how does collaborative learning enhances critical thinking

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.

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

• DOI: 10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2
• Corpus ID: 9410271

Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking

• Published 1995
• Education, Psychology

Tables from this paper

1,738 Citations

Learners' characteristics and critical thinking in online asynchronous collaborative learning, using cooperative learning in teaching critical thinking in reading, the impact of collaborative learning to critically thinking, encouraging students to do collaborative learning in esp course to strengthen students’ oral communication skill, perceptions of students' learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: a case study., the pedagogical impacts on students’ development of critical thinking dispositions: experience from hong kong secondary schools, promoting critical thinking in an online, project-based course, collaborative learning and critical thinking in technology-enhanced environments : an instructional design framework, strategies for promoting critical thinking in the classroom, the implementation of collaborative learning to enhance the students’ critical thinking in writing, 8 references, humanizing the college classroom: collaborative learning and social organization among students., student interaction and learning in small groups, research on cooperative learning: an international perspective, mind in society : the development of higher psychological processes, culture, communication, and cognition : vygotskian perspectives, taxonomy of educational objectives. handbook i: cognitive domain, cooperative learning : a guide to research, action research: cooperative learning in the science classroom., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Collaborative Learning and Critical Thinking: Testing the Link

• The Journal of Higher Education 88(5)

• Mount Mercy University

• University of Iowa

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Fathor Rakhman

• Muhammad Satriawan
• Nirat Jantharajit
• Sarit Srikhao

• Catharine Dishke
• Irene Cheung
• Deanne Van Tol
• Irwanto IRWANTO
• Elma Suryani
• Tiara Setya Cahyani
• INT J TECHNOL DES ED
• Dina Thomason

• Kalebi Rahmat Esa Gea
• Sadiana Lase

• Dewi Suryani
• Think Skills Creativ
• Jason Zapka
• John Martin
• J HIGH EDUC

• Brian P. An

• Ian J Quitadamo

• Stella Cottrell

• Joanne M. McInnerney
• Richard Arum

• K.M. Goodman
• Nathan K. Lindsay
• Charlie Blaich

• P.D. Alison
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Learning Interventions: Collaborative Learning, Critical Thinking and Assessing Participation Real-Time

• First Online: 17 March 2021

Cite this chapter

• Kumaran Rajaram 2  

1416 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter focuses on the authentic learning interventions for team-based and flipped classroom collaborative learning that assesses real-time class participation which develops competency and employability skills set. The discussions address the process in achieving the intended learning outcomes with the adoption of these learning interventions. It provides evidence-based results in terms of how these learning interventions facilitate effective learning in terms of higher-order critical thinking (refers to the process of thinking is made intensive through scaffolding approach that potentially enables learners to question and reflect deeply), deeper engagement amongst students (refers to the ability for students to be motivated and their involvement through listening and/or participation is much more spontaneous) and higher level of collaboration at inter- and intra-group levels (refers to much more interactivity, team-based involvement in engaging within the team members and/or across members of another group). Collaborative learning is generally defined as a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together (Dillenbourg in Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches 1:1–15, 1999), whereas in a cooperative learning context, individuals work together to optimize, maximize their own and each other’s learning to attain shared goals. Largely, there are three categories of cooperative learning namely informal cooperative learning groups, formal cooperative learning groups and cooperative base groups. In our context, informal cooperative learning was focused on. In accordance with research scholars (Johnson et al. in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4):26–35, 1998a; Johnson et al. in Cooperation in the classroom , Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN, 1998b), informal cooperative learning entails students working together to achieve common learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period. In a meta-analysis performed by Johnson et al. (Johnson et al. in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4):26–35, 1998a), studies since 1924 were reviewed and it was found that when students learn together, academic achievement is enhanced. Moreover, students were found to have higher self-esteem and better quality of relationships (Johnson et al. in Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 30(4):26–35, 1998a). The functionalities offered within the learning interventions and support systems fundamentally promote collaboration. Student engagement is correlated with participation in public service, self-reported learning gains, increased student achievement (Carini et al. in Research in Higher Education 47:1–32, 2006) and job engagement (Busteed & Seymour in Gallup Business Journal 19, 2015). The goal of the learning interventions is to maximize student engagement in meaningful learning activities within classroom settings. When students engage in more meaningful learning activities, they are actively learning. DeLozier and Rhodes (DeLozier & Rhodes in Educational Psychology Review 29:141–151, 2017) believed that it is the active learning in class that is responsible for the enhancement in learning performances. The use of learning interventions also increases the number of students participating in meaningful learning activities through providing the quieter students in class an alternative avenue of input other than speaking up in front of the class. Cain and Klein ( Independent School 75(1):64–71, 2015) found in their study that quiet students indeed feel more comfortable sharing their ideas online. Moreover, shy and quiet students contribute more through synchronous online discussion than in regular classroom discussion (Warschauer in CALICO Journal , 7–26, 2015). Lastly, with the synchronous online discussion feature of the activity support system and the organized class activity sequences, it is expected that there will be a reduction in time used for transitions between activities, introductions to activities, and disruptions within activities. Both collaborative learning, through “discussion, clarification of ideas, and evaluation of others’ ideas” (Gokhale in Journal of Technology Education 7:22–30, 1995), and high student engagement (Carini et al. in Research in Higher Education 47:1–32, 2006) enhance the development of critical thinking. It was also argued that critical thinking can be learnt through every interaction (MacKnight in Educause Quarterly 23:38–41, 2000) provided the interaction is supported with specific critical thinking activities (Astleitner in Journal of Instructional Psychology 29:53, 2002; Kim in Interactive Learning Environments 22:467–484, 2014; Weltzer-Ward & Carmona in International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 3:86–88, 2008). Therefore, our learning interventions and supports systems, which enhances students’ engagement and collaborative learning, would also lead to a desirable development of students’ critical thinking ability. The chapter will also describe the varying functionalities and the process of how the learning interventions enable the intended learning outcomes to be achieved. This chapter also furnishes the relevant video and training resources that are developed for the learning interventions. The findings from the surveys and interviews serve as evidence based to validate the discussions that emerge from the analysis.

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

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS quarterly , 159–174.

Google Scholar  

Anthony, S., & Garner, B. (2016). Teaching soft skills to business students: An analysis of multiple pedagogical methods. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79 (3), 360–370.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Finch, R. (2006). An investigation of epistemological and social dimensions of teaching in online learning environments. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5 (4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473204 .

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125.

Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29 (2), 53.

Bedwell, W. L., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2014). Developing the future workforce: An approach for integrating interpersonal skills into the MBA classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0138 .

Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Co-creating curriculum in higher education—Promoting democratic values and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21 (1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120734 .

Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2018). Student participation within teacher education: Emphasising democratic values, engagement and learning for a future profession. Higher Education Research & Development, 37 (7), 1352–1365.

Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning. Global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations (pp. 176–188). Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Educational Development.

Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes were overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28 (1), 31–44.

Britain, S. (2004). A review of learning design: Concept, specifications and tools . A report for the JISC E-learning Pedagogy Programme. Retrieved from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/learningdesigntoolsfinalreport.pdf .

Busteed, B., & Seymour, S. (2015). Many college graduates not equipped for workplace success. Gallup Business Journal , 19.

Cain, S., & Klein, E. (2015). Engaging the quiet kids. Independent School, 75 (1), 64–71. Retrieved from https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/fall-2015/engaging-the-quiet-kids/ .

Carey, P. (2013). Student as co-producer in a marketized higher education system: A case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50 (3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796714 .

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47 (1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9 .

Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personality on social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences, 16 (2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.003 .

Clay, T., & Breslow, L. (2006, April 14). Why students don’t attend class. Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/184/breslow.html .

Coller, B. D., & Scott, M. J. (2009). Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in mechanical engineering. Computers & Education, 53 (3), 900–912.

Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in teaching and learning: A guide for faculty . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., Seijts, G., & Gandz, J. (2013). Developing leadership character in business programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12 (2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0024a .

Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The Learning Activity Management System (LAMS), interact, integrate, impact . Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE).

Dalziel, J. (2014, December 9). LAMS Newsletter 115 . Retrieved from https://lamscommunity.org/dotlrn/clubs/educationalcommunity/forums/message-view?message_id=1891728 .

De Leng, B. A., Dolmans, D. H., Jöbsis, R., Muijtjens, A. M., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2009). Exploration of an e-learning model to foster critical thinking on basic science concepts during work placements. Computers & Education, 53 (1), 1–13.

Delcker, J., Honal, A., & Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Mobile device usage in university and workplace learning settings . Paper presented at the ACET 2017. Jacksonville, FL.

DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9 .

Desiraju, R., & Gopinath, C. (2001). Encouraging participation in case discussions: A comparison of the mica and the Harvard case methods. Journal of Management Education, 25 (4), 394–408.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1, 1–15.

Elise, J. D., Julie, H. H., & Marjorie, B. P. (2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects of grading and cold calling. Journal of Management Education, 30 (2), 354–377.

Erikson, M. G., & Erikson, M. (2018). Learning outcomes and critical thinking—Good intentions in conflict. Studies in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1486813 .

Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59 , 395–430.

Fallows, S., & Steven, C. (2000). Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: A university-wide initiative. Education + Training, 42 (22), 75–83.

Farmer, K., Meisel, S. I., Seltzer, J., & Kane, K. (2013). The mock trial: A dynamic exercise for thinking critically about management theories, topics, and practices. Journal of Management Education, 37 (3), 400–430.

Fellenz, M. R. (2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30 (4), 570–591.

Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science , 1595–1601.

Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement , 97–131, Springer.

Freeman, M., Blayney, P., & Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22 (4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1286 .

Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The Interplay between reflective thinking, critical thinking, self-monitoring, and academic achievement in higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 74 (1), 101–114.

Ghorpade, J., & Lackritz, J. R. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education For Business, 75 (5), 274–281.

Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7 (1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_910 .

Gopinath, C. (1999). Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business, 75 (1), 10–14.

Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (1), 19–30.

