developing critical thinking through cooperative learning

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

Center for Teaching

Group work: using cooperative learning groups effectively.

Many instructors from disciplines across the university use group work to enhance their students’ learning. Whether the goal is to increase student understanding of content, to build particular transferable skills, or some combination of the two, instructors often turn to small group work to capitalize on the benefits of peer-to-peer instruction. This type of group work is formally termed cooperative learning, and is defined as the instructional use of small groups to promote students working together to maximize their own and each other’s learning (Johnson, et al., 2008).

Cooperative learning is characterized by positive interdependence, where students perceive that better performance by individuals produces better performance by the entire group (Johnson, et al., 2014). It can be formal or informal, but often involves specific instructor intervention to maximize student interaction and learning. It is infinitely adaptable, working in small and large classes and across disciplines, and can be one of the most effective teaching approaches available to college instructors.

What can it look like?

What’s the theoretical underpinning, is there evidence that it works.

• What are approaches that can help make it effective?

Informal cooperative learning groups In informal cooperative learning, small, temporary, ad-hoc groups of two to four students work together for brief periods in a class, typically up to one class period, to answer questions or respond to prompts posed by the instructor.

Additional examples of ways to structure informal group work

Think-pair-share

The instructor asks a discussion question. Students are instructed to think or write about an answer to the question before turning to a peer to discuss their responses. Groups then share their responses with the class.

Peer Instruction

This modification of the think-pair-share involves personal responses devices (e.g. clickers). The question posted is typically a conceptually based multiple-choice question. Students think about their answer and vote on a response before turning to a neighbor to discuss. Students can change their answers after discussion, and “sharing” is accomplished by the instructor revealing the graph of student response and using this as a stimulus for large class discussion. This approach is particularly well-adapted for large classes.

In this approach, groups of students work in a team of four to become experts on one segment of new material, while other “expert teams” in the class work on other segments of new material. The class then rearranges, forming new groups that have one member from each expert team. The members of the new team then take turns teaching each other the material on which they are experts.

Formal cooperative learning groups

In formal cooperative learning students work together for one or more class periods to complete a joint task or assignment (Johnson et al., 2014). There are several features that can help these groups work well:

• The instructor defines the learning objectives for the activity and assigns students to groups.
• The groups are typically heterogeneous, with particular attention to the skills that are needed for success in the task.
• Within the groups, students may be assigned specific roles, with the instructor communicating the criteria for success and the types of social skills that will be needed.
• Importantly, the instructor continues to play an active role during the groups’ work, monitoring the work and evaluating group and individual performance.
• Instructors also encourage groups to reflect on their interactions to identify potential improvements for future group work.

This video shows an example of formal cooperative learning groups in David Matthes’ class at the University of Minnesota:

There are many more specific types of group work that fall under the general descriptions given here, including team-based learning , problem-based learning , and process-oriented guided inquiry learning .

The use of cooperative learning groups in instruction is based on the principle of constructivism, with particular attention to the contribution that social interaction can make. In essence, constructivism rests on the idea that individuals learn through building their own knowledge, connecting new ideas and experiences to existing knowledge and experiences to form new or enhanced understanding (Bransford, et al., 1999). The consideration of the role that groups can play in this process is based in social interdependence theory, which grew out of Kurt Koffka’s and Kurt Lewin’s identification of groups as dynamic entities that could exhibit varied interdependence among members, with group members motivated to achieve common goals. Morton Deutsch conceptualized varied types of interdependence, with positive correlation among group members’ goal achievements promoting cooperation.

Lev Vygotsky extended this work by examining the relationship between cognitive processes and social activities, developing the sociocultural theory of development. The sociocultural theory of development suggests that learning takes place when students solve problems beyond their current developmental level with the support of their instructor or their peers. Thus both the idea of a zone of proximal development, supported by positive group interdependence, is the basis of cooperative learning (Davidson and Major, 2014; Johnson, et al., 2014).

Cooperative learning follows this idea as groups work together to learn or solve a problem, with each individual responsible for understanding all aspects. The small groups are essential to this process because students are able to both be heard and to hear their peers, while in a traditional classroom setting students may spend more time listening to what the instructor says.

Cooperative learning uses both goal interdependence and resource interdependence to ensure interaction and communication among group members. Changing the role of the instructor from lecturing to facilitating the groups helps foster this social environment for students to learn through interaction.

David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith performed a meta-analysis of 168 studies comparing cooperative learning to competitive learning and individualistic learning in college students (Johnson et al., 2006). They found that cooperative learning produced greater academic achievement than both competitive learning and individualistic learning across the studies, exhibiting a mean weighted effect size of 0.54 when comparing cooperation and competition and 0.51 when comparing cooperation and individualistic learning. In essence, these results indicate that cooperative learning increases student academic performance by approximately one-half of a standard deviation when compared to non-cooperative learning models, an effect that is considered moderate. Importantly, the academic achievement measures were defined in each study, and ranged from lower-level cognitive tasks (e.g., knowledge acquisition and retention) to higher level cognitive activity (e.g., creative problem solving), and from verbal tasks to mathematical tasks to procedural tasks. The meta-analysis also showed substantial effects on other metrics, including self-esteem and positive attitudes about learning. George Kuh and colleagues also conclude that cooperative group learning promotes student engagement and academic performance (Kuh et al., 2007).

Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) confirmed these results in their meta-analysis of 39 studies in university STEM classrooms. They found that students who participated in various types of small-group learning, ranging from extended formal interactions to brief informal interactions, had greater academic achievement, exhibited more favorable attitudes towards learning, and had increased persistence through STEM courses than students who did not participate in STEM small-group learning.

The box below summarizes three individual studies examining the effects of cooperative learning groups.

What are approaches that can help make group work effective?

Preparation

Articulate your goals for the group work, including both the academic objectives you want the students to achieve and the social skills you want them to develop.

Determine the group conformation that will help meet your goals.

• In informal group learning, groups often form ad hoc from near neighbors in a class.
• In formal group learning, it is helpful for the instructor to form groups that are heterogeneous with regard to particular skills or abilities relevant to group tasks. For example, groups may be heterogeneous with regard to academic skill in the discipline or with regard to other skills related to the group task (e.g., design capabilities, programming skills, writing skills, organizational skills) (Johnson et al, 2006).
• Groups from 2-6 are generally recommended, with groups that consist of three members exhibiting the best performance in some problem-solving tasks (Johnson et al., 2006; Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992).
• To avoid common problems in group work, such as dominance by a single student or conflict avoidance, it can be useful to assign roles to group members (e.g., manager, skeptic, educator, conciliator) and to rotate them on a regular basis (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). Assigning these roles is not necessary in well-functioning groups, but can be useful for students who are unfamiliar with or unskilled at group work.

