Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
- Review Article
- Open access
- Published: 11 January 2023
The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature
- Enwei Xu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
- Wei Wang 1 &
- Qingxia Wang 1
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 10 , Article number: 16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article
18k Accesses
21 Citations
3 Altmetric
Metrics details
- Science, technology and society
Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z = 12.78, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z = 7.62, P < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z = 11.55, P < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2 = 7.20, P < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2 = 12.18, P < 0.01), subject area (chi 2 = 13.36, P < 0.05), group size (chi 2 = 8.77, P < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2 = 9.03, P < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.
Similar content being viewed by others
A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning
Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning
A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms
Introduction.
Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.
Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).
Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.
The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).
This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:
What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?
How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?
This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.
Data sources and search strategies
There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.
This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.
First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.
Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.
Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.
Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.
Eligibility criteria
Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:
The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.
The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.
The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.
The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.
The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.
Data coding design
In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.
The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.
The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.
The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).
Procedure for extracting and coding data
According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.
Publication bias test
When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.
This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.
Heterogeneity test
To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2 ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.
The analysis of the overall effect size
This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z = 12.78, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.
This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.
In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2 = 7.95, P < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z = 7.62, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z = 11.55, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).
The analysis of moderator effect size
The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 86%, z = 12.78, P < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2 = 13.36, P < 0.05), group size (chi 2 = 8.77, P < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2 = 12.18, P < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2 = 9.03, P < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2 = 7.20, P < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2 = 3.15, P = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2 = 0.08, P = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:
Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2 = 3.15, P = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.
Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2 = 7.20, P < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.
Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2 = 12.18, P < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.
Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2 = 9.03, P < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.
Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2 = 8.77, P < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.
Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2 = 0.08, P = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.
Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2 = 13.36, P < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.
The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking
According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.
Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.
The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking
In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.
In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.
Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.
With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).
In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.
With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.
With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).
With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.
With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).
Suggestions for critical thinking teaching
Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.
First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.
Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.
Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.
Implications and limitations
There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.
Conclusions
The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:
Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z = 12.78, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z = 7.62, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z = 11.55, P < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).
As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2 = 7.20, P < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2 = 12.18, P < 0.01), subject area (chi 2 = 13.36, P < 0.05), group size (chi 2 = 8.77, P < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2 = 9.03, P < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2 = 3.15, P = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2 = 0.08, P = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .
Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001
Article Google Scholar
Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007
Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72
Google Scholar
Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602
Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England
Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39
Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198
Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004
Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423
Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA
Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005
Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889
Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010
Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917
Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074
Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC
Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002
Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011
Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014
Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160
Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49
Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059
Article ADS Google Scholar
Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x
Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002
National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002
Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011
Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York
Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010
Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008
Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61
Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98
Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286
Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x
Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57
Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2
Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006
Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4
Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08
Download references
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China
Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .
Ethics declarations
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Additional information.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1
Download citation
Received : 07 August 2022
Accepted : 04 January 2023
Published : 11 January 2023
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
This article is cited by
Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.
- Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
- Hung Phu Bui
- Quynh Thi Huong Dinh
Education and Information Technologies (2024)
Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis
The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.
- Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
- Hsiu-Ling Chen
Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis
- A. A. Amusa
- M. Alhassan
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
What Is Collaborative Problem Solving and Why Use the Approach?
- First Online: 07 June 2019
Cite this chapter
- J. Stuart Ablon 5
Part of the book series: Current Clinical Psychiatry ((CCPSY))
1616 Accesses
4 Citations
This chapter orients or reorients the reader to the fundamental philosophy and practice of Collaborative Problem Solving. It presents basic information about effectiveness of the approach across different settings and provides a rationale for this volume as a resource for individuals looking to implement CPS organization-wide.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Similar content being viewed by others
Collaborative Problem Solving Tasks
A discussion of the cognitive load in collaborative problem-solving.
A more reflective form of joint problem solving
Abel MH, Sewell J. Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. J Educ Res. 1999;92(5):287–93.
Article Google Scholar
Fixsen D, Naoom S, Blase K, Friedman R, Wallace F. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tamps: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network; 2005.
Google Scholar
Greene RW. The explosive child: a new approach for understanding and parenting easily frustrated, chronically inflexible children. New York: Harper Collins; 1998.
Greene RW, Ablon JS. Treating explosive kids: the collaborative problem solving approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
Greene RW, Ablon JS, Goring JC, Raezer-Blakely L, Markey J, Monuteaux MC, Rabbitt S. Effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in affectively dysregulated children with oppositional-defiant disorder: initial findings. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(6):1157.