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organisation Science, 12 (4), 435–449.

Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326 (5958), 1410–1412.

Hwang, A., & Francesco, A. (2010). The influence of individualism—Collectivism and power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9 (2), 243–257.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998b). Cooperation in the classroom . Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998a). Cooperative learning returns to college what evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30 (4), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629 .

Kim, I.-H. (2014). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22 (4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680970 .

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What Is “enhanced” and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39 (1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404 .

Kordaki, M., & Agelidou, E. (2010). A learning design-based environment for online, collaborative digital storytelling: An example for environmental education. International Journal of Learning, 17 (5), 95–106.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35 (2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090 .

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490.

Laird, T. F. N., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences with information technology and their relationship to other aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46 (2), 211–233.

Latham, A., & Hill, N. S. (2014). Preference for anonymous classroom participation: Linking student characteristics and reactions to electronic response systems. Journal of Management Education, 38 (2), 192–215.

LAMS Foundation. (2004, January 05). Learning activity management system . Available online at https://www.lamsfoundation.org/about_home.htm .

LAMS Foundation. (2012, March 22). Who is using LAMS? Retrieved from https://wiki.lamsfoundation.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=2855 .

Levy, P., Aiyegbayo, O., & Little, S. (2009). Designing for inquiry-based learning with the learning activity management system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00309.x .

Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2009). Student participation in university governance: The role conceptions and sense of efficacy of student representatives on departmental committees. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802602000 .

Logel, C., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). The role of the self in physical health testing the effect of a values-affirmation intervention on weight loss. Psychological Science, 23, 53–55.

Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education, 20 (2), 93–107.

MacKnight, C. B. (2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 23 (4), 38–41.

Mainkar, A. V. (2007). A student-empowered system for measuring and weighing participation in class discussion. Journal of Management Education, 32 (1), 23–37.

Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education, 21 (2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1122585 .

McGlynn, A. P. (2005). Teaching millennials, our newest cultural cohort. Education Digest, 71 (4), 12.

McKeachie, W. (1994). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: Heath.

McLeod, J. (2011). Student voice and the politics of listening in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 52 (2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.572830 .

Melvin, K. B. (1998). Rating class participation. The Teaching of Psychology, 15, 137–139.

Melvin, K. B., & Lord, A. T. (1995). The prof/peer method of evaluating class participation: Interdisciplinary generality. College Student Journal, 29, 258–263.

Ohland, M., Loughry, M., Woehr, D., Bullard, L., Felder, R., Finelli, C., & Schmucker, D. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (4), 609–630.

Panitz, T. (1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation. In M. Theall (Ed.), Motivation from within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel, New directions for teaching and learning . San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishing.

Paulhus, D. L., Duncan, J. H., & Yik, M. S. M. (2002). Patterns of shyness in East-Asian and European-heritage students. Journal of Research in Personality, 36 (5), 442–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00005-3 .

Philip, R., & Dalziel, J. (2004). Designing activities for student learning using the learning activity management system (LAMS) . Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education.

Rajaram, K. (2013). Learning in foreign cultures: Self-reports learning effectiveness across different instructional techniques. World Journal of Education, 3 (4), 71.

Rajaram, K. (2020). Educating mainland chinese learners in business education, pedagogical and cultural perspectives – Singapore experiences . Springer.

Rogers, W. T., 1993. Principles for Fair Student Assessment Practices for Education in Canada. Canadian Journal of School Psychology , 110–127.

Roohr, K., et al. (2019). A multi-level modeling approach to investigating students’ critical thinking at higher education institutions. Journal of Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education., 46 (6), 946–960.

Rossiou, E. R. U. G. (2012). Digital natives...are changed: An educational scenario with LAMS integration that promotes collaboration via blended learning in secondary education. Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning , 468–479.

Sally, B. (2005). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 81–89. ISSN 1742–240X.

Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (6), 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903342038 .

Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28, 19–38.

Sherrard, W. R., Raafat, F., & Weaver, R. R. (2010). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. the Journal of Education for Business, 70 (1), 43–47.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571.

Smith, G. F. (2014). Assessing business student thinking skills. Journal of Management Education, 38 (3), 384–411.

Thomas, M. J. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18 (3), 351–366.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2), 246.

Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (1), 73–82.

Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal , 7–26.

Weltzer-Ward, L. M. L. W. N. E., & Carmona, G. L. M. U. E. (2008). Support of the critical thinking process in synchronous online collaborative discussion through model-eliciting activities. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3 (3), 86–88.

Yasushi, G. (2016). Development of critical thinking with metacognitive regulation. 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age , 353–356.

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81 (2), 267–301.

Zepke, N. (2015). Student engagement research: Thinking beyond the mainstream. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (6), 1311–1323. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024635 .

Zepke, N. (2018). Student engagement in neo-liberal times: What is missing? Higher Education Research & Development , 37 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1370440 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The above two research studies were funded by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) through the NTU Educational Excellence Grants. The author would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for providing valuable feedback and guidance.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Kumaran Rajaram

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kumaran Rajaram .

Appendix A: Post-Survey (After the Intervention of the Learning Support System)

3.1.1 survey questions.

The experience of using “K^mAlive” in this class is ___________________.

Very Positive

Somewhat Positive

Very Negative

What are your thoughts and feelings about your contributions in class being captured?

____________________________________________________________

The use of “K^mAlive” in this class is a/an _________ way to encourage my participation in class.

Very Effective

Somewhat Effective

Ineffective

Very Ineffective

What are your thoughts in terms of the impact of class participation through the adoption of K^mAlive?

The use of “K^mAlive” in this class motivates me to listen more attentively to my classmates’ contributions in class.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

The use of “K^mAlive” in this class developed my critical thinking abilities.

If you have answered “Strongly Agree/Agree” to question 5, can you explain how the use of “K^mAlive” has enhanced your critical thinking skills?

I believe the use of “K^mAlive” in this course gives a fair assessment of my participation in class.

What are your thoughts and feelings regarding the grading of your participation in class using “K^mAlive”?

What do you like the best about the experience of using “K^mAlive” in class? Please explain why.

What would you like to change about the experience of the usage of “K^mAlive” in class? Please explain why.

Any other comments?

Appendix B: Interview Questions

What are your experiences of using this real-time learning support system—K^mAlive?

How does it explicitly enhance (a) higher levels of class participation; (b) make you think more critically; (c) better engagement with your peers in your group and others in the class

What are your overall perspectives of the features offered in this learning intervention—K^mAlive on how it supports your learning process and how do you learn?

Appendix C: Video Resources

Value Proposition of Learning Support System: K^mAlive (5 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOpR4fWL0s

Value Proposition of Learning Support System: K^mAlive (20 min)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjDQcbq84V4

Operational Guide: K^mAlive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Iv0q1IdiM

The video trailers with supporting illustrations could also be viewed in the furnished links:

K^mAlive Learning Blog Site: https://blogs.ntu.edu.sg/learning-innovations/kumalive/

Research Lab for Learning Innovation and Culture of Learning: https://learningintervention.wixsite.com/researchlab/klive

Appendix D: Screen Shot of K^mAlive Feature Embedded with NTULearn (Blackboard)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Rajaram, K. (2021). Learning Interventions: Collaborative Learning, Critical Thinking and Assessing Participation Real-Time. In: Evidence-Based Teaching for the 21st Century Classroom and Beyond. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6804-0_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6804-0_3

Published : 17 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-33-6803-3

Online ISBN : 978-981-33-6804-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Critical Thinking for Team Collaboration: A Guide to Effective Problem-Solving

Critical thinking is an essential skill that enhances a team’s ability to collaborate efficiently and effectively. By honing their critical thinking skills, team members can analyze information, solve problems, and make well-informed decisions. In the context of teamwork, critical thinking also plays a crucial role in improving communication, generating creativity, and fostering a shared understanding among members.

Furthermore, critical thinking in a team setting goes beyond addressing complex problems. Incorporating these skills in everyday communication and decision-making processes can yield significant benefits for professional development and remote work environments. Encouraging a culture that values critical thinking will not only promote enhanced collaboration but also prepare individuals for future challenges and opportunities within their respective fields.

Key Takeaways

Understanding critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a vital skill for effective team collaboration. It involves the ability to analyze information, question assumptions and biases, and reflect on one’s beliefs in order to make informed decisions and foster innovation. This skill set can greatly enhance a team’s ability to solve problems and reach their goals.

One important aspect of critical thinking is recognizing and challenging one’s own biases and assumptions. All individuals possess a unique set of beliefs that can potentially cloud their judgment and decision-making. Within a team, acknowledging and addressing these biases can lead to more effective collaboration, as team members learn to consider diverse perspectives and views.

Another key component of critical thinking is the ability to analyze information. Conducting a thorough analysis of information enables teams to evaluate the relevance, validity, and reliability of facts. This helps the team make informed conclusions, ensuring that decisions are based on accurate and trustworthy data.

In addition, critical thinkers excel at drawing inferences from available data. Making accurate inferences is an essential skill for problem-solving and decision-making, as it allows team members to make connections between seemingly unrelated information in order to generate new ideas or solutions.

The Role of Critical Thinking in Team Collaboration

In a collaborative environment, teamwork and cooperation are key factors that contribute to the overall success of the team. Team members should be able to think critically to evaluate different options, prioritize tasks, and allocate resources efficiently. This way, they can optimize their efforts and time to achieve the set goals in a timely manner.

In conclusion, the integration of critical thinking in team collaboration not only enhances productivity but also promotes innovation, effective decision-making, and open communication. By developing these essential skills, teams can work together more cohesively, ultimately achieving their desired goals.

Communication and Critical Thinking

Information and communication technologies, such as collaborative tools and digital platforms, play a significant role in facilitating communication and critical thinking in team settings. They help streamline processes, enable the sharing of resources, and support remote team members in staying connected. Utilizing such technologies can lead to more efficient decision-making and problem-solving, ultimately enhancing overall team performance.