Choose an assessment method that will promote positive group interdependence as well as individual accountability.

• In team-based learning, two approaches promote positive interdependence and individual accountability. First, students take an individual readiness assessment test, and then immediately take the same test again as a group. Their grade is a composite of the two scores. Second, students complete a group project together, and receive a group score on the project. They also, however, distribute points among their group partners, allowing student assessment of members’ contributions to contribute to the final score.
• Heller and Hollabaugh (1992) describe an approach in which they incorporated group problem-solving into a class. Students regularly solved problems in small groups, turning in a single solution. In addition, tests were structured such that 25% of the points derived from a group problem, where only those individuals who attended the group problem-solving sessions could participate in the group test problem.  This approach can help prevent the “free rider” problem that can plague group work.
• The University of New South Wales describes a variety of ways to assess group work , ranging from shared group grades, to grades that are averages of individual grades, to strictly individual grades, to a combination of these. They also suggest ways to assess not only the product of the group work but also the process.  Again, having a portion of a grade that derives from individual contribution helps combat the free rider problem.

Helping groups get started

Explain the group’s task, including your goals for their academic achievement and social interaction.

Explain how the task involves both positive interdependence and individual accountability, and how you will be assessing each.

Assign group roles or give groups prompts to help them articulate effective ways for interaction. The University of New South Wales provides a valuable set of tools to help groups establish good practices when first meeting. The site also provides some exercises for building group dynamics; these may be particularly valuable for groups that will be working on larger projects.

Monitoring group work

Regularly observe group interactions and progress , either by circulating during group work, collecting in-process documents, or both. When you observe problems, intervene to help students move forward on the task and work together effectively. The University of New South Wales provides handouts that instructors can use to promote effective group interactions, such as a handout to help students listen reflectively or give constructive feedback , or to help groups identify particular problems that they may be encountering.

Assessing and reflecting

In addition to providing feedback on group and individual performance (link to preparation section above), it is also useful to provide a structure for groups to reflect on what worked well in their group and what could be improved. Graham Gibbs (1994) suggests using the checklists shown below.

The University of New South Wales provides other reflective activities that may help students identify effective group practices and avoid ineffective practices in future cooperative learning experiences.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., and Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43 (1), 20-34.

Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossing: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4), 7-55.

Dees, R. L. (1991). The role of cooperative leaning in increasing problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (5), 409-21.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7 (1).

Heller, P., and Hollabaugh, M. (1992) Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics 60, 637-644.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2006). Active learning: Cooperation in the university classroom (3 rd edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (2008). Cooperation in the classroom (8 th edition). Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journl on Excellence in College Teaching 25, 85-118.

Jones, D. J., & Brickner, D. (1996). Implementation of cooperative learning in a large-enrollment basic mechanics course. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., and Hayek, J.C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations (ASHE Higher Education Report, No. 32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Love, A. G., Dietrich, A., Fitzgerald, J., & Gordon, D. (2014). Integrating collaborative learning inside and outside the classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25 (3&4), 177-196.

Smith, M. E., Hinckley, C. C., & Volk, G. L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education 68 (5), 413-415.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 96 (1), 21-51.

Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003). The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving ill-defined problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 5-19.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Teaching Guides

• Online Course Development Resources
• Principles & Frameworks
• Pedagogies & Strategies
• Reflecting & Assessing
• Challenges & Opportunities
• Populations & Contexts

Quick Links

• Services for Departments and Schools
• Examples of Online Instructional Modules

• Our Mission

How Cooperative Learning Can Benefit Students This Year

Working on tasks that have been carefully designed to require collaboration helps students develop interpersonal skills.

As students have returned to the classroom this year, it’s important to reignite the power of cooperative learning. Valiant teachers worked to incorporate this invaluable tool in remote learning, but let’s remember its importance as the school year progresses. Cooperative learning skills are crucial for students especially as globalization and technological and communication advances continue to increase the quantity of accessible information and the need for collaboration.

Cooperative learning opportunities aren’t new learning tools, but they have never been more valuable than they are now. With less interpersonal contact and collaboration during remote learning, students spent more time in the digital world. The return to in-person classes gives us the chance for cooperative learning to guide their brains’ reconstruction and boost social and emotional cue awareness.

Common threats to students include making embarrassing mistakes in front of the whole class, being called on when they don’t know the answer, concerns about their mastery of English as a second language, and, for older children, fear of appearing too smart or not smart enough and risking ostracism by peers. These fears can be reduced by the interdependence and support of smaller group collaboration.

What Constitutes Cooperative Work?

To qualify as doing cooperative work, rather than individuals working in parallel in a group, students need each other to complete the task. Students are expected to participate in tasks that are clearly constructed and necessary for the group’s success. The learning objectives are clear and connect to their interests, and students have prerequisite knowledge and know how to seek help when they need it.

The inclusion of belonging to a group, where a student feels valued, builds resilience, social competence, empathy, and communication skills. The interactive and interdependent components of cooperative learning offer the emotional and interpersonal experiences that boost emotional awareness, judgment, critical analysis, flexible perspective taking, creative problem-solving, innovation, and goal-directed behavior.

Planning is essential for developing cooperative group activities, especially in stressful times. When you plan groups, make sure to weigh each member’s strengths so that each is important for the ultimate success of the group’s activity. This means designing groups where all participants have the prerequisite knowledge to participate in general as well as opportunities to enhance the group goal with contributions—from unique past experiences, talents, and cultural backgrounds. This planning can create a situation where individual learning strengths, skills, and talents are valued, and students shine in their forte and learn from each other in the areas where they are not as expert.

Consider these questions when planning:

• Is there more than one answer and more than one way to solve the problem or create the project?
• Is the goal intrinsically interesting, challenging, and rewarding?
• Will each group member be able to contribute in ways that will be valued and appreciated?
• Will each member have opportunities to participate through their strengths?
• Is participation by all members necessary for the group’s goal achievement?
• How will you monitor group and individual skills, learning, and progress?
• Is time planned throughout the experience, not just at the end, for metacognition and revision, regarding goal progress as well as the group’s interpersonal interactions?

Designated, rotating individual roles can promote successful participation by all. These can include recorder and participation monitor (who can act to decrease overly active participation and use strategies to increase participation in those who aren’t engaged). Other roles are creative director (if a physical product such as a poster or computer presentation is part of the project), materials director , accountant , and secretary as needed. When these roles are rotated in projects extending over days or weeks, students build communication and collaboration understanding and skills.