Greene RW, Ablon JS, Martin A. Use of collaborative problem solving to reduce seclusion and restraint in child and adolescent inpatient units. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(5):610–2.
Hone M, Tatartcheff-Quesnel N. System-wide implementation of collaborative problem solving: practical considerations for success. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Child, Adolescent & Young Adult Behavioral Health Research and Policy Conference, March, Tampa; 2017.
Loeber R, Burke JD, Lahey BB, Winters A, Zera M. Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part I. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(12):1468–84.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Martin A, Krieg H, Esposito F, Stubbe D, Cardona L. Reduction of restraint and seclusion through collaborative problem solving: a five-year prospective inpatient study. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(12):1406–12.
Perry BD. The neurosequential model of therapeutics: applying principles of neuroscience to clinical work with traumatized and maltreated children. In: Working with traumatized youth in child welfare. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006. p. 27–52.
Pollastri AR, Epstein LD, Heath GH, Ablon JS. The collaborative problem solving approach: outcomes across settings. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2013;21(4):188–99.
PubMed Google Scholar
Pollastri AR, Lieberman RE, Boldt SL, Ablon JS. Minimizing seclusion and restraint in youth residential and day treatment through site-wide implementation of collaborative problem solving. Resid Treat Child Youth. 2016;33(3–4):186–205.
Schaubman A, Stetson E, Plog A. Reducing teacher stress by implementing collaborative problem solving in a school setting. Sch Soc Work J. 2011;35(2):72–93.
Stetson EA, Plog AE. Collaborative problem solving in schools: results of a year-long consultation project. Sch Soc Work J. 2016;40(2):17–36.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Think:Kids Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
J. Stuart Ablon
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to J. Stuart Ablon .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
Alisha R. Pollastri
Crossroads Children’s Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Michael J.G. Hone
Electronic Supplementary Material
Watch as Dr. J. Stuart Ablon, Director of Think:Kids, introduces the overarching philosophy behind Collaborative Problem Solving, which forms the foundation for the entire approach (MP4 509324 kb)
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Ablon, J.S. (2019). What Is Collaborative Problem Solving and Why Use the Approach?. In: Pollastri, A., Ablon, J., Hone, M. (eds) Collaborative Problem Solving. Current Clinical Psychiatry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12630-8_1
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12630-8_1
Published : 07 June 2019
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-030-12629-2
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-12630-8
eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving
What is collaborative problem solving.
subtitle about anything you like
Collaborative Problem Solving
Learn the basics of collaborative problem-solving, working in teams and why it's important to our professional and personal success in this online course.
The Collaborative Problem Solving course will help you become familiar with the basics of working in teams and why teamwork is important to our professional and personal success. This course will provide you with essential strategies for solving problems and challenges that arise during collaboration, and provide you with ways to move forward toward achieving a common goal.
Requirements:
Hardware Requirements:
- This course can be taken on either a PC or Mac.
Software Requirements:
- PC: Windows 8 or later.
- Mac: macOS 10.6 or later.
- Browser: The latest version of Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox are preferred. Microsoft Edge and Safari are also compatible.
- Adobe Acrobat Reader .
- Software must be installed and fully operational before the course begins.
- Email capabilities and access to a personal email account.
Instructional Material Requirements:
The instructional materials required for this course are included in enrollment and will be available online.
This course will help you develop the collaborative problem-solving skills you need to succeed in virtually any work environment while focusing on the importance and many benefits of working in teams.