In summary, nurturing both communication and critical thinking skills within a team leads to more effective collaboration and increased productivity. By incorporating open dialogue, constructive feedback, and the use of information and communication technologies, team members can create a supportive environment that fosters growth and promotes success.

Generating Creativity in Team Collaboration

During brainstorming sessions, it’s important for participants to keep an open mind and be willing to explore different paths before settling on a specific strategy. This process of exploration allows for the emergence of unique and unconventional ideas, which are key ingredients of creativity. Encouraging team members to think divergently and approach problems from various angles can lead to more effective and innovative solutions.

While exploring different ideas, it’s also crucial to ensure that team members maintain a neutral and objective mindset. This helps in critically evaluating each idea and selecting the most viable option, while keeping biases and personal preferences at bay.

Tools and Resources for Critical Thinking

Technology plays a significant role in enhancing critical thinking within a team. Online platforms such as LinkedIn offer various resources on how to encourage critical thinking, though the use of peer reviews, surveys, polls, brainstorming sessions, debriefs, and retrospectives. These tools enable team members to exchange ideas, evaluate different approaches, and draw conclusions based on the collective wisdom of the group.

Organizational infrastructure also plays a crucial role in fostering critical thinking. Creating a culture of open communication and collaboration is essential in enabling team members to engage in constructive debate, express their thoughts, and evaluate different perspectives. Establishing channels for feedback, such as regular team meetings and one-on-one sessions, can help reinforce critical thinking behaviors.

In conclusion, leveraging technology, education, knowledge management systems, and the right organizational infrastructure can significantly impact a team’s ability to think critically and collaborate effectively. By providing the necessary tools and resources, organizations can foster a culture that values critical thinking and ultimately improve team performance.

Experience and Perspective in Critical Thinking

In a collaborative setting, considering multiple perspectives allows the team to weigh different options and contemplate a range of possible outcomes. Each team member’s unique background and personal experiences can provide new insights that might not have been considered otherwise. As individuals synthesize information and share their opinions, they effectively expand the entire team’s collective knowledge base.

Collaborative critical thinking thus greatly benefits from the richness of team member experiences and the varied opinions they bring to the table. By thoroughly examining these perspectives and objectively synthesizing the information, teams can ensure that their decisions are both robust and well-considered.

Decision Making and Problem Solving Through Critical Thinking

One essential aspect of critical thinking in decision-making is the evaluation of pros and cons. By thoroughly examining the strengths and weaknesses of different alternatives, teams can make informed decisions aligned with their objectives. They can also anticipate and mitigate potential negative consequences, thereby supporting a stronger and more effective collaboration.

These techniques enable teams to gather diverse perspectives, analyze information, and decide on the most appropriate course of action.

Critical Thinking in Remote Work

A crucial aspect of fostering critical thinking in remote teams is ensuring that team members have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. With increased autonomy, remote workers must be able to analyze tasks, identify potential challenges, and make informed decisions. Open communication channels, regular check-ins, and performance evaluations can support this process.

By focusing on these aspects of remote work, employers can create an environment where critical thinking flourishes. Teams with strong critical thinking abilities tend to produce better quality work, make more informed decisions, and collaborate more effectively, ultimately benefiting both the individual team members and the organization as a whole.

Benefits of Critical Thinking for Professional Development

In terms of productivity, incorporating critical thinking in team collaboration leads to streamlined operations and reduces time spent on unnecessary tasks. Collaborative learning and critical thinking go hand in hand, fostering an environment where team members effectively communicate, share ideas, and work together to solve problems. This increased efficiency leads to higher overall productivity.

Finally, critical thinking enhances individual accountability by encouraging a thoughtful, reflective approach to work. This mindset promotes taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions, and understanding the impact on the team and organization as a whole. Engaging in critical thinking practices keeps professionals grounded and focused on their actions’ consequences.

Frequently Asked Questions

What skills are essential for collaborative critical thinking, how can critical thinking be applied in a team setting.

Applying critical thinking in a team setting involves asking the right questions, challenging assumptions, evaluating evidence, and fostering a culture of open-mindedness. Teams must encourage members to think critically by creating an environment that promotes the sharing of diverse perspectives, fosters openness and curiosity, and emphasizes clear and concise reasoning.

How does collaboration promote critical thinking?

Why is critical thinking important for teamwork, what are some effective critical thinking training activities for teams.

Effective critical thinking training activities for teams may include workshops on problem-solving and decision-making strategies, group brainstorming sessions, role playing exercises, and team building activities that promote problem-solving and decision-making skills . These activities encourage team members to think critically, collaborate, and learn from one another in a supportive environment.

Can you recommend any books or resources on critical thinking for team collaboration?

You may also like, the relationship between empathy and critical thinking: a balanced approach.

8 Real-World Applications of Critical Thinking in Everyday Decision Making

Boost your associative thinking skills in problem solving: tips and strategies, 10 essential skills for effective critical thinking: mastering analytical techniques, download this free ebook.

K12 (School) Publishers

Empowering K-12 learning with comprehensive digital solutions

Higher-ed Publishers

Redefining academic excellence with our digital platform

Traditional Publishers

Pioneering excellence in digital content delivery and distribution

Associations & Non-profits

Amplifying your community and member engagement with digital learning experiences

Training Institutes

Our collaborative online learning platform for your mission-critical training needs

Why KITABOO?

Maximize your content's potential with secure distribution at scale.

KITABOO SDK

Build your own eReader App using KITABOO’s SDK

Ebook store

Your All-in-One eBook Store: Host. Manage. Sell

Training Solutions

Digitally deliver world-class training

Convert PDF to Reflowable

Automate and scale your static PDFs to Reflowable ePubs

State Textbook Adoptions

Streamline adoptions with state-aligned digital textbooks

Gain Industry Expertise: Dive Into Our Blog Resources

Infographics

Where Data Meets Design: KITABOO's Infographic Showcase

Case Studies

Our Partner success stories of digital transformation

Product Videos

Experience KITABOO in action with our product videos

Discover Best Practices in Publishing: Watch our Webinar series

Whitepapers

Dive Into Digital Publishing Expertise: Explore Our Whitepapers

How to Guides

Your Path to Digital Publishing Mastery: Our How-to-guides

KITABOO FAQ

Demystifying Digital Publishing: Your Questions, Answered

Connect with KITABOO: Explore Our Upcoming Industry Events and Conferences

• Request Demo

How Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

Learning is a continuous process of acquiring knowledge, values, and skills. For learning to be meaningful, this process has to be in concurrence with the goals, requirements, and strengths of learners.

Yet, personal objectives should not exist in isolation within the broader educational context. Instead, they need to integrate seamlessly into it. This is where collaborative learning emerges as a catalyst for meaningful educational experiences. 

Collaboration not only enriches the learning process but also creates avenues for heightened engagement. In this regard, educators can leverage cloud-based digital textbook platforms like KITABOO to foster collaboration and drive home the desired outcomes. It not only facilitates seamless interaction but also provides a platform for students to collectively tackle challenges, cultivating a dynamic environment for skill development.

This blog offers insights into how collaborative learning can enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Read on!

Table of Contents:

I. What is Collaborative Learning?

II. Understanding Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

III. How Does Collaborative Learning Help in Fostering Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills?

Open-Ended Questions and Group Discussions

Real-world scenario challenges, cooperative learning strategies, modeling and scaffolding, peer evaluation activities.

IV. Wrapping Up

What is Collaborative Learning?

Collaborative learning refers to a learning style that fosters teamwork and social interaction. It engages students in working together in pairs or small groups, pooling their collective intellectual resources to complete various learning tasks.

This learning style follows a student-centric approach, which allows learners to understand, learn, seek solutions, or create something through discussions and sharing of ideas with their peers.

When used effectively, collaboration can increase engagement by providing cognitive challenges. Additionally, it can boost self-esteem and motivate students to attain learning milestones.

Today, technological innovations have made it easier for educators to implement collaborative learning strategies. With the help of a platform like KITABOO, they can easily create and deliver educational content that facilitates collaborative discussion and learning. This way, students can actively participate in the learning process, share insights, and benefit from diverse perspectives.

Understanding Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

Both critical thinking and problem-solving are crucial skills that are deeply intertwined.

The ability to interpret, analyze, and evaluate information logically to make informed decisions is referred to as critical thinking. This skill helps individuals approach challenges with an analytical and strategic mindset. It enables them to weigh all aspects of a problem and consider potential outcomes based on the available options.

Problem-solving refers to the ability to analyze a problem, identify the best course of action, and implement the solution. This skill helps individuals understand the root cause of a problem and consider the existing options before taking a call.

Together, these skills form a powerful toolset for navigating complex situations, fostering informed decision-making, and driving effective solutions in various contexts.

How Does Collaborative Learning Help in Fostering Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills?

Critical thinking and problem-solving skills enable individuals to understand the implications of their decisions, leading to improved decision-making abilities.

Here’s how educators can leverage collaborative learning to help students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills:

Open-ended questions and discussions count among the most effective ways of collaborative learning. They require students to share their reasoning, explain their perspectives, or justify their opinions. Such collaborative discussions boost critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Educators can use open-ended questions to encourage students to think outside the box, explore different perspectives, and challenge their assumptions.

Challenging tasks and scenarios related to real-world problems and situations are a great way to foster critical thinking and problem-solving skills . Educators can ask students to solve the challenges as part of their group activities.

By creating tasks and scenarios that engage students and captivate their curiosity, educators can motivate them to find the right solutions. 

This approach serves as an ideal foundation for collaborative learning , where students are motivated to apply their knowledge and skills in significant, realistic contexts. In doing so, they benefit from a dynamic learning environment that fosters collective problem-solving and knowledge sharing.

Cooperative learning strategies boost collaboration and communication among students. They enable students to gain exposure to diverse perspectives, opinions, and ideas.

Collaboration and communication also help students to develop qualities like respect, empathy, communication skills, etc. Such diverse perceptions and qualities play an essential role in developing a mindset for critical thinking and problem-solving.

Modeling and scaffolding are pedagogical strategies where educators exemplify the step-by-step process of problem-solving.