Participants can also periodically check in with each other during group time to answer collaboration questions during the activity, perhaps initially with a checklist. They can consider the following: Is everyone talking? Are we listening to each other? Are we giving reasons for our own ideas and for why we don’t agree with another member’s opinion or ideas? What can we do differently?

Examples of Collaboration in Different Content Areas

Math: Groups collaborate on open-ended problem-solving with members sharing different approaches, strategies, and solutions. Students expand their perspectives as they get to test one another’s conjectures and identify what seems valid or invalid. They are engaged as they discover techniques to test one another’s strategies.

Social studies: Students in groups use their individual skills and interests to put on a political campaign supporting Lincoln or Douglas through posters, political cartoons, oral debates, skits, and computer or video ads. In this small, safer place, they try out ideas as they work together to negotiate rules for campaigning, debating, and scoring the debates.

Reading: Pair-share with a partner. Reading or being read to becomes a learning experience as all students process the material with their partners. They can be guided on topics to discuss such things as big idea, predictions, personal connections with the material, or the literary style and tools used by the author.

Science: Students select a question that they want to evaluate about dinosaur extinction (e.g., asteroid impact, over-foraging). They join a group with their same favorite theory. All members read text or articles or view videos about their chosen dinosaur extinction theory. Then, through a strategy of tea party, card party, or jigsaw, the groups disperse, and members join new groups as the experts on their theories. They then build and carry out plans to evaluate which theory the group will support, why, and how they will represent the validity of their conclusion.

Outcomes of Cooperative Learning

As students have more positive experiences in their small groups, they become more comfortable with participation and academic risk taking (willingness to risk being wrong, offer suggestions, defend their opinions, etc.).

Since it is impossible for all students to have frequent one-on-one teacher experiences throughout the day, cooperative groups can reduce their dependence on their teachers for guidance, behavior management, and progress feedback.

The nature of cooperative group interdependence increases emotional sensitivity and communication skills. The planning of cooperative learning transfers the responsibility of decision-making and conflict resolution to the students. It’s reassuring in times of change and unpredictability to have the supportive and growth experiences of well-planned cooperative learning.

Journal of Technology Education

• Download PDF (English) HTML (English)
• Alt. Display

Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking

• Anuradha A. Gokhale

The concept of collaborative learning, the grouping and pairing of students for the purpose of achieving an academic goal, has been widely researched and advocated throughout the professional literature. The term “collaborative learning” refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. The students are responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful.

The concept of collaborative learning, the grouping and pairing of students for the purpose of achieving an academic goal, has been widely researched and advocated throughout the professional literature. The term "collaborative learning" refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. The students are responsible for one another's learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful.

Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking. According to Johnson and Johnson (1986) , there is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than students who work quietly as individuals. The shared learning gives students an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers ( Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ, 1991 ).

In spite of these advantages, most of the research studies on collaborative learning have been done at the primary and secondary levels. As yet, there is little empirical evidence on its effectiveness at the college level. However, the need for noncompetitive, collaborative group work is emphasized in much of the higher education literature. Also, majority of the research in collaborative learning has been done in non-technical disciplines.

The advances in technology and changes in the organizational infrastructure put an increased emphasis on teamwork within the workforce. Workers need to be able to think creatively, solve problems, and make decisions as a team. Therefore, the development and enhancement of critical-thinking skills through collaborative learning is one of the primary goals of technology education. The present research was designed to study the effectiveness of collaborative learning as it relates to learning outcomes at the college level, for students in technology.

Purpose of Study

This study examined the effectiveness of individual learning versus collaborative learning in enhancing drill-and-practice skills and critical-thinking skills. The subject matter was series and parallel dc circuits.

Research Questions

The research questions examined in this study were:

1. Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "drill-and practice" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively?

2. Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "critical-thinking" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively?

Definition of Terms

Methodology.

The independent variable in this study was method of instruction, a variable with two categories: individual learning and collaborative learning. The dependent variable was the posttest score. The posttest was made up of "drill-and- practice" items and "critical-thinking" items.

The population for this study consisted of undergraduate students in industrial technology, enrolled at Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois. The sample was made up of students enrolled in the 271 Basic Electronics course during Spring 1993. There were two sections of the 271 class. Each section had 24 students in it. Thus, a total of forty-eight students participated in this study.

The treatment comprised of two parts: lecture and worksheet. Initially, the author delivered a common lecture to both treatment groups. The lecture occurred simultaneously to both groups to prevent the effect of any extraneous variables such as time of day, day of week, lighting of room, and others. The lecture was 50 minutes in length. It was based on series dc circuits and parallel dc circuits. Next, one section was randomly assigned to the "individual learning group" while the other section was assigned to the "collaborative learning group". The two sections worked in separate classrooms.

The same worksheet was given to both treatment groups. It was comprised of both drill- and- practice items and critical- thinking items. The full range of cognitive operations were called into play in that single worksheet. It began with factual questions asking for the units of electrical quantities. Next, the questions involved simple applications of Ohm's law and Watt's law or power formula. The factual questions and the simple application questions were analogous to the drill- and- practice items on the posttest. The questions that followed required analysis of the information, synthesis of concepts, and evaluation of the solution. These questions were analogous to the critical- thinking items on the posttest. When designing the critical- thinking items it was ensured that they would require extensive thinking. Both sections had the same treatment time.

Individual Learning

In individual learning, the academic task was first explained to the students. The students then worked on the worksheet by themselves at their own level and rate. They were given 30 minutes to work on it. At the end of 30 minutes, the students were given a sheet with answers to the questions on the worksheet. In case of problems, the solution sheet showed how the problem was solved. The students were given 15 minutes to compare their own answers with those on the solution sheet and understand how the problems were to be solved. The participants were then given a posttest that comprised of both drill- and- practice items and critical- thinking items.

Collaborative Learning

When implementing collaborative learning, the first step was to clearly specify the academic task. Next, the collaborative learning structure was explained to the students. An instruction sheet that pointed out the key elements of the collaborative process was distributed. As part of the instructions, students were encouraged to discuss "why" they thought as they did regarding solutions to the problems. They were also instructed to listen carefully to comments of each member of the group and be willing to reconsider their own judgments and opinions. As experience reveals, group decision- making can easily be dominated by the loudest voice or by the student who talks the longest. Hence, it was insisted that every group member must be given an opportunity to contribute his or her ideas. After that the group will arrive at a solution.

Group Selection and Size

Grading procedure.