- Requires consensus
- Involves groups or teams to make decisions
- Identifying the problem and the solution
- Identifying the leadership of the group
- Identifying the goal of the group
- Collaborative problem-solving is used to maximize productivity, minimize expenses, resolving conflict, improving morale, and integrating departments
- Using technology in the process
- Best practices for managing the collaborative problem-solving process
What you will learn
- Collaborative problem-solving techniques
- Steps of the collaborative problem-solving process
- Principles for collaborative problem-solving
How you will benefit
- You will better be able to work with others
- You will gain techniques and skills to improve your team performance
- You will learn to more effectively communicate in a team environment
| $165.00 9/5/2018 Self-Paced |
| $165.00 9/15/2018 Self-Paced |
| $165.00 8/16/2024 - 12/31/2024 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM 0 |
| Alert |
 Collaborative Problem Solving: What It Is and How to Do ItWhat is collaborative problem solving, how to solve problems as a team, celebrating success as a team. Problems arise. That's a well-known fact of life and business. When they do, it may seem more straightforward to take individual ownership of the problem and immediately run with trying to solve it. However, the most effective problem-solving solutions often come through collaborative problem solving. As defined by Webster's Dictionary , the word collaborate is to work jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor. Therefore, collaborative problem solving (CPS) is essentially solving problems by working together as a team. While problems can and are solved individually, CPS often brings about the best resolution to a problem while also developing a team atmosphere and encouraging creative thinking. Because collaborative problem solving involves multiple people and ideas, there are some techniques that can help you stay on track, engage efficiently, and communicate effectively during collaboration.
The burden that is lifted when a problem is solved is enough victory for some. However, a team that plays together should celebrate together. It's not only collaboration that brings unity to a team. It's also the combined celebration of a unified victory—the moment you look around and realize the collectiveness of your success. We can helpCheck out MindManager to learn more about how you can ignite teamwork and innovation by providing a clearer perspective on the big picture with a suite of sharing options and collaborative tools. Need to Download MindManager?Try the full version of mindmanager free for 30 days. Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.  Collaborative Problem Solving DOI link for Collaborative Problem Solving Get CitationDrawing on knowledge from process improvement, organisation theory, human resource management, change management, occupational health and safety, and other fields, the book is a practical, easy-to-read guide to problem solving. Illustrated with a series of short case studies, this book provides an integrated approach to problem solving in the workplace. Collaborative Problem Solving walks through the steps in the problem solving process, introducing dozens of tools, techniques, and concepts to use throughout. Chris J. Shannon describes the behaviours to practice which are most conducive to creating a positive problem solving culture based on curiosity, collaboration, and evidence-based thinking. This book explains why successful problem solving is a collaborative process and provides tools and techniques for responding to other people’s behaviour when designing and implementing solutions. Offering practical advice on problem solving in an easy-to-understand way, this book is aimed at people working in office environments, service industries, and knowledge organisations, enabling them to feel confident in applying the knowledge from the book in their own workplace. TABLE OF CONTENTSChapter chapter 1 | 14 pages, the problem solving model, chapter chapter 2 | 17 pages, problem solving behaviour, chapter chapter 3 | 10 pages, perceiving the problem, chapter chapter 4 | 26 pages, defining the problem, chapter chapter 5 | 33 pages, investigating the problem, chapter chapter 6 | 10 pages, selecting the solution, chapter chapter 7 | 12 pages, implementing the solution, chapter chapter 8 | 8 pages, reviewing the results, chapter chapter 9 | 14 pages, responding to other people’s behaviour, chapter | 2 pages.
Connect with us Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited Articles sur Collaborative problem solvingEnsemble des articles.  What’s the secret to making sure AI doesn’t steal your job? Work with it, not against itCecile Paris , CSIRO et Andrew Reeson , CSIRO  5 digital games that teach civics through playKaren "Kat" Schrier , Marist College  Collaborative problem solvers are made not born – here’s what you need to knowStephen M. Fiore , University of Central Florida Thèmes connexes
Les contributeurs les plus fréquents Economist, Data61, CSIRO  Associate Professor and Director of Games and Emerging Media, Marist College  Professor of Cognitive Sciences, University of Central Florida  Chief Research Scientist, Data61, CSIRO Partager ce thème
More From ForbesHuman-in-the-loop ai: a collaborative teammate in operations and incident management. 