This method typically encompasses stages such as identifying the problem, developing potential solutions, brainstorming alternatives, experimenting with theories or ideas, and analyzing the results.

For effective modeling and scaffolding, educators can employ a variety of innovative techniques. These might include integrating content with visual aids like graphic organizers, employing ‘think-aloud’ strategies to verbalize the thought process, and using rubrics for structured evaluation.

Peer evaluation is a purposeful activity designed to enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills among students. In this activity, students exchange constructive feedback on tasks or projects with their peers.

Educators can facilitate this by organizing students into small groups, where each student’s work is reviewed and critiqued by the others in turn. Such peer-to-peer collaboration allows students to become actively involved in the learning process.

This activity is not just a learning exercise; it’s a social process that fosters a deeper understanding through dialogue.

Wrapping Up

Collaborative learning is an impactful educational approach that can help students enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving skills effectively.

By encouraging students to collaborate on tasks and activities, educators can enhance their educational experience. This way, they not only enable students to strengthen their understanding of concepts and ideas but also help them improve essential interpersonal skills. 

With the advantage of a well-recognized digital textbook platform like KITABOO , educators can easily engage students in collective learning activities. As an educator, you can leverage this platform to create interactive and engaging content that promotes group discussions and teamwork in the long run.

Connect  with us to start a conversation.

Write to us at [email protected] for more info!

Suggested Reads:

• Inquiry-Based Learning
• Cloud Ebook Publishing
• Best Apps to Read PDF Books on Android Devices
• Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K12 Schools?
• eBook to Audiobook Converters

Discover how a mobile-first training platform can help your organization.

Kitaboo is a cloud-based platform to create, deliver & track mobile-first interactive training content.

Scott Hanson

Scott Hanson is the AVP of Business Development at KITABOO. He is an experienced Business Development & Publishing Technology professional with expertise in dealing with Societies & Non-Profits. More posts by Scott Hanson

Get the latest posts delivered right to your email.

Sign up to Newsletter

You may also like.

How to Create Interactive Content for Sales Enablement

Interactive content is the new buzzword in communication with 88% of marketers s...

DRM – Secure Platform to Create Engaging Ebooks for Hi...

DRM, or Digital Rights Management, has become even more important today as every...

Crafting DRM eBooks Like a Pro: Mastering Digital Rights Man...

Digital Rights Management is prevalent across industries. It is a critical resou...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.15(4); Winter 2016

Collaborative Learning in Higher Education: Evoking Positive Interdependence

Karin scager.

† Department of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands

Johannes Boonstra

‡ Department of Biology, Utrecht University, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands

Ton Peeters

Jonne vulperhorst, fred wiegant.

This study focuses on factors increasing the effectiveness of collaborative learning. Results show that challenging, open, and complex group tasks that required the students to create something new and original evoked effective collaboration.

Collaborative learning is a widely used instructional method, but the learning potential of this instructional method is often underused in practice. Therefore, the importance of various factors underlying effective collaborative learning should be determined. In the current study, five different life sciences undergraduate courses with successful collaborative-learning results were selected. This study focuses on factors that increased the effectiveness of collaboration in these courses, according to the students. Nine focus group interviews were conducted and analyzed. Results show that factors evoking effective collaboration were student autonomy and self-regulatory behavior, combined with a challenging, open, and complex group task that required the students to create something new and original. The design factors of these courses fostered a sense of responsibility and of shared ownership of both the collaborative process and the end product of the group assignment. In addition, students reported the absence of any free riders in these group assignments. Interestingly, it was observed that students seemed to value their sense of achievement, their learning processes, and the products they were working on more than their grades. It is concluded that collaborative learning in higher education should be designed using challenging and relevant tasks that build shared ownership with students.

INTRODUCTION

Students may learn a lot from working in groups, but the learning potential of collaboration is underused in practice ( Johnson et al ., 2007 ), particularly in science education ( Nokes-Malach and Richey, 2015 ). Collaborative, cooperative, and team-based learning are usually considered to represent the same concept, although they are sometimes defined differently ( Kirschner, 2001 ); we consider these concepts comparable and use the term “collaboration” throughout the paper. In collaborative learning, students participate in small-group activities in which they share their knowledge and expertise. In these student-driven activities, the teacher usually acts as a facilitator ( Kirschner, 2001 ).

Several decades of empirical research have demonstrated the positive relationship between collaborative learning and student achievement, effort, persistence, and motivation (for reviews, see Slavin, 1990 ; Webb and Palinscar, 1996 ; Barron, 2000 ; Johnson et al ., 2007 ). Collaborative learning potentially promotes deep learning, in which students engage in high-quality social interaction, such as discussing contradictory information ( Visschers-Pleijers et al ., 2006 ). In science education, a deep-learning approach is crucial for understanding concepts and complex processes ( Van Boxtel, 2000 ). Understanding of these concepts involves a process of conceptual change, a process particularly activated in collaborative learning, whereby students interact by explaining to and questioning one another critically ( Van Boxtel et al ., 2000 ; Linton et al ., 2014 ). In previous papers, we have explored and emphasized the relevance of collaborative learning in undergraduate biology courses ( Wiegant et al ., 2012 , 2014 ). By comparing university student achievement in a biology course in individual and group settings, Linton et al . (2014) found that students in group settings achieved significantly better with respect to conceptual understanding in comparison with students in courses with an individual setting. Besides these cognitive benefits, collaborative learning provides social skills needed for future professional work in the field of science.

Just forming groups, however, does not automatically result in better learning and motivation ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ; Gillies, 2004 ; Khosa and Volet, 2013 ). In their study of university students’ preferences for collaborative learning, Raidal and Volet (2009) found an overwhelming preference for individual forms of learning. Students are hesitant about group work because of the occurrence of “free riders,” logistical issues, or interpersonal conflicts ( Livingstone and Lynch, 2000 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ; Pauli et al ., 2008 ; Shimazou and Aldrich, 2010 ; Hall and Buzwell, 2012 ). As a result, students might opt for a strategic approach by dividing the work and merely using a stapler to “integrate” their work into a group paper. Johnson and Johnson (1999) refer to groups showing this kind of superficial behavior as “pseudo learning groups.” In turn, the resulting lack of synthesis can be disappointing for teachers. Dividing work also implies that students lose the potential learning effect of collaborating, since the extent to which students benefit from working with other students depends on the quality of their interactions ( Van Boxtel et al ., 2000 ; King, 2002 ; Palinscar and Herrenkohl, 2002 ; Volet et al ., 2009 ). Insight into factors that facilitate collaborative learning is critical for understanding how collaboration can be used effectively in higher education. Therefore, in the present study, we explore factors that optimize the quality of collaboration, using examples of effective group work in five different life sciences courses.

POTENTIAL FACTORS ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

Social interaction is crucial for effective collaboration ( Volet et al ., 2009 ). Learning outcomes of collaborative-learning groups have been found to depend on the quality of student discussions, including argumentation ( Teasley, 1995 ; Chinn et al ., 2000 ), explaining ideas to one another ( Veenman et al ., 2005 ), and incorporating and building on one another’s ideas ( Barron, 2003 ). These interactions with peers are assumed to promote students’ cognitive restructuring ( Webb, 2009 ). Explaining things to one another and discussing subject matter may lead to deeper understanding, to recognition of misconceptions, and to the strengthening of connections between new information and previously learned information ( Wittrock, 1990 ). The question of how to organize collaboration in a way that promotes these kinds of interactions is paramount.

Decades of research on group work have resulted in the identification of various factors that potentially enhance the effectiveness of collaboration. These factors can be differentiated as primary factors (design characteristics) and secondary or mediating factors (group-process characteristics). Regarding primary factors, groups need to be small (three to five students) to obtain meaningful interaction ( Lou et al ., 2001 ; Johnson et al ., 2007 ). With respect to group composition, mixed-ability groups have been found to increase performance for students of lower ability, but this composition does not necessarily benefit high-ability students ( Webb et al ., 2002 ). Equal participation, however, has been shown to be more important for students’ achievement than group composition, because students are more likely to use one another’s knowledge and skills fully when all students participate to the same extent ( Woolley et al ., 2015 ). Heterogeneity, with respect to diversity of perspectives and styles, has been found to increase learning, particularly in groups working on tasks that require creativity ( Kozhevnikov et al ., 2014 ). The nature of the task has been shown to be an important factor as well. Open and ill-structured tasks promote higher-level interaction and improve reasoning and applicative and evaluative thinking to a greater extent than closed tasks ( Gillies, 2014 ). In addition, complex tasks provoke deeper-level interactions than simple tasks ( Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1989 ).

Concerning secondary or intermediate factors affecting group work, positive interdependence theory is one of the best-founded theories explaining the quality of interaction in collaborative learning ( Slavin, 1990 ; Johnson and Johnson, 1999 , 2009 ; Gully et al ., 2002 ). According to this theory, collaboration is enhanced when positive interdependence exists among group members. This is achieved when students perceive the contribution of each individual to be essential for the group to succeed in completing the assigned activity ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). Positive interdependence results in both individual accountability and promotive interaction. Individual accountability is defined as having feelings of responsibility for completing one’s own work and for facilitating the work of other group members. A sense of mutual accountability is necessary to avoid free riding ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ), which occurs when one or more group members are perceived by other members as failing to contribute their fair share to the group effort ( Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ). Promotive interaction has been described as students encouraging and facilitating one another’s efforts to accomplish group goals, both with respect to group dynamics and the subject matter ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ).