According to Slavin (1989) , for effective collaborative learning, there must be "group goals" and "individual accountability". When the group's task is to ensure that every group member has learned something, it is in the interest of every group member to spend time explaining concepts to groupmates. Research has consistently found that students who gain most from cooperative work are those who give and receive elaborated explanations ( Webb, 1985 ). Therefore, this study incorporated both "group goals" and "individual accountability". The posttest grade was made up of two parts. Fifty percent of the test grade was based on how that particular group performed on the test. The test points of all group members were pooled together and fifty percent of each student's individual grade was based on the average score. The remaining fifty percent of each student's grade was individual. This was explained to the students before they started working collaboratively.

After the task was explained, group members pulled chairs into close circles and started working on the worksheet. They were given 30 minutes to discuss the solutions within the group and come to a consensus. At the end of 30 minutes, the solution sheet was distributed. The participants discussed their answers within the respective groups for 15 minutes. Finally, the students were tested over the material they had studied.

Instruments

The instruments used in this study were developed by the author. The pretest and posttest were designed to measure student understanding of series and parallel dc circuits and hence belonged to the cognitive domain. Bloom's taxonomy (1956) was used as a guide to develop a blueprint for the pretest and the posttest. On analyzing the pilot study data, the Cronbach Reliability Coefficients for the pretest and the posttest were found to be 0.91 and 0.87 respectively.

The posttest was a paper- and- pencil test consisting of 15 "drill- and- practice" items and 15 "critical- thinking" items. The items that belonged to the "knowledge," "comprehension," and "application" classifications of Bloom's Taxonomy were categorized as "drill- and- practice" items. These items pertained to units and symbols of electrical quantities, total resistance in series and parallel, and simple applications of Ohm's Law. The items that belonged to "synthesis," "analysis," and "evaluation" classifications of Bloom's Taxonomy were categorized as "critical- thinking" items. These items required students to clarify information, combine the component parts into a coherent whole, and then judge the solution against the laws of electric circuits. The pretest consisted of 12 items, two items belonging to each classification of Bloom's Taxonomy.

Research Design

A nonequivalent control group design was used in this study. The level of significance (alpha) was set at 0.05. A pretest was administered to all subjects prior to the treatment. The pretest was helpful in assessing students' prior knowledge of dc circuits and also in testing initial equivalence among groups. A posttest was administered to measure treatment effects. The total treatment lasted for 95 minutes. In order to avoid the problem of the students becoming "test- wise", the pretest and posttest were not parallel forms of the same test.

A total of 48 subjects participated in this study. A nine item questionnaire was developed to collect descriptive data on the participants. Results of the questionnaire revealed that the average age of the participants was 22.55 years with a range of 19 to 35. The mean grade point average was 2.89 on a 4- point scale, with a range of 2.02 to 3.67.

The questionnaire also revealed that eight participants were females and 40 were males. Nineteen students were currently classified as sophomores and 29 were juniors. Forty- five participants reported that they had no formal education or work experience in dc circuits either in high school or in college. Three students stated that they had some work experience in electronics but no formal education.

The pretest and posttest were not parallel forms of the same test. Hence, the difference between the pretest and posttest score was not meaningful. The posttest score was used as the criterion variable.

At first, a t- test was conducted on pretest scores for the two treatment groups. The mean of the pretest scores for the participants in the group that studied collaboratively (3.4) was not significantly different than the group that studied individually (3.1). The t- test yielded a value (t=1.62, p>0.05) which was not statistically significant. Hence, it was concluded that pretest differences among treatment groups were not significant.

The posttest scores were then analyzed to determine the treatment effects using the t- test groups procedure which is appropriate for this research design. In addition, an analysis of covariance procedure was used to reduce the error variance by an amount proportional to the correlation between the pre and posttests. The correlation between the pretest and the posttest was significant (r=0.21, p<0.05). In this approach, the pretest was used as a single covariate in a simple ANCOVA analysis.

Research Question I

Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "drill- and- practice" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively?

The mean of the posttest scores for the participants in the group that studied collaboratively (13.56) was slightly higher than the group that studied individually (11.89). A t- test on the data did not show a significant difference between the two groups. The result is given in Table 1. An analysis of covariance procedure yielded a F-value that was not statistically significant (F=1.91, p>0.05).

Research Question II

Will there be a significant difference in achievement on a test comprised of "critical- thinking" items between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively?

The mean of the posttest scores for the participants in the group that studied collaboratively (12.21) was higher than the group that studied individually (8.63). A t- test on the data showed that this difference was significant at the 0.001 alpha level. This result is presented in Table 1. An analysis of covariance yielded a F-value that was significant at the same alpha level (F=3.69, p<0.001).

Table 1 Results of t-Test

Discussion of the Findings

After conducting a statistical analysis on the test scores, it was found that students who participated in collaborative learning had performed significantly better on the critical- thinking test than students who studied individually. It was also found that both groups did equally well on the drill- and- practice test. This result is in agreement with the learning theories proposed by proponents of collaborative learning.

According to Vygotsky (1978) , students are capable of performing at higher intellectual levels when asked to work in collaborative situations than when asked to work individually. Group diversity in terms of knowledge and experience contributes positively to the learning process. Bruner (1985) contends that cooperative learning methods improve problem- solving strategies because the students are confronted with different interpretations of the given situation. The peer support system makes it possible for the learner to internalize both external knowledge and critical thinking skills and to convert them into tools for intellectual functioning.

In the present study, the collaborative learning medium provided students with opportunities to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate ideas cooperatively. The informal setting facilitated discussion and interaction. This group interaction helped students to learn from each other's scholarship, skills, and experiences. The students had to go beyond mere statements of opinion by giving reasons for their judgments and reflecting upon the criteria employed in making these judgments. Thus, each opinion was subject to careful scrutiny. The ability to admit that one's initial opinion may have been incorrect or partially flawed was valued.

The collaborative learning group participants were asked for written comments on their learning experience. In order to analyze the open- ended informal responses, they were divided into three categories: 1. Benefits focusing on the process of collaborative learning, 2. Benefits focusing on social and emotional aspects, and 3. Negative aspects of collaborative learning. Most of the participants felt that groupwork helped them to better understand the material and stimulated their thinking process. In addition, the shared responsibility reduced the anxiety associated with problem- solving. The participants commented that humor too played a vital role in reducing anxiety. A couple of participants mentioned that they wasted a lot of time explaining the material to other group members. The comments along with the number of participants who made those comments are described in Table 2.

Table 2 Categorical Description of Students' Open-Ended Responses Regarding Collaborative Learning

Implications for Instruction

From this research study, it can be concluded that collaborative learning fosters the development of critical thinking through discussion, clarification of ideas, and evaluation of others' ideas. However, both methods of instruction were found to be equally effective in gaining factual knowledge. Therefore, if the purpose of instruction is to enhance critical- thinking and problem- solving skills, then collaborative learning is more beneficial.