Tina Huang is the founder and CTO of Transposit , a platform that provides collaborative workflow for the digital enterprise. The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to displace jobs and reshape our daily routines has spurred widespread concern. Despite this apprehension, a novel perspective is taking root, one that calls for a more nuanced and strategic understanding of AI's role: the "human-in-the-loop" approach. Rather than perceiving AI as a wholly autonomous force, it's time for those using this technology to envision it as a capable teammate. Just as physical and digital tools have augmented our abilities for generations, AI that is armed with the ability to use reasoning and logic has the potential to assist and guide us in unprecedented ways. This symbiotic partnership not only empowers us to harness AI's analytical might but also underscores the importance of our uniquely human qualities: creativity, empathy and contextual understanding. As we collaborate with AI, we can unlock new heights of productivity, innovation and problem-solving—ultimately shaping a future that blends the best of human ingenuity and AI. This perspective holds particular relevance for operations teams and incident management. Rather than replacing human involvement, AI stands to be an ally in these mission-critical domains. Analogous to how automation streamlines repetitive tasks, AI can enhance the problem-solving capacity of operations teams. Imagine AI rapidly analyzing complex datasets during critical incidents, providing real-time insights that empower humans to make informed decisions swiftly—or a world where teams don’t need to learn or remember to follow arcane and complex processes. AI could intuitively guide teams through each step of any operational process, using context to offer the right suggestions at the right time. Other time-consuming, resource-intensive tasks—like building automation and teaching team members how and when to use it—can also be offloaded onto AI. When approached strategically, there is great real-world potential for AI to guide teams through incidents and operational tasks, freeing humans to focus on more high-value work. AI As Your Operations TeammateAI isn’t intended to be the end-to-end solution that replaces human involvement but rather a collaborative teammate that complements our skills. AI helps accelerate tasks in our daily lives, from complex data analysis to language translation, allowing us to invest our energy into the creative aspects of problem-solving and evaluating net-new scenarios. Calculators enhance our mathematical capabilities; AI can elevate our cognitive prowess. AI possesses a remarkable capacity for contextual understanding. Its power lies not only in navigating processes but in comprehending the nuances of context itself. Through its inherent reasoning abilities, AI excels at presenting pertinent information precisely when it's needed, offering insightful suggestions and conducting comprehensive analyses of vast datasets. For operations teams, AI's role as a collaborative teammate can become even more powerful. Envision a scenario where your AI partner seamlessly integrates into your operational workflows, becoming a trusted assistant capable of handling tasks that would typically be time-consuming and labor-intensive for humans. Your AI teammate could collect and analyze a plethora of logs, condensing them into concise summaries. Moreover, this teammate has an innate ability to grasp the intricate context of your operations, providing you with precisely the metrics, graphs or insights you need, precisely when you need them. This synergistic relationship between human expertise and AI capabilities can accelerate operational tasks and empower operations teams to make informed decisions swiftly and efficiently. Human-In-The-Loop AI As A Strategic ApproachIt’s important to acknowledge that AI is still in its early days—still known to “hallucinate” or misinterpret commands. Entrusting AI with complete autonomy would be akin to steering a car using voice commands and hoping it understands our intentions correctly. We wouldn’t take the risk. For an operations team, this would be similar to deploying AI-generated automations without human oversight—the risk is too high. By using a human-in-the-loop approach, we harness AI's power while maintaining control and direction. To ensure that AI is viewed as a teammate in this sense, there are a few key steps to consider. First, it’s critical to foster a culture of collaboration and transparency. This should include open communication channels where human team members can understand the AI's capabilities and limitations. It’s also worth investing in training to upskill employees in AI-related competencies so they feel confident working effectively alongside AI systems. Finally, and perhaps most central to the point of this article, always involve human experts in critical decision-making processes. This ensures that AI is viewed as an augmentative tool rather than a replacement. I believe that AI and humans will always be more powerful together. We simply have different skills. Humans are innately good at collaboration, problem-solving and using judgment. AI is innately good at analyzing large amounts of data, finding patterns and providing contextual analyses. Human-in-the-loop AI is not about replacing humans; it's about elevating our capabilities. By embracing AI as a teammate, a thinking tool and a collaborative partner, we can offload mundane tasks and focus on what truly defines us: innovation, creativity and the human touch. While we should tread cautiously through AI's current phases, its potential is immense and already at our fingertips. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify? 
 What is the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) model®( MGH ), in a nutshell?A unique and innovative strengths-based and neurobiologically grounded model, Collaborative Problem Solving (or CPS, as it is commonly referred to) was developed at Massachusetts General Hospital, and now continues to be researched and disseminated out of a program at MGH called Think:Kids . (Portions of this page are adapted from www.thinkkids.org) An evidence-based approach for understanding and working with children and adolescents, as well as transition-aged youth and adults, who demonstrate challenging behavior
Rick & Doris Bowman are Certified Trainers of the Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) approach by Think:Kids, a program based in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, MA – www.thinkkids.org  Excellent presentation! Offered fresh perspective for me and, eventually, to my family. As both a special education teacher and a parent, the skills I learned during Collaborative Problem Solving Training provided by Rick and Doris have allowed me to better understand and support children and their needs. Their passion for the content and extensive real-life experiences have stoked an enthusiasm for sharing this strategy with other parents and colleagues. Additionally, their continued support after the training concluded led me to pursue becoming certified in Collaborative Problem Solving, with the goal of becoming a trainer. Who can benefit from Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) Training®( MGH )?