Methods of inducing positive interdependence interaction are either reward or task based ( Johnson et al ., 2007 ). Reward-based interdependence structures the reward in such a way that students’ individual grades depend on the achievement of the whole team. According to Slavin (1991 , 1995 ), collaborative learning is rarely successful without group rewards. In higher education, however, findings on the effects of reward-based interdependence are inconclusive. The main concern is that rewards stimulate extrinsic motivation and may be detrimental to intrinsic motivation ( Parkinson and St. George, 2003 ). Intrinsically motivated students put effort into a task because they are interested in the task itself, while extrinsically motivated students are interested in the reward or grade ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). Strong incentives, such as grades, could steer student motivation toward the reward and subsequently reduce the task to being a means to an end. Serrano and Pons (2007) , however, found that using rewards (individual grades) created high positive interdependence in group work at a university level. They concluded that the reward structure did direct students’ motivation toward final grades, while the task still aroused the interest of the students. In contrast, Sears and Pai (2012) found that rewards were not crucial factors affecting group behavior. Their study showed that groups continued to work even after the reward was removed, whereas the efforts of students working individually decreased after the reward was removed.

In structured task-based interdependence, students are forced to exchange information; this can be achieved by assigning group members different roles, resources, or tasks (the “jigsaw” method) or by “scripting” the process, which involves giving students a set of instructions on how they should interact and collaborate ( Kagan, 1994 ; Dillenbourg, 2002 ). The effects of task structuring on collaborative learning are, however, not clear ( Fink, 2004 ; Hänze and Berger, 2007 ; Serrano and Pons, 2007 ). Hänze and Berger (2007) observed no differences in achievement between students who worked in jigsaw-structured groups and students who worked individually. In contrast, the observations of Brewer and Klein (2006) indicated that students in groups with given roles plus rewards interacted significantly more frequently than students in groups with given rewards only or in groups without structured interdependence factors. (Over)structuring interaction processes, on the other hand, could threaten intrinsic motivation and disturb natural interaction processes ( Dillenbourg, 2002 ). Although it is widely accepted that positive interdependence has been shown to be crucial in evoking social interaction, in practice, university students often tend to merely go through the motions and choose the solution requiring the least effort, which explains why positive interdependence often does not emerge ( Salomon and Globerson, 1989 ). Additional methods are necessary to encourage quality interactions that enhance learning. Moreover, the mixed results of university education studies concerning structuring interdependence—using either rewards or task structuring—do not solve the challenge of how to create interdependence without disturbing the intrinsic motivation of students. Forcing students to interact could endanger student autonomy and motivation, while merely putting students together has been shown to be ineffective.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Despite the considerable amount of research on collaborative learning, less is known about how to structure university-level group work in order to capitalize on the benefits of collaborative learning. The studies discussed earlier focused on primary and secondary education and are not fully applicable to higher education, because students in undergraduate classes may have different schedules and often have not met before. Moreover, group work of university students is mostly organized outside class hours in the absence of teachers. Furthermore, literature in this area may be limited in applicability, as many studies of factors affecting collaboration have used (quasi)experimental designs, in which outcomes of two or three designs were compared ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). A restriction of this method is that only the hypothesized independent variables are studied, while other important factors contributing to effectiveness might be overlooked. In our study, we approached the theme retrospectively, investigating the learning of student groups known to have collaborated and achieved highly, according to their teachers. Rather than focusing on learning outcomes, we explored how group work in these courses was structured. Understanding the factors that facilitate students’ collaboration is critical to understanding how this approach to learning can be used more effectively in higher education. We explicitly focused on positive examples of effective collaborative learning, as best practices should be communicated to others ( Dewey, 1929 , p.11).

In the current study, we selected five different life sciences undergraduate courses that comprised successful group-work assignments. The specific question this study aimed to address was, according to the students, what factors increased collaboration in these courses? By uncovering the factors that make collaborative learning fruitful, we aim to provide useful guidelines for instructors implementing collaborative learning.

Participants

The present study involved focus group interviews with nine groups of second- and third-year students of five different undergraduate life sciences courses. We depended heavily on these focus group interviews to develop our understandings. They allowed us to gain insight into students’ perspectives, which is important because, to a large degree, students’ perspectives of instruction affect what they do and learn ( Shuell, 1996 ). Furthermore, the group exchanges of experiences and perspectives promoted breadth, as well as depth, in our understandings of the cognitive, behavioral, and situational factors contributing to the effectiveness of the collaboration. The particular courses were selected because they all implemented group work that, according to teacher assessments and student evaluations, was very effective. We approached the instructors of these courses with the request to ask their students to volunteer in focus group discussions. Students were willing to participate in these focus group discussions, although not all students were able to meet at the scheduled times. No specific reward was promised for participating in focus group discussions.

Between two and 10 students participated in each of the nine focus group interviews (see Table 1 ).

Course, number of focus group interviews, and students per interview

Course Descriptions

We focused on five courses that were all small-enrollment, upper-division courses in which 15–35 students participated per course. In all courses, collaborative activities occurred during class hours but also outside of class. In some courses, the out-of-class cooperative activities even exceeded the in-class activities.

Course A: The first course was part of a biology honors program. In this part of the program, groups of second-year bachelor’s students (12–19 students) were assigned the group task of writing a popular science book about a biology topic of their choice. Students had to perform all the activities necessary to produce the book. The project was strongly student-led, and students assigned themselves tasks necessary for finishing the project. The assignment comprised an entire academic year, starting in September and finishing in May/June as an extracurricular activity. More details of this course are described elsewhere ( Wiegant et al ., 2012 ).

Course B: Students in the immunology course, mostly third-year students, were assigned the task of writing, in groups of four, a short research project on an immunological topic. The assignment was structured in three parts: in part 1, groups designed a draft of their proposal; in part 2, the groups peer reviewed the draft of another group; and in part 3, the groups received the draft and comments of yet another group, which they had to finish and present. The assignment comprised approximately half of the course.

Course C: In the advanced cell biology course, three small teams of four or five students collaborated intensively during a semester of 15 weeks to formulate three PhD proposals within an overarching theme. Because the course was student-led, the teachers refrained from guiding the students in their decisions, instead taking a facilitating role by asking critical questions and providing feedback. As a result of the project, the teams presented and defended their research program and the three research proposals before a jury of experts. More details of this course are given elsewhere ( Wiegant et al ., 2011 , 2014 ; Scager et al ., 2014 ).

Course D: The objective of the molecular cell biology course was to learn to design a research project in groups of four. In this course, students were required to complete multiple assignments, such as reviewing a paper, developing a research proposal, designing experiments, and writing and defending their proposals. Groups met with their supervisor once a week and were supposed to keep the course coordinator informed on their progress. Final grades were based on individual (40%) and group (60%) components.

Course E: As a part of the pharmacy course, third-year students, in groups of four to six participants, were required to analyze the quality of a specific pharmacotherapy. The assignments were authentic and were provided by external commissioning companies. The group assignment counted for 70% of the final grade (50% group report and presentation; 20% individual reflection).

The interviews were semistructured and included two basic questions: 1) “What factors made group work effective in this course (as opposed to other experiences you have had)?” and 2) “What was the added value in this course of working in a group (as opposed to working individually)?” The addition of “as opposed to …” was aimed to encourage students’ thinking process; we did not ask students to elaborate on these opposing experiences. Interviewers stimulated and moderated discussions, ensuring depth as well as diversity. To focus and structure the interviews and to stimulate the sharing of discussion outcomes, we listed the answers to the two questions on a flip chart.

First, the intentions of the interview were clarified, followed by an explanation of the confidential nature of the interview. All students agreed and gave permission for the interviews to be audiotaped. All of the authors conducted one or more interviews, with the first author (K.S.) moderating them. The focus group interviews were held in or near the classroom associated with each of the specific courses. The interviews were ∼60 minutes each and were transcribed verbatim.

Detecting Factors That Facilitated Group Work.

Data were analyzed by the first and fourth authors (K.S. and J.V.) in three partially overlapping stages. Stage 1 comprised reading and rereading the transcripts to identify text units relevant to the subject of challenge. Given the aim of the focus group interviews, this meant ignoring small talk and sorting discussion units related to the two interview questions into focal issues. Stage 2 comprised identifying and coding themes related to the two main interview questions regarding 1) factors and 2) added value, using NVivo version 10 (a qualitative data-analysis computer software package). First, open coding was applied. The answers to both questions, however, evoked answers that pointed to intermediary variables affecting the outcomes of collaboration. For example, the question regarding factors brought forward the importance of the assignment being complex enough to make students feel mutually interdependent, while for the question regarding added value, students referred back to how the complexity of the assignment stimulated them to discuss, build on, and learn from one another’s ideas. The interactions provoked by the complexity of the task seemed to connect complexity with learning outcomes. Therefore, when axial coding was applied, we decided to develop three clusters of codes focused on the factors of effective collaboration, the mediating variables, and the added value of collaboration. Subsequently, selective coding was applied, wherein codes were clustered into larger sets informed by theory ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). Only factors that were mentioned in more than half of the focus groups were kept. This resulted in two sets of factors. The first set of factors related to the design of the group assignment (autonomy, group size, task design, and teacher expectations). The second set consisted of mediating variables related to the working processes of the groups (team and task regulation, promotive interaction, interdependence, responsibility, and mutual support and motivation).

Reliability and Validity.

Reliability is considered in terms of equivalence and internal consistency ( Sim and Wright, 2000 ). Reliability was ensured by intercoder consistency ( Burla et al ., 2008 ). Given the complexity and inhomogeneity of group discourse, agreement testing was constrained to core concepts or themes of substantive importance ( Kidd and Parshall, 2000 ). The equivalence of coding was addressed by selecting 20% of the data and comparing the coding of two secondary raters (10% each) for consistency, which yielded a kappa coefficient of 0.85. This strength of agreement is considered to be “nearly perfect” ( Everitt, 1996 ). Internal consistency was acquired by having one team member moderating all (but one) of the interviews ( Kidd and Parshall, 2000 ). The emergence of substantively similar viewpoints of the focus groups on the core issues across the five different courses supported content validity ( Kidd and Parshall, 2000 ). Furthermore, we assessed content validity by independent coding and by comparing this with theory in extant literature ( Morgan and Spanish, 1985 ; Torn and McNichol, 1998 ).