For collaborative learning to be effective, the instructor must view teaching as a process of developing and enhancing students' ability to learn. The instructor's role is not to transmit information, but to serve as a facilitator for learning. This involves creating and managing meaningful learning experiences and stimulating students' thinking through real world problems.

Future research studies need to investigate the effect of different variables in the collaborative learning process. Group composition: Heterogeneous versus homogeneous, group selection and size, structure of collaborative

learning, amount of teacher intervention in the group learning process, differences in preference for collaborative learning associated with gender and ethnicity, and differences in preference and possibly effectiveness due to different learning styles, all merit investigation. Also, a psycho- analysis of the group discussions will reveal useful information.

Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: An historical and conceptual perspective. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives , 21-34. London: Cambridge University Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain . New York: Longmans Green.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children , 24, 31-32.

Rau, W. & Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and social organization among students. Teaching Sociology , 18, 141-155.

Slavin, R. E. (1989). Research on cooperative learning: An international perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(4), 231-243.

Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A., & Russ, P. (1991). Cooperative learning: A guide to research . New York: Garland.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summary. Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn , 148-172.

Anuradha A. Gokhale is an Associate Professor at Western Illinois University in the Department of Industrial Education and Technology, and is currently a Visiting Associate Professor at Illinois State University.

Copyright, 1995, Journal of Technology Education ISSN 1045-1064 Permission is given to copy any article or graphic provided credit is given and the copies are not intended for sale.

Enhancing Student Thinking through Collaborative Learning Karen Yeok-Hwa Ngeow

Source: Ngeow, K. (1998). Enhancing student thinking through collaborative learning . Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. [ED422586]

Return to: | Readings in Educational Psychology | Educational Psychology Interactive |

Major approaches that relate to group work in the language classroom are known by different labels: cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1992), student team learning (Slavin, 1996), group investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992), and collaborative learning (Barnes et al., 1986). While each of these approaches may differ in certain aspects of learning and instructional design, such as group structure and teacher role, there are certain attributes that are considered common to all group learning approaches (Stahl, 1994).

CRITICAL ATTRIBUTES OF GROUP LEARNING

There are some principles that are common to any group learning approach:

1. a group-learning task is designed based on shared learning goals and outcomes; 2. small-group learning takes place in groups of between 3-5 students; 3. cooperative behavior involves trust-building activities, joint planning, and an understanding of team support conduct; 4. positive interdependence is developed through setting mutual goals; and 5. individual accountability, role fulfillment, and task commitment are expected of students.

There are also some practices in group learning that may vary among group-learning approaches. These include:

1. grouping procedures (e.g., forming homogeneous or heterogeneous groups in terms of skills/levels/interests, role assignment, short or long term group assignment); 2. development of group work skills (e.g., explicit teaching, small group team-building exercises, or promotion of reflection on group dynamics); 3. setting up of interdependence structures (e.g., goal achievement and incentives, resources, division of tasks); 4. evaluation procedures (e.g., individual, peer, or group grading, peer evaluation or self-reflection); 5. definition of the teacher's role, which is complex and may differ in various phases of the group learning activity. For example, the teacher can be supervisory, evaluative, or supportive in maintaining cooperative norms at different stages of student learning.

The list above provides guidelines for planning collaborative learning instruction. What is often overlooked, however, is a consideration of the rationale for students working together in groups in the first place. Duffy and Cunningham (1996) lament that supporters of collaborative learning have previously concentrated only on instructional design issues that deal with structural and management factors such as strategies that ensure fair participatory opportunities. They encourage using group learning to promote dialogical interchange and reflexivity among learners (p.186). This involves having learners share alternative viewpoints, support each other's inquiry processes, and develop critical thinking skills that include the ability to reflect and improve on their own learning.

INSTRUCTIONAL PHASES OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

In the Collaborative Learning Model described by Reid et al. (1989), there are five phases for designing instruction for collaborative learning: engagement, exploration, transformation, presentation, and reflection.

In the "engagement" phase, the teacher sets the stage by providing the class with a collaborative activity. It is important that this task be designed in such a way that it not only provides the basis for ensuing necessary group activities, but also brings home a sense of ownership to its learners. An example of an authentic collaborative activity for a reading classroom is one where students examine the type of persuasive language found in authentic sales literature such as brochures, advertisements, and labels. They can then analyze the kinds of strategies advertisers use to influence potential buyers.

In the "exploration" phase, students work on the initial exploration of ideas and information. Teachers have to decide how much input should be given for the learning task, and how much should be left to the resourcefulness of the students. To encourage group interdependence at this stage, teachers can ask students in teams to demonstrate their learning using different response modes. K-W-H-L-S is one of many strategies that can be used with students of all ages and levels to help insure that every student pursues goals that are individually beneficial and yet congruent with the group's common goal in the learning activity. The basic components of the K-W-H-L-S strategy are:

K: What I know (e.g., information on what I already know about advertisements) W: What I want to learn (e.g., information on advertising strategies) H: How I will learn it and work with others to attain mutual goals (e.g., bring in information, share ideas and compare perspectives) L: What I learned (e.g., evaluating what I have found out and how I can use this information) S: How I shared, or will share what I have learned from others (e.g., writing up a joint report or opinion piece for publication in a magazine)

The third phase has to do with the "transformation" of knowledge. This is where students in their learning groups engage in activities to "reshape" the information by organizing, clarifying, elaborating, or synthesizing learning concepts. It is crucial for this stage of learning that tasks require discussion and contribution from all group members. It is too easy to let a situation turn into one where the most vocal or linguistically proficient member of the group takes over the tasks of clarifying and elaborating on learning concepts, and not have other group members benefit from the collaborative activity. The learning activity designed should therefore be complex enough that there can be many opportunities for knowledge transformation at different levels or in various sub-tasks, thereby involving as many group members as possible. For instance, students take turns categorizing information, looking for examples to support their opinions, and discussing the implications of an advertising strategy on their own and their families' purchasing behaviors.

In the "presentation" phase, student groups have the opportunity to present their findings to an interested and critical audience. It is possible to structure the main activity in a way that would entail having different student groups contribute their findings to make up a bigger learning outcome (e.g., different sections of a proposal). A significant consideration at this stage is to ensure that the audience for the presentation is authentic and can provide responsive feedback to the information generated by the groups' efforts. This can be done with critical peer groups or with expert groups that have a genuine interest in the findings of the presentation. In the above example, the reading group that reviews sales literature and analyzes advertising strategies can now write an article for a consumer awareness magazine on what they have collaboratively learned about the influence of advertising on public buying.