Collaborative Problem Solving was a new found blessing in my career. I wish I had met Doris and Rick sooner. I have 30+ years of educational experience and found their training to be excellent. CPS melds all of the best practice trainings I have had into a complete package. I highly recommend Bowman Consultants and the CPS training! What’s to be gained by learning the CPS approach®( MGH )?
 I felt like the presentation was great! We really got a chance to work on scenarios, and become comfortable with the process. Truly a great class, and I will be using the tools I learned today, not only in the work setting, but in my home. Ready to schedule your CPS training?Call us at 503-896-6780 or click the button below go to our training calendar:, what’s the premise of the collaborative problem solving®( mgh ) approach. 
The Bowmans are engaging presenters who are passionate about supporting districts in their quest to help students be more successful in school and beyond. They are fully engaged with making sure the district has the support and tools they need to implement Collaborative Problem Solving. Sounds like a lot of training and effort… What makes CPS worth the investment?Brain research supports the use of Collaborative Problem Solving: Research by Dr. Bruce Perry (leading neuroscientist who studies impacts of childhood trauma on the brain – https://childtrauma.org/ ) among others, indicates that numerous aspects of the CPS process referred to as “Plan B” provide components that are critical in order for the brain to develop new neurological pathways. These new neural pathways can become what Dr. Perry refers to as a new “default template” that is necessary in order for the challenging behaviors to be replaced with new, more adaptable behaviors
 Material was presented in a logical and inspirational way! Makes the model come alive! Very authentic! So what kind of Collaborative Problem Solving training is available? How do I get training for myself or my organization? Collaborative Problem Solving training typically occurs in 3 phases for those who wish to become skilled at a level that will promote consistent fidelity and outcomes:
I am very interested in attending the full version of this training. The presenter was fantastic and explained the info in a very easy to understand way. Great info and mindset as a starting point, and I definitely want to learn more! The presenter was very knowledgeable and open to questions throughout the class! I would refer others to this class. Call us at 503-896-6780 or click the button below to go to our training calendar:Dr. Ross Greene Originator of the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Approach Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is the model of care Dr. Greene originated and describes in his various books. The CPS model is based on the premise that challenging behavior occurs when the demands and expectations being placed on a kid exceed the kid’s capacity to respond adaptively…and that some kids are better equipped (i.e., have the skills) to handle certain demands and expectations. So the emphasis of the model isn’t on kids' challenging behavior, which is – whether it’s whining, pouting, sulking, withdrawing, crying, screaming, swearing, hitting, spitting, biting, or worse – just the manner in which they’re expressing the fact that there are expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. Nor does the model focus on psychiatric diagnoses, which are simply categories of challenging behaviors. Rather the model focuses on identifying the skills a person is lacking and the expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. (In the CPS model, those unmet expectations are referred to as unsolved problems.) Then the goal is to help them solve those problems, rather than trying to modify their behavior through application of rewards and punishments. In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the collaborative and proactive variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. The goal is to foster a problem-solving, collaborative partnership between adults and kids and to engage kids in solving the problems that affect their lives. As such, the CPS model is non-punitive and non-adversarial, decreases the likelihood of conflict, enhances relationships, improves communication, and helps kids and adults learn and display the skills on the more positive side of human nature: empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in ways that do not involve conflict, taking another’s perspective, and honesty. All content © Dr. Ross Greene 
 Recent Articles
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVINGCollaborative problem solving, a talk with dr. stuart ablon, a flawless foundation #flawlesstalk. In this presentation at the Churchill School, sponsored by The Flawless Foundation, Dr. J. Stuart Ablon describes what causes challenging behavior and the Collaborative Problem Solving ® approach. Highlights include:
Collaborative Problem Solving, presented by The Flawless FoundationPrivacy overview.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter |
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Qu'est-ce que la résolution collaborative de problèmes ? Ce chapitre introduit et expose les raisons de l'évaluation PISA 2015 de la résolution collaborative de problèmes, tout en en présentant les caractéristiques innovantes, en particulier par rapport à l'évaluation PISA 2012 de la résolution individuelle de problèmes. Il analyse le cadre de l'évaluation et propose ...
