for teachers based on self-identified needs to promote engagement

and agency (Averill & McRae, 2019; Hattie, 2003). Given the significant population of

students with a Language Background Other Than English (LBOTE) (over 65%) and the

inherent problem of comprehension inhibiting access to numeracy, we adopted the use of

Think Aloud and Multilingual scaffolding to support students (ACARA, 2021). Think Aloud

enables verbalisation and articulation of cognition, aiding social learning and metacognitive

development of students (Bernadowski, 2016; Kani & Shahrill, 2015; Yusuf et al. 2018;)..

Multilingual scaffolding provides English and Arabic, English only and no language

scaffolding levels for students to access numerical problems or data sets, further developing

comprehension and therefore numeracy (Bakker et al., 2015; Smit, 2013). Our third

intervention strategy, numeracy skill catalogues for each KLA, fulfilled two functions: to

provide data collection demonstrating student development; and afford students a

metacognitive tool that promotes student agency (Ghanizadeh, 2017; Holton & Clarke,

2006; Taub et al., 2020). The latter was of particular importance, as we recognised that
18354629 Owen Gates

students and teachers are fundamentally the same – we are all learners, and as learners we

value our own independence and agency (Averill & McRae, 2019).

In terms of reflection for action I have come to appreciate the importance of a strengths-

based approaches, positive thinking and collaboration in a community of practice setting

(Lopez & Louis, 2009). Despite my inclination for independent work and general dislike of

group-based assessments, the reality is that certain levels of professional development and

quality projects are not possible without collective, coordinated contributions. Without my

team I would not have so thoroughly re-evaluated our program on a consistent basis, nor

included certain pedagogical strategies such as Think Aloud. In future professional contexts I

will take advantage of a positive growth mindset and seek out rather than avoid

collaborative opportunities to propagate professional learning communities within my

workplace – contributing my own capacity to that of others and reaping the benefit that

only other minds, experiences and points of view can present in a community of practice.

References:

ACARA. (2021). Bellfield College. My School. Retrieved 1 April 2021, from

https://www.myschool.edu.au/school/

Alma Harris (2003) Teacher Leadership as Distributed Leadership: Heresy, fantasy or

possibility?, School Leadership & Management, 23:3, 313-324, DOI:

10.1080/1363243032000112801

Averill, R., & McRae, H. (2019). Culturally Sustaining Initial Teacher Education: Developing

Student Teacher Confidence and Competence to Teach Indigenous Learners. The

18354629 Owen Gates

Educational Forum, 83(3), 294-308.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1599657

Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics

education: Introduction and review. ZDM, 47(7), 1047–1065.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0738-8

Bellfield College. (2019). Annual Report. Bellfield College.

http://www.bellfield.nsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2019-Bellfield-

College-Annual-Report.pdf

Bernadowski, C. (2016). "I can't "evn" get why she would make me "rite" in her class:" Using

think-alouds in middle school math for "at-risk" students. Middle School Journal,

47(4), 3-14. Retrieved April 8, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44321066

Denise Mifsud. (2016). Distribution dilemmas: Exploring the presence of a tension between

democracy and autocracy within a distributed leadership scenario. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6).

Erdem, F., Ozen, J., & Atsan, N. (2003). The relationship between trust and team

performance. Work Study, 52(7), 337–340.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020310502633

Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-

monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education, 74(1),

101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0031-y

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher Leadership as Distributed Leadership: Heresy, fantasy or

possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313–324.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000112801
18354629 Owen Gates

Hattie, J.A.C. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?

Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us

ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of

Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390500285818

Jumaat, N. F., Tasir, Z., Halim, N. D. A., & Ashari, Z. M. (2017). Project-Based Learning from

Constructivism Point of View. Advanced Science Letters, 23(8), 7904–7906.

https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.9605

Kani, N., & Shahrill, M., (2015). Applying the Thinking Aloud Pair Problem Solving Strategy in

Mathematics Lessons. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 4(2).

Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The Principles of Strengths-Based Education. Journal of

College and Character, 10(4), 2. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1041

Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., & Lester, J. (2020). The agency effect:

The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors

in a game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 147, 103781.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103781

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A

guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.

Yusuf, S., Nasir, C., & Rohiman, C. (2018). Using think-aloud method in teaching reading skill.

Studies In English Language And Education, 5(1), 148-159. doi:

10.24815/siele.v5i1.9898