• To prepare for this activity, I ...
• I think I contributed to the group's work quality by ...
• Something that would help us work better next time is ...
• One thing that was not useful to our group work was ...
• Some ways in which the thinking of the group could have been better are ...

Dewey (1938) said that one of the philosophies of education is not to learn merely to acquire information but rather to bring that learning to bear upon our everyday actions and behaviors. Consistent with this goal, we would argue that collaborative learning in the classroom should prepare learners for the kind of team work and critical interchange that they will need to be effective participants in their communities and workplaces in the future.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Torbe, M. (1986). Language, the learner and the school (2nd edition). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Implementing cooperative learning. Contemporary Education, 63 (3), 173-180. [EJ 455 132].

Reid, J., Forrestal, P., & Cook, J. (1989). Small group learning in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Sharan, Y. & Sharan S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press. [ED 367 509].

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Cooperative learning in middle and secondary schools. Clearinghouse, 69 (4), 200-204. [EJ 530 442].

Stahl, R. J. (1994). The essential elements of cooperative learning in the classroom. Bloomington, IN: Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education. [ED 370 881].

This digest was created by ERIC, the Educational Resources Information Center. For more information about ERIC, contact  ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC.

This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RR93002011. Contractors undertaking such projects under government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their judgment in professional and technical matters. Points of view or opinions, however, do not necessarily represent the official view or opinions of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Foster Success With Collaborative Learning Environments

• Classroom Activities/Strategies/Guides

Collaborative learning redefines education by turning passive learners into active participants. Rooted in influential theories, it equips students with deeper comprehension, critical thinking skills, and essential life competencies. Strategic implementation, supported by tools such as LANGUAGE! Live ® from Voyager Sopris Learning ® , fosters a dynamic learning environment where students thrive. By embracing collaborative learning, educators cultivate a community where students not only learn together but also grow together, preparing them for a successful future.

Collaborative learning can transform passive learning into a dynamic, interactive environment that enhances comprehension, retention of knowledge, and essential skills such as critical thinking. By understanding the advantages of collaborative learning, educators can unlock its full potential to benefit students.

Understanding the Concept of Collaborative Learning in Education

Collaborative learning is an instructional method of active learning where students engage with one another in small groups to work on projects. By working as a team, students develop a deeper understanding of the presented concepts. This method allows them to exchange ideas, learn to defend their positions, reframe their thinking based on diverse perspectives, actively listen to their peers, and ultimately work toward a common goal. Rather than receiving information, students become active participants in the learning process fostering a deeper understanding of the material and the development of essential life skills.

The Theories Behind Collaborative Learning

Established learning theories strongly support the effectiveness of collaborative learning. Lev Vygotsky's social learning theory proposes that learning is a social experience. Through interaction with others who are more knowledgeable (e.g. peers or teachers), students internalize new skills and knowledge. Collaborative learning provides this crucial social interaction, allowing students to learn from each other's perspectives and build upon one another's strengths.

Similarly, Jean Piaget's stages of cognitive development theory highlights the value of collaboration. Piaget believed learning occurs through active student engagement, exploration, and interaction. Collaborative activities provide opportunities for students to grapple with ideas, explain their thinking, and refine their understanding through peer interaction.

Key Benefits of Implementing Collaborative Learning Strategies in the Classroom

Beyond simply making lessons more engaging, collaborative learning offers a variety of benefits including helping students develop a deeper understanding of the topic, promoting critical thinking and problem-solving, exposing them to other viewpoints, and aiding in the development of important life skills. Rather than passively listening to lectures, students actively engage in discussions, explain concepts, and grapple with ideas. This reinforces their understanding of the material, strengthens memory, and leads to better comprehension of the topic. 

Furthermore, collaborative learning promotes critical thinking and problem-solving skills. As students explain their reasoning and encounter different viewpoints, they learn to analyze information, consider various perspectives, and arrive at solutions as a team. These activities often involve presenting and defending ideas, challenging assumptions, opening themselves up to new ideas, and exploring alternative explanations. This fosters deeper learning and a more nuanced understanding.

Beyond knowledge acquisition, collaborative learning helps students develop essential life skills. Working together toward a common goal fosters teamwork and shared responsibility for learning. This supportive environment allows them to ask questions, clarify doubts, and learn from each other's strengths. Through active listening, clear communication, and constructive debate, they hone skills—self-management, leadership, and public speaking—crucial for future academic and professional success. 

While both collaborative and cooperative learning approaches have value, it's important to understand the distinction. Collaborative learning emphasizes shared responsibility for understanding the material, while cooperative learning involves structured group work with assigned roles and individual accountability for specific outcomes. Collaborative learning provides a more open-ended environment for knowledge exchange.

Practical Strategies for Facilitating Collaborative Learning

The success of collaborative learning hinges on careful planning and implementation. Here are some actionable strategies for educators seeking to integrate collaborative activities into their classrooms:

• Clearly Define Expectations: Outline the learning objectives, roles within the group (if applicable), and desired outcomes for the collaborative activity. This provides a road map for students and ensures they are focused on achieving the intended goals.
• Form Strategic Groups: Consider student strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles when forming groups. Groups with mixed abilities can foster a more dynamic learning environment. However, it’s also important to ensure group sizes are small enough (typically two to four students) to allow for active participation by all members.
• Monitor and Support: Observe group dynamics, provide feedback, and intervene when necessary to ensure all voices are heard and the group stays on track. This can involve circulating the classroom, checking in with individual groups, and offering guidance or prompting discussion.

How Collaborative Learning Boosts Comprehension, Vocabulary, and Writing

Collaborative learning can help form a strong foundation in core literacy skills. The comprehension of materials is strengthened because when students explain concepts to their peers, they're not just regurgitating information. Instead, they actively process the material and organize their thoughts in a way that clarifies their understanding and allows them to form a stronger grasp of complex topics.

Discussing new vocabulary in a group setting allows students to hear them used in context, ask clarifying questions, and create their own examples. This multifaceted approach promotes deeper learning and retention when compared to solo study.

Collaborative writing activities, like group essays or presentations, offer students the opportunity to learn from each other's ideas and perspectives and gives them valuable experience in giving and receiving constructive feedback. This peer editing process helps identify weaknesses, refine arguments, and ultimately leads to clearer, more polished writing. Examples of collaborative learning activities that target comprehension, vocabulary, and writing skills include:

• Jigsaw Activities: Students become experts on a topic through independent study and then rotate to teach their assigned section to their peers. This not only fosters comprehension but also hones communication skills.
• Group Discussions and Debates: Engaging in discussions about thought-provoking topics encourages students to analyze information, articulate their viewpoints, and consider alternative perspectives.
• Collaborative Creation of Learning Tools: Tasks like building mind maps or concept diagrams together encourage students to synthesize information, identify key points, and explain their understanding to their peers.
• Peer-Review of Writing Assignments: Providing constructive feedback on each other's writing helps students learn how to support one another and refine their own writing skills.