Factors That Contributed to the Effectiveness of the Collaboration

Eight factors were found to have a positive effect on the effectiveness of the collaboration. These factors are presented in Table 2 : 1) design factors: the design of the course and/or the assignment (the autonomy of the students, task characteristics, teacher expectations, and group size); and 2) process factors: the way students interacted and organized their work (team and task regulation, interdependence, promotive interaction, and mutual support and motivation).

Factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the collaboration

a “Source” refers to how many of the nine interviews the topic was discussed in; “reference” refers to the total number of times the topic was discussed.

Table 2 shows that autonomy and the density and complexity of the task were the factors most frequently mentioned by the students as contributing to the effectiveness of the collaboration. Team and task regulation, positive interdependence, and promotive interaction were perceived by students as the most important factors with respect to the way they processed the assignments. In the next section, we describe the results more elaborately, starting with the design features of these courses that are considered to enhance collaboration processes.

Design Factors

The autonomy the groups experienced was mentioned in all focus groups, indicating the importance of this factor to the effectiveness of collaboration. Autonomy was manifested in allowing student groups to choose their own topics (e.g., for their research plans) and giving them independence in organizing their processes. Statements such as “It was our own thing” occurred frequently in all nine focus group discussions. The references to “our thing” indicate that the students made choices as a group, which could have restricted individual feelings of autonomy. The students, however, did not seem to have experienced clear boundaries between individual and group autonomy. Even though their personal ideas may have been overruled by the team, they still felt autonomous, because they made decisions democratically. As one of the students said, “When you participate in the decision process it is easier to accept than when the decision is made by the teacher.”

Two features of the task were perceived as important contributors to the effectiveness of the group work. First, the density and complexity of the task was crucial. The group task needed to be extensive enough for the group members to really need one another’s contributions to finish in time and complex enough to require them to discuss their work and provide one another with feedback. Second, students perceived the relevance of the task at hand to be an important feature. The task relevance was found in different aspects, depending on the assignment. For the biology honors groups, for example, the process of writing a popular science book and getting it published increased their feelings of doing something significant. The cell biology and immunology groups emphasized the relevance of doing research, in terms of formulating a relevant proposal in the same way as it is done “in the real world.”

In terms of rewards , students emphasized that the inherent value of the end product, such as an article, a research proposal, or a book, stimulated them to achieve, which relates back to the perceived task relevance. As a student of the biology honors course said, “We have also had other group projects …, but that was taken less seriously, because you, well it was nice, but well, the result wouldn’t reach beyond the classroom, while in this project it will.” There were no grades involved in this particular course, which students appreciated, because they believed the end product to be more important than a grade. Also, in other groups, discussions about assessment were learning and/or reward oriented rather than grade oriented; for example, in one of the pharmacy groups it was said: “You are in a learning process, and I think sometimes that it is a shame that it should end in a grade—that creates a tension. And if things go wrong, that could be very beneficial for your learning, but it can also happen that you do not receive a high grade for it.”

In all of the interviews, students mentioned that it was crucial that the task was the core project in the course at that time, as students of the immunology course stated: “I think also because this is not something you do on the side, but this is the only thing we do at the moment, it is the main activity.” The fact that students’ final grades depended primarily on the group assignment was mentioned in some groups. Students emphasized that in previous experiences with group assignments they had not collaborated as intensively because their final grade did not depend largely on the team assignment.

Finally, group size was considered a factor stimulating collaboration in seven of the groups, specifically related to the level of responsibility students felt. Groups of three or four were believed to be optimal: “Otherwise, you get a sort of diffuse responsibility …, and with four you are clearly responsible for an important part of the process.”

Process Factors

The need for team and task regulation was mentioned most frequently in the focus group discussions as an important factor increasing the effectiveness of collaboration. Students divided tasks, appointed team leaders, and set their own deadlines. Organizing frequent face-to-face meetings was very helpful, according to students: “That we met each other physically, instead of doing everything by mail or chat, like in other projects. This works much better, if you can look each other in the eyes it is way faster and more efficient to manage and decide things …. It also increases the pressure, everybody prepares for a meeting.” The quote in Table 2 indicates the direct relation between the autonomy of the groups and their dedication to following their self-made group regulations.

As shown in Table 2 , students in all nine focus groups experienced a sense of positive interdependence in terms of needing one another in order to succeed and achieve their goal. The feeling of responsibility was discussed in six groups. The related issue of “uneven contribution” was discussed in all nine of the focus groups: students did experience differences in power and effort between team members. Interestingly, students did not perceive this as free riding. According to the students, some degree of uneven contribution is only natural; the students all did their best, but as the students said, “There weren’t students who contributed less; there were only students who contributed more.” According to the students, this uneven contribution was due to power differences, not to disinterest or laziness. Students showed empathy for their peers who contributed less: “The strong people might go too hard for the other people to be able to catch up.” This may have caused frustration in students who felt they were lagging behind, as one of them revealed: “You have that responsibility that drives you and then you feel the need to do more, but perhaps that is beyond your capabilities at that point.” Some of the groups discussed the issue of uneven contribution while working on their projects, but always, they stated, in an “understanding and respectful way.” Furthermore, students in all nine interviews mentioned the fact that the variety among students was useful and enhanced the discussions: “working in a group consisting of clones of yourself” would not be as interesting, one of the pharmacy groups stated.

All nine groups mentioned the need for promotive interaction several times, drawing attention to the need to discuss content to accomplish team goals. They mentioned several indicators of promotive interaction: discussions, exchange of information, and arguments, building on one another’s ideas, explaining to one another, providing and processing peer feedback, and asking one another critical questions. According to the students, these discussions enhanced their understanding, and they also learned how to discuss, voice their opinion, explain, listen to others, accept feedback, and reflect on their own work.

Last, but not least, students talked enthusiastically about the way they supported and motivated one another. There was explicit help and pep talks, and, perhaps even more importantly, implicit mutual inspiration effected by them perceiving the motivation of their peers.

Finally, we found one contextual factor (not included in Table 2 ) contributing to collaboration: the shared motivation of students to get the best out of the group assignment. Students mostly linked their having similar motivations to the fact that they were in their second or third year (four of the five courses were third-year courses). First, the students already knew one another: “When you are in your first year, you do not know each other, and some people are a bit insecure, so to say. But now we know each other, so we may scold each other all we can.” Furthermore, students suggested being equally motivated, because the unmotivated students had already left in previous years.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current study was to find factors that enhance student collaboration. The collaboration processes (task and team regulation, mutual support and motivation, positive interaction) used by these students were distinctly effective. During these processes, positive interdependence was clearly present, supporting the notion that positive interdependence is a crucial factor affecting the effectiveness of collaboration ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ). Although the interview data do not allow causal relations between design factors and collaboration processes to be inferred, it seems reasonable to assume that positive interdependence was evoked by a combination of the nature of the task (autonomous, relevant, dense and complex, group rewards), the prominent placement of the group assignment within the course, and the group size.

The results indicate that positive interdependence was an important factor contributing to the effectiveness of collaboration. The positive effect of interdependence on student achievement has already been well documented (for reviews, see Slavin, 1990 ; Webb and Palinscar, 1996 ; Johnson et al ., 2007 ). Although we disassembled the factors contributing to collaboration in the analysis , we assume interdependence does not consist of a single factor but rather is constructed through the interaction between motivated students and design factors (the nature of the task and student autonomy). Furthermore, the fact that the final grade depended primarily on the group assignment can be expected to have contributed to students’ interdependence, which would concur with the findings of Slavin (1991) . Interestingly, however, these students seemed to value the learning process and the products they were working on more than their grades. Our finding, that a sense of achievement rather than a grade was of greater importance in motivating interdependence, contradicts findings of Slavin (1991) and Tsay and Brady (2010) . Tsay and Brady (2010) found that the degree of active participation of university students in collaborative groups was affected by the importance they attached to grades: students who perceived grades as highly important were more active collaborators.

The enthusiasm of the students when speaking of the way they supported and motivated one another and regulated the team and task processes indeed indicates the occurrence of strong self-regulatory processes. Although some structure was provided beforehand in all five courses (e.g., final deadlines), students were perceived to be autonomous in the planning and regulation of their work, which they said added to their motivation to follow their own rules and planning. This direct relationship between perceived autonomy and self-regulatory behavior is aligned with self-determination theory ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). According to Deci and Ryan (2000) , when teachers are supportive of student autonomy, students are motivated to internalize the regulation of their learning activities, whereas when teachers are controlling, self-regulated motivation is undermined. The self-regulatory social processes of these students, encouraged by the autonomy they were provided, were the most important factors increasing the effectiveness of their collaboration in these five cases.

Individual accountability is an important aspect within the theory of positive interdependence. Interestingly, instead of accountability, students used the word “responsibility.” The difference between responsibility and accountability is meaningful, because accountability is focused on the end result, or being answerable for your actions to relevant others, while responsibility is related to the task. Responsibility is viewed as having a higher level of autonomy and involves the ability to self-regulate actions free of external motivational pressure. In contrast, the accountable actor is subject to external oversight, regulation, and mechanisms of punishment ( Bivins, 2006 ). The term “responsibility” more appropriately fits the collaboration in these cases, as one of our participants illustrates: “You feel the responsibility to other people in your group, because as soon as soon as you drop the ball, the rest have to work harder.” This student does not refer to consequences externally imposed on him, but he feels responsibility toward others. The effect this has may be the same as when students are forced to be accountable because of reward- or task-based structures, as suggested by Johnson and Johnson (2009) ; however, the nature of the motivation is more intrinsically than extrinsically induced.

Related to the issue of accountability or responsibility is the problem of free riding, which is one of the main problems of group work in higher education ( Livingstone and Lynch, 2000 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ; Pauli et al ., 2008 ; Shimazou and Aldrich, 2010 ). In the interviews in which the issue of free riding came up, however, groups did not seem to have experienced the phenomenon. A putative explanation for the lack of free-riding behavior is the incidence of accountability ( Slavin, 1991 ; Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ; Onwegbuezie et al ., 2009 ), as students definitely felt responsible for the end result. The way students spoke about their group members, however, was in terms of mutual trust rather than accountability. Students recognized differences in contribution but did not perceive this as problematic. They were empathic toward differences between students. If there were negative feelings at all, the low contributors were more apt to feel frustrated, indicating that the differences in contribution were, as Hall and Buzwell (2012) have suggested, involuntary and due to inadequacy rather than apathy or laziness.