Many translated example sentences containing "collaborative problem solving" - French-English dictionary and search engine for French translations.
Browse Collaborative problem solving news, research and analysis from La Conversation Collaborative problem solving - information, recherche et analyse - La Conversation Menu Fermer
Finally, at a higher level, collaborative problem-solving requires keeping the team organized - for example, by monitoring interactions and providing feedback to each other.
On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students' critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.
The Collaborative Problem Solving Approach. The Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach represents a novel, practical, compassionate, and highly effective model for helping challenging children and those who work and live with them. The CPS approach was first articulated in the widely read book, The Explosive Child [ 3 ], and subsequently ...
individual problem solving in PISA 2012. However, today's workplaces also demand people who can solve problems in concert and collaboration with others by combining their ideas and efforts. Collaborative problem solving has several advantages over individual problem solving: labour can be divided among team members; a variety of knowledge, perspectives and experiences can be applied to try ...
This chapter introduces the PISA 2015 assessment of collaborative problem solving. It provides the rationale for assessing collaborative problemsolving competence in PISA and introduces the innovative features of the 2015 assessment, particularly in contrast to the individual problem-solving assessment of PISA 2012. The framework for the assessment is discussed and sample items are presented.
The Collaborative Problem Solving course will help you become familiar with the basics of working in teams and why teamwork is important to our professional and personal success. This course will provide you with essential strategies for solving problems and challenges that arise during collaboration, and provide you with ways to move forward ...
Collaborative Problem Solving is an approach developed at Mass General Hospital that helps children with behavior challenges.
Want to understand collaborative problem solving? Then take a look at this guide from MindManager. We'll show you how to solve problems as a team.
Traductions en contexte de "Collaborative problem solving" en anglais-français avec Reverso Context : Our innovation platforms allow organizations to engage thousands of employees in idea generation and collaborative problem solving.
Collaborative Problem Solving ® (CPS) is an evidence-based, trauma-informed practice that helps students meet expectations, reduces concerning behavior, builds students' skills, and strengthens their relationships with educators. Collaborative Problem Solving is designed to meet the needs of all children, including those with social ...
distinction between individual problem solving and collaborative problem solving is the social component in the context of a group task. This is composed of processes such as the need for communication, the exchange of ideas, and shared identification of the problem and its elements. The PISA 2015 framework defines CPS as follows:
Learn the essentials to Collaborative Problem Solving, the evidence-based approach to helping people meet expectations and manage behavior.
Illustrated with a series of short case studies, this book provides an integrated approach to problem solving in the workplace. Collaborative Problem Solving walks through the steps in the problem solving process, introducing dozens of tools, techniques, and concepts to use throughout. Chris J. Shannon describes the behaviours to practice which ...
Traductions en contexte de "collaborative, problem-solving" en anglais-français avec Reverso Context : To encourage an orientation of imaginative, collaborative, problem-solving and entrepreneurial thinking in addressing the challenges that we face. Traduction Context Correcteur Synonymes Conjugaison.
Games can help players practice important skills related to civics and public life, like communication, empathy and compassion, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
AI helps accelerate tasks in our daily lives, from complex data analysis to language translation, allowing us to invest our energy into the creative aspects of problem-solving and evaluating net ...
Collaborative Problem Solving is an evidence-based approach proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives.
What is the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) model® ( MGH ), in a nutshell? A unique and innovative strengths-based and neurobiologically grounded model, Collaborative Problem Solving (or CPS, as it is commonly referred to) was developed at Massachusetts General Hospital, and now continues to be researched and disseminated out of a program at MGH called Think:Kids. (Portions of this page ...
In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the collaborative and proactive variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. The goal is to foster a problem-solving, collaborative partnership between adults and kids and to engage kids in solving the problems that affect their lives. As such, the CPS ...
Introduction to Collaborative Problem Solving These self-paced online courses introduce the basic principles of Collaborative Problem Solving, an innovative, trauma-informed, and evidence-based approach to understanding and helping kids and adults with behavioral challenges.
In this video Dr. J. Stuart Ablon describes what causes challenging behavior and the Collaborative Problem Solving approach.