By incorporating collaborative learning strategies, educators can create a dynamic learning environment that not only boosts literacy skills but also equips students with the tools they need to thrive in college, future careers, and life in general. Additionally, administrators can encourage collaboration among staff, model behavior, and ensure collaboration is occurring across the campus as well as the district.

Transforming Learning Environments through Collaborative Learning

Voyager Sopris Learning ® provides a variety of products and services designed to enhance teaching and learning experiences, with a particular emphasis on collaborative learning environments. For example, LANGUAGE! Live ® is a literacy solution that equips educators with the tools necessary to support students in developing their language and reading skills effectively.

It integrates collaborative learning elements into its platform, enabling students to engage with each other in diverse activities aimed at improving their reading, writing, and communication abilities. Through interactive exercises, group discussions, and peer-to-peer feedback, students actively participate in their learning process, fostering collaboration and teamwork.

This solution also empowers teachers with real-time data and insight into student progress, enabling them to personalize instruction and provide targeted support where necessary. This data-driven approach allows educators to identify areas for improvement and adjust their teaching strategies accordingly, ultimately leading to improved student outcomes.

Conclusion: Building a Thriving Collaborative Learning Community

Reinforce Literacy Foundations (Grades 5–12)

Subscribe to EDVIEW360 to gain access to podcast episodes, webinars and blog posts where top education thought leaders discuss hot topics in the industry.

• Corpus ID: 141078822

Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning

• Neil Davidson , Toni Worsham
• Published 1 March 1992
• Education, Mathematics, Psychology

150 Citations

Enhancing college students' critical thinking skills in cooperative groups, how to integrate cooperative skills training into learning tasks: an illustration with young pupils' writing, cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: research and theoretical perspectives., the influence of collaborative group work on students’ development of critical thinking: the teacher’s role in facilitating group discussions, enhancing critical thinking in language learning through computer-mediated collaborative learning: a preliminary investigation, cooperative learning in comparison with the teacher-centredness, an exploratory study on using the think-pair-share cooperative learning strategy, alternative instructional strategies for creative and critical thinking in the accounting curriculum, collaborative learning and critical thinking: testing the link, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: three communicative strands in the language classroom, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Approach in Developing Critical Thinking Skills of Secondary Students

• Conference paper
• First Online: 09 April 2017
• Cite this conference paper

• Evangeline Quines 3  

922 Accesses

1 Citations

This study identified the effectiveness of cooperative learning approach in developing critical thinking skills of secondary students. The study involved 115 second-year level students as subjects. All the subjects were taught lessons using the lecture discussion method and cooperative learning approach alternately. The pseudo-experimental method utilizing the repeated measures design was used in the study. Correlation t -test was used to compare the mean scores on the pretest/posttest of achievement tests and attitudinal inventory scale tests, and Pearson moment correlation was used to determine the correlation between the mean scores on achievement and attitude of students. The study found out that there is a significant improvement in the critical thinking skills of students taught with the use of lecture discussion method and cooperative learning approach. The gain scores between the two groups do not significantly differ during the first three weeks; however, the cooperative learning approach has significantly improved the critical thinking skills of the students on the fourth, fifth, and sixth weeks, respectively. The cooperative learning attitude gain scores are higher than the lecture discussion method attitude gain scores. Lecture discussion method is not significantly related to critical thinking scores, while cooperative learning approach is significantly related to critical thinking scores.

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
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Enhancing College Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Cooperative Groups

Cooperative Learning as a Supplement to the Economics Lecture

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

Facione, PA. (1992). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (A report for the American Philosophical Association). http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php

Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision-making: Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24, 33–44.

Google Scholar  

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning resources for teachers . California: Resources for Teachers.

Lardizabal, A. (1991). Principles and methods of teaching . Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House.

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehmen, J. D., & Russel, J. D. (2006). Educational technology for teaching and learning . Ohio: Pearson Education Inc.

Norton, P., & Wiburge, K. (2003). Teaching with technology: Designing opportunities to earn . Ohio: Pearson Education Inc.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Paul, R. (1999, October). Blooms taxonomy and critical thinking instruction. Elementary School Journal , VI .

Remonde, CM. (2003, February). The return to English. Manila Bulletin (Philippines).

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (1992, November). Critical thinking defined. In Handout given at critical thinking conference . Atlanta, GA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education Region 02, Andarayan National High School, 3503 Andarayan, Solana, Cagayan Valley, Republic of the Philippines

Evangeline Quines

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evangeline Quines .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Geok Bee Teh

Siew Chee Choy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Quines, E. (2017). Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Approach in Developing Critical Thinking Skills of Secondary Students. In: Teh, G., Choy, S. (eds) Empowering 21st Century Learners Through Holistic and Enterprising Learning. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4241-6_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4241-6_12

Published : 09 April 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-4240-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-4241-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this paper

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

Original text

Effective leadership is a cornerstone of success in any organization, driving growth, innovation, and employee engagement. Developing leadership skills implies more than acquiring knowledge; it requires nurturing qualities that inspire and motivate others. Whether you're a seasoned leader or aspiring to become one, comprehending the key attributes of effective leadership is essential. We will delve into the critical qualities of effective leaders, explore strategies for nurturing these attributes, and offer practical insights for personal and professional development. Additionally, leaders in digital marketing can significantly benefit from leveraging white label SEO services to enhance their team's capabilities and deliver comprehensive solutions to clients.

Understanding Leadership

Leadership involves guiding, influencing, and inspiring others to achieve common goals. It involves setting a vision, motivating team members, and fostering collaboration and trust. Effective leaders possess a blend of personal qualities and professional skills that enable them to navigate challenges, make knowledgeable decisions, and drive organizational success. Comprehending the multifaceted nature of leadership is the first step toward developing the skills paramount to lead effectively.

Cultivating Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a foundational quality of effective leadership. It involves the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one's own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. Leaders with high emotional intelligence can build strong relationships, manage stress, and resolve conflicts effectively. Cultivating EI implicates self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills. By developing emotional intelligence, leaders can create a positive work environment, foster collaboration, and enhance team performance.