In the five courses of this study, the combination of design factors seems to have prevented free riding. Although the causal nature of the relationship between design features of the group work and effective group processing cannot be claimed in the current study, the results indicate that, in particular, perceived autonomy and the challenging nature of the task evoked students’ motivation to make an effort. The relevance of the tasks, which required students to produce something new (to them) and something original and tangible, motivated students. The tasks were also open and complex, which are features that have already been found to promote deeper-level interactions than simple tasks ( Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1989 ; Cohen, 1994 ). Autonomy was a factor frequently mentioned as contributing to the effectiveness of the group work. Contradictory to Johnson and Johnson’s (2009) recommendation for teachers to structure processes, students of these courses designated the autonomy they had in choosing their topic and in organizing the process, as one of the factors increasing their motivation. Results from organizational research show that autonomy can, in fact, increase teamwork achievement, but only when positive interdependence is high ( Langfred, 2000 ). Autonomy combined with low interdependence decreases achievement, indicating that autonomy should be combined with challenging tasks. Although autonomy and level of challenge in a group assignment appears to be vital, instructors in different settings may need to use greater scaffolding.

Future Research and Concluding Remarks

It is important to keep in mind the small sample and restricted context when interpreting these findings. Although the results have been obtained in small-enrollment, upper-division courses, we think that our findings might also be transferable to large-enrollment courses, provided students will be working in self-directed small groups on substantial and relevant projects. As generalizability requires data on large populations, the findings of our five cases within a restricted context are not necessarily representative of the larger population. We believe, however, that there are strong reasons for our findings to be deemed “transferable” ( Lincoln and Guba, 1985 ) to comparable situations. While generalization is applied by researchers, transferability is a process performed by the readers of research ( Metcalfe, 2005 ). Unlike generalizability, transferability does not involve broad claims but invites readers of research to make connections between elements of a study and their own experiences ( Barnes et al ., 2012 ). According to Berliner (2002 , p. 19), implementing scientific findings is always difficult in education, “because humans in schools are embedded in complex and changing networks of social interaction.” Therefore, we do not claim to have produced broadly generalizable findings but instead invite the reader to identify how the findings can be transferred to his or her situation. Similar studies with data from other university contexts, such as other countries or other class settings, would help in understanding how the conditions that facilitate collaborative learning relate to different settings.

We assume, however, that the concept of evoking, rather than enforcing, positive interdependence by increasing autonomy and the challenge level of the task provides relevant insights for discourse on effective design of group work within life sciences education. Students in life sciences education, in general, are quite experienced in working in groups and in regulating their own work. Autonomy, combined with a challenging task, evoked interdependence and generated interaction as well as student motivation in these five cases. Structuring the process, for example by scripting, seems unnecessary for promoting student interaction. It was, in Dillenbourg’s (2002) words, not necessary to “didactisise” collaborative interactions or to disturb the autonomy and natural interactions of students. Moreover, structuring the process could have impeded the feeling of autonomy, which is crucial for student motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Brewer and Klein (2006) came to a similar conclusion in their investigation of the influence of types of interdependence (roles, rewards, roles plus rewards, no structure) on student interaction. The groups with no structured interdependence had significantly more cognitive interactions involving content discussion than the other groups, indicating that structuring interdependence is not always necessary with university students. We suggest that collaborative learning with university students should be designed using challenging and relevant tasks that build shared ownership with students.

Acknowledgments

Drs. Kristin Denzer, Mario Stassen, and Fons Cremers are gratefully acknowledged for encouraging their students to participate in the interviews.

• Aggarwal P, O’Brien C. Social loafing on group projects: structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. J Market Educ. 2008; 30 :255–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes J, Conrad K, Demont-Heinrich C, Graziano M, Kowalski D, Neufeld J, Zamora J, Palmquist M. Generalizability and transferability. 2012. Writing@CSU, Colorado State University http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=65 (accessed 14 November 2015).
• Barron B. Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. J Learn Sci. 2000; 9 :403–436. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barron B. When smart groups fail. J Learn Sci. 2003; 12 :307–359. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berliner DC. Educational research: the hardest science of all. Educ Res. 2002; 31 :18–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bivins TH. Responsibility and accountability. In: Fitzpatrick K, Bronstein C, editors. Ethics in Public Relations: Responsible Advocacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. pp. 19–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3 :77–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer S, Klein JD. Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous collaborative learning environment. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2006; 54 :331–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burla L, Knierim B, Barth KL, Duetz M, Abel T. From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nurs Res. 2008; 57 :111–117. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chinn CA, O’Donnell AM, Jinks TS. The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. J Exp Educ. 2000; 69 :77–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen EG. Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev Educ Res. 1994; 64 :1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000; 11 :227–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dewey J. The Sources of a Science of Education. New York: Liveright; 1929. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dillenbourg P. Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner PA, editor. Three Worlds of CSCL. Can We Support CSCL. Heerlen: Open University Nederland; 2002. pp. 61–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Everitt B. Making Sense of Statistics in Psychology: A Second-Level Course. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fink DL. Beyond small groups: harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In: Michaelsen LK, Bauman Knight A, Fink LD, editors. Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in Teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus; 2004. pp. 3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. Cooperative learning: developments in research. Int J Educ Psychol. 2014; 3 :125–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies RM. The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learn Instr. 2004; 14 :197–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gully S, Incalcaterra K, Joshi A, Beaubien J. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J Appl Psychol. 2002; 87 :819–832. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall D, Buzwell S. The problem of free-riding in group projects: looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learn High Educ. 2012; 14 :37–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hänze M, Berger R. Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: an experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learn Instr. 2007; 17 :29–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hertz-Lazarowitz R. Cooperation and helping in the classroom: a contextual approach. Int J Res Educ. 1989; 13 :113–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Making cooperative learning work. Theory Pract. 1999; 38 :67–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT. An educational psychology success story: social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educ Res. 2009; 38 :365–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith K. The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007; 19 :15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagan S. Cooperative Learning, 2nd ed. San Clemente, CA: Kagan; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khosa DK, Volet SE. Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: a metacognitive intervention. Stud High Educ. 2013; 38 :870–889. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kidd PS, Parshall MB. Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2000; 10 :293–308. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King A. Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Pract. 2002; 41 :33–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirschner PA. Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative teaching/learning. Res Dialogue Learn Instruction. 2001; 2 :1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozhevnikov M, Evans C, Kosslyn SM. Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: a modern synthesis and applications in education, business and management. Psychol Sci. 2014; 15 :3–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langfred CW. The paradox of self-management: individual and group autonomy in work groups. J Organ Behav. 2000; 21 :563–585. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linton DL, Farmer JK, Peterson E. Is peer interaction necessary for optimal active learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014; 13 :243–252. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingstone D, Lynch K. Group project work and student-centred active learning: two different experiences. Stud High Educ. 2000; 25 :325–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lou Y, Abrami P, d’Apollonia S. Small group and individual learning with technology: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2001; 71 :449–521. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalfe M. Generalisation: learning across epistemologies. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2005; 6 (1) www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-17-e.htm (accessed 5 January 2016) [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan DL, Spanish MT. Social interaction and the cognitive organisation of health-relevant behavior. Sociol Health Illness. 1985; 7 :401–422. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nokes-Malach TJ, Richey JE. When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ Psychol Rev. 2015; 27 :645–656. [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwegbuezie AJ, Collins KMT, Jiao QG. Performance of cooperative learning groups in a postgraduate education methodology course. Active Learn High Educ. 2009; 10 :265–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palincsar AS, Herrenkohl LR. Promoting thinking through peer learning. Theory Pract. 2002; 41 :26–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parkinson TJ, St. George AM. Are the concepts of andragogy and pedagogy relevant to veterinary undergraduate teaching. J Vet Med Educ. 2003; 30 :247–253. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pauli R, Mohiyeddini C, Bray D, Michie F, Street B. Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educ Psychol. 2008; 28 :47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raidal SL, Volet SE. Preclinical students’ predispositions towards social forms of instruction and self-directed learning: a challenge for the development of autonomous and collaborative learners. High Educ. 2009; 57 :577–596. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salomon G, Globerson T. When teams do not function the way they ought to. Int J Educ Res. 1989; 13 :89–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scager K, Akkerman SF, Pilot A, Wubbels T. Challenging high ability students. Stud High Educ. 2014; 9 :659–680. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sears DA, Pai H-H. Effects of cooperative versus individual study on learning and motivation after reward-removal. J Exp Educ. 2012; 80 :246–262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Serrano JM, Pons RM. Cooperative learning: we can also do it without task structure. Intercultural Educ. 2007; 18 :215–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimazou J, Aldrich H. Group work can be gratifying: understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. Coll Teach. 2010; 58 :52–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shuell TJ. Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In: Berliner DC, Calfee RC, editors. Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: MacMillan; 1996. pp. 726–763. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sim C, Wright J. Research in Health Care: Concepts and Methods. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thomes; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE. Cooperative learning. Rev Educ Res. 1990; 50 :315–342. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE. Group rewards make groupwork work. Educ Leadership. 1991; 48 (5):89–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston: Allyn Bacon; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teasley SD. The role of talk in children’s peer collaboration. Dev Psychol. 1995; 31 :207–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torn A, McNichol E. A qualitative study utilizing a focus group to explore the role and concept of the nurse practitioner. J Adv Nurs. 1998; 27 :1202–1211. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsay M, Brady M. A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: does working in teams make a difference. J Scholarsh Teach Learn. 2010; 10 (2):78–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Boxtel C. PhD Thesis. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University; 2000. Collaborative concept learning: collaborative learning tasks, student interaction and the learning of physics concepts. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Boxtel C, Van Der Linden J, Kanselaar G. Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learn Instr. 2000; 10 :311–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenman S, Denessen E, Van den Akker A, Van der Rijt J. Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. Am Educ Res J. 2005; 42 :114–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Visschers-Pleijers AJSF, Dolmans DHJM, De Leng BA, Wolfhagen IHAP, Van Der Vleuten CPM. Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: a process study. Med Educ. 2006; 40 :129–137. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volet SE, Summers M, Thurman J. High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: how does it emerge and how is it sustained. Learn Instr. 2009; 19 :128–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb NM. The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009; 79 :1–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb NM, Nemer KM, Zuniga S. Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. Am Educ Res J. 2002; 39 :943–989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb NM, Palinscar AS. Group processes in the classroom. In: Berliner D, Calfee R, editors. Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan; 1996. pp. 841–873. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegant F, Boonstra J, Peeters A, Scager K. Team-based learning in honors science education: the benefit of complex writing assignments. J National Collegiate Honors Council. 2012; 13 :219–227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegant F, Scager K, Boonstra J. An undergraduate course to bridge the gap between textbooks and scientific research. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2011; 10 :83–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegant FAC, Scager K, Peeters AJM, Boonstra J. The challenge of writing a PhD proposal in honors (undergraduate) education: a group project as significant learning experience. In: Wolfensberger MVC, Drayer L, Volker JJM, editors. Munster, Germany: Waxmann; 2014. pp. 77–84. Pursuit of Excellence in a Networked Society: Theoretical and Practical Approaches Coming from the Conference Excellence in Higher Education and Beyond. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wittrock MC. Generative processes of comprehension. Educ Psychol. 1990; 24 :345–376. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolley AW, Aggarwal I, Malone TW. Collective intelligence and group performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015; 24 :420–424. [ Google Scholar ]