Building Communication Skills

Clear and effective communication is paramount for successful leadership. Leaders must convey their vision, expectations, and feedback in a manner that is comprehended and accepted by their team. Building communication skills implicates active listening, clarity in messaging, and adapting communication styles to different audiences. Effective leaders use communication to build trust, align team members with organizational goals, and foster an open and inclusive culture.

Developing Decision-Making Abilities

Decision-making is a critical aspect of leadership. Leaders must often make tough choices under pressure, balancing short-term needs with long-term goals. Developing decision-making abilities involves gathering and analyzing information, considering various perspectives, and assessing potential outcomes. Effective leaders are decisive yet flexible, willing to adjust their approach based on new information or changing circumstances. Leaders can navigate complexities and guide their teams toward success by honing their decision-making skills.

Fostering a Growth Mindset

A growth mindset is the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed through dedication and hard work. Leaders with a growth mindset embrace challenges, comprehend failures, and persist in facing setbacks. Fostering a growth mindset implicates encouraging continuous learning, seeking feedback, and viewing obstacles as opportunities for growth. By cultivating this mindset, leaders can inspire their teams to strive for excellence, innovate, and achieve their full potential.

Encouraging Collaboration and Teamwork

Effective leaders understand the power of collaboration and teamwork. They create an environment where team members feel valued, respected, and empowered to contribute their ideas and skills. Encouraging collaboration implicates building a culture of trust, facilitating open communication, and recognizing the strengths of each team member. Leaders who foster teamwork can harness their team's collective intelligence, drive creativity, and achieve better results.

Enhancing Problem-Solving Skills

Problem-solving is essential for leaders, enabling them to address challenges and find effective solutions. Enhancing problem-solving skills implicates critical thinking, creativity, and analyzing situations from multiple perspectives. Leaders must be able to identify root causes, develop actionable plans, and implement solutions efficiently. By improving their problem-solving abilities, leaders can navigate obstacles, drive progress, and support their team's success.

Nurturing Creativity and Innovation

Creativity and innovation are vital for organizational growth and competitiveness. Leaders play a key role in nurturing a culture that encourages creative thinking and innovation. This implies providing experimentation opportunities, supporting risk-taking, and recognizing and rewarding innovative ideas. By fostering an environment where creativity thrives, leaders can drive continuous improvement, inspire their teams, and usher their organizations toward new opportunities and successes.

Developing Conflict Resolution Skills

Conflict is a natural part of any team dynamic, and effective leaders must be adept at resolving conflicts constructively. Developing conflict resolution skills involves comprehending the underlying issues, facilitating open communication, and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Leaders who handle conflicts with empathy and fairness can maintain a positive team atmosphere, stem disruptions, and strengthen relationships. Leaders can ensure a harmonious and productive work environment by mastering conflict resolution.

Encouraging Accountability

Accountability is a key component of effective leadership. Leaders must hold themselves and their team members accountable for their actions and performance. Encouraging accountability implicates setting clear expectations, providing regular feedback, and fostering a culture of responsibility. Leaders who emphasize accountability can drive high performance, ensure alignment with organizational goals, and build a sense of ownership and commitment within their team.

Inspiring Vision and Purpose

A compelling vision and a sense of purpose are paramount for motivating and guiding a team. Effective leaders articulate a clear, inspiring vision aligning with the organization's values and goals. They communicate this vision with passion and conviction, helping team members comprehend their role in achieving it. By inspiring vision and purpose, leaders can unite their team around common goals, foster a sense of meaning, and drive collective effort toward success.

Fostering Adaptability and Flexibility

In a rapidly changing world, adaptability and flexibility are paramount leadership qualities. Leaders must respond to new challenges, opportunities, and environmental shifts. Fostering adaptability implies being open to change, embracing new ideas, and continuously learning. Flexible leaders can effectively adjust their strategies, innovate, and usher their teams through transitions. By cultivating adaptability, leaders can ensure their organization remains resilient and competitive in the face of change.

Building Trust and Credibility

Trust and credibility are fundamental to effective leadership. Leaders must earn the trust of their team through consistent actions, honesty, and integrity. Building trust implicates being transparent, keeping commitments, and demonstrating genuine concern for the well-being of team members. Credible leaders are respected and followed willingly, making motivating and guiding their team easier. Leaders can build strong, cohesive teams and drive organizational success by fostering trust and credibility.

Leveraging Technology and Innovation

In today's digital age, leveraging technology and innovation is paramount for effective leadership. Leaders must stay informed about technological advancements and comprehend how to integrate them into their organization's operations. Leveraging technology involves using tools and systems to enhance productivity, communication, and decision-making. Innovative leaders seek out new technologies that can drive efficiency and competitiveness. By embracing technology, leaders can usher their organization into the future and maintain a competitive edge.

Encouraging Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity and inclusion are paramount for fostering innovation, creativity, and a positive work environment. Effective leaders recognize the value of diverse perspectives and create an inclusive culture where everyone feels valued and respected. Encouraging diversity implicates actively seeking out diverse talent, promoting inclusive practices, and addressing biases. Leaders championing diversity and inclusion can build stronger teams, enhance problem-solving, and drive better decision-making. By fostering an inclusive environment, leaders can ensure that their organization thrives and benefits from various ideas and experiences.

Leading Through Change

Change is inevitable in any organization, and effective leaders must be able to usher their teams through transitions successfully. Leading through change involves clear communication, empathy, and a strategic approach. Leaders must help their team understand the reasons for change, address concerns, and provide support throughout the process. By fostering a positive attitude toward change and demonstrating resilience, leaders can smoothly guide their teams through transitions and maintain morale. Effective change leadership ensures the organization remains agile and ready to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

Building a Positive Organizational Culture

A positive organizational culture is paramount for employee satisfaction, engagement, and productivity. Leaders play a paramount role in shaping and maintaining this culture. Building a positive culture involves promoting core values, recognizing achievements, and fostering a sense of community. Leaders must direct by example, demonstrating the behaviors and attitudes they wish to see in their team. By creating a supportive and positive work environment, leaders can enhance employee well-being, drive high performance, and ensure long-term success.

Developing leadership skills is a continuous journey that involves nurturing key qualities such as emotional intelligence, communication, decision-making, and resilience. Effective leaders inspire and motivate their teams, foster collaboration, and drive organizational success. By understanding and cultivating these paramount attributes, leaders can enhance their personal and professional growth and lead their organizations toward triumph. Whether you're an aspiring leader or looking to improve your leadership abilities, focusing on these qualities will help you build a strong foundation for effective leadership.

Copyright © 2024 SCORE Association, SCORE.org

Funded, in part, through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Small Business Administration. All opinions, and/or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SBA.