Collaborative Learning Strategies for Better Classroom Interaction

Collaborative learning is all about students working together to achieve shared goals. It’s not just about group work—it’s about meaningful interaction that helps students learn better. When students collaborate effectively, they engage more with the material and with each other, which leads to better outcomes for everyone. This guide will show you how to use collaborative learning strategies to improve classroom interaction and make learning more engaging and effective.

What is Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning is a teaching method where students work together in small groups to achieve a common goal. Instead of learning individually, students actively share ideas, discuss concepts, and support each other’s understanding of the material. This approach emphasizes teamwork and student participation, moving away from traditional teacher-centered instruction.

In collaborative learning, students are often grouped in pairs or small teams. They engage in joint intellectual efforts, whether searching for solutions, exploring new ideas, or creating projects. These activities focus on students interacting with the course material in a hands-on way, rather than just passively listening to lectures.

This method represents a shift from the conventional model where the teacher is the central source of knowledge and students primarily listen and take notes. Instead, teachers adopting collaborative learning approaches act more as facilitators or coaches. They design engaging and interactive learning experiences, guiding students through their exploration and application of the material. This encourages deeper understanding and more active involvement in the learning process.

Key Principles of Collaborative Learning

• Shared responsibility: In collaborative learning, every student in the group is responsible for contributing to the task. This creates a sense of accountability and encourages students to work together effectively.
• Active engagement: Students are actively involved in their learning. They ask questions, explain their thinking, and engage in discussions with their peers, which helps deepen their understanding of the subject.
• Diverse perspectives: Collaboration brings together different viewpoints. When students work in groups, they learn to consider ideas that may be different from their own, leading to a richer learning experience.
• Communication and interaction: Collaborative learning promotes strong communication skills. Students must articulate their thoughts clearly, listen to others, and build on each other’s ideas to solve problems or complete tasks.

Why Use Collaborative Learning?

Collaborative learning is used because it helps students learn better by working together. When students share ideas and help each other, they can understand the material more deeply. This method also builds important skills like teamwork, communication, and problem-solving, which are useful in real life.

By discussing and explaining things to each other, students can see different viewpoints and clear up any confusion they might have. Working in groups also makes learning more enjoyable and engaging, as students are more involved in the process. Instead of just listening to the teacher, they take an active role in their own learning.

What Are Collaborative Learning Strategies?

Collaborative learning strategies are methods or approaches used by educators to help students work together in groups to achieve common learning goals. These strategies are designed to encourage interaction, teamwork, and the sharing of ideas among students. The focus is on learning as a collective process, where students help each other understand concepts and solve problems, rather than just working individually.

Key Components of Collaborative Learning Strategies

• Group work: Students are divided into small groups to work on tasks or projects together. The size of the group can vary, but it’s usually kept small enough to ensure that everyone participates.
• Shared goals: Each group is given a clear, common goal that they need to achieve together. This could be completing a project, solving a problem, or understanding a specific concept.
• Interdependence: Students rely on each other to succeed. Each member of the group has a role or responsibility, and their contributions are crucial to the group’s overall success. This creates a sense of accountability within the group.
• Active participation: Collaborative learning strategies require all students to be actively involved. Whether it’s discussing ideas, solving problems, or presenting their work, everyone has a role to play.
• Teacher as a facilitator: The teacher guides the learning process, providing support and direction when needed, but allowing students to take the lead. The teacher’s role is to encourage collaboration and ensure that the group is working effectively.

Benefits of Collaborative Learning Strategies in the Classroom

Collaborative learning strategies offer several benefits in the classroom. By working together, students not only improve their understanding of the material but also develop important social and critical thinking skills.

Improved understanding

Collaborative learning helps students understand material better. When they work together, they explain concepts to each other, which reinforces their own knowledge. This shared learning experience often leads to a deeper grasp of the subject matter.

Enhanced critical thinking

Working in groups encourages students to think critically. They must analyze different viewpoints, discuss various solutions, and evaluate ideas together. This process helps them develop stronger problem-solving skills and a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Stronger social skills

Collaborative learning builds important social skills. Students practice communicating clearly, listening to others, and working as a team. These skills are valuable not only in school but also in future careers and everyday life.

Increased engagement

Group activities make learning more interactive and fun. Students are more likely to be engaged and motivated when they are actively participating and working with their peers. This increased engagement can lead to better retention of information and a more enjoyable learning experience.

Greater accountability

In a collaborative setting, each student has a role to play and is responsible for their part of the work. This shared responsibility encourages students to stay on task and contribute to the group’s success, fostering a sense of accountability and teamwork.

12 Collaborative Learning Strategies to Foster Stronger Teamwork

To build stronger teamwork in the classroom, various collaborative learning strategies can be used. These methods encourage students to work together, share ideas, and support each other in achieving common goals.

1. Group discussions

Group discussions involve students talking about a topic or question in small groups. This technique allows students to share their ideas, listen to others, and build a collective understanding of the subject. It helps students articulate their thoughts and learn from diverse perspectives.

How to use it

• Form groups - Divide the class into small groups, typically with 3-5 students each. Make sure the groups are balanced in terms of skills and abilities.
• Assign a topic or question - Provide each group with a topic or question related to the lesson. Make sure it is clear and relevant to what they are learning.
• Set guidelines - Explain how the discussion should be conducted. Encourage students to listen to each other, share their ideas, and build on what others say.
• Monitor progress - Walk around the classroom to listen to the discussions and offer guidance if needed. Ensure that all students are participating and staying on topic.
• Share findings - After the discussion, have each group share their main points or conclusions with the class. This allows students to learn from other groups and see different perspectives.
• Reflect and summarize - End the discussion by summarizing the key points and connecting them to the lesson. Encourage students to reflect on what they learned from the group discussion.
• Ready to use
• Fully customizable template
• Get Started in seconds

2. Role assignments

Role assignments mean giving each student a specific job or responsibility within the group, such as a leader, recorder, or presenter. By clearly defining roles, each student knows what they are responsible for, which helps the group stay organized and ensures everyone contributes.

• Define roles - Decide on the roles needed for the group task. Common roles include leader, note-taker, timekeeper, and presenter. Clearly explain what each role involves.
• Assign roles - Assign a role to each student in the group. Ensure that each student understands their responsibilities and how they contribute to the group’s success.
• Provide guidance - Give students instructions on how to fulfill their roles. For example, the leader might organize the group’s activities, while the note-taker records important points.
• Encourage collaboration - Have students work together, with each member fulfilling their role. Encourage them to support one another and communicate effectively.
• Monitor and support - Observe the groups to ensure that everyone is participating and that the roles are being carried out effectively. Offer help if needed.
• Review roles - After the activity, review how well the roles worked. Discuss with the group what went well and what could be improved for next time.

3. Peer teaching

Peer teaching involves students explaining concepts or lessons to each other. After learning a topic, students take turns teaching their peers about different aspects. This method reinforces their own understanding and builds their communication and teaching skills.

• Divide the material - Break the lesson into sections or topics. Each section should be manageable and relevant to the overall lesson.
• Assign topics - Assign each student or pair of students a different section of the material to learn and teach to their peers.
• Prepare to teach - Give students time to study their assigned section and prepare how they will explain it to others. They can use notes, visual aids, or examples.
• Teach peers - Have students present their section to the rest of the class. They should explain the material clearly and answer any questions from their peers.
• Encourage interaction - After each presentation, allow time for questions and discussion. This helps ensure that all students understand the material.
• Provide feedback - Offer feedback on both the teaching process and the content covered. Praise effective explanations and suggest improvements if needed.
• Reflect on learning - After all sections have been taught, review the key points as a class. Discuss what was learned and how peer teaching helped understand the material better.

Read more about different types of graphic organizers for reading, writing, teaching, learning and brainstorming.

4. Project-based learning

Project-based learning requires students to work together on a project that involves creating a final product, such as a presentation, report, or model. This strategy encourages collaboration as students must plan, research, and work together to complete the project, helping them develop teamwork and problem-solving skills.

• Choose a project - Select a project that relates to the lesson and requires students to use what they’ve learned. The project should be engaging and challenging but achievable.
• Form groups - Divide students into small groups. Each group will work together on the project, so make sure they are balanced in skills and abilities.
• Define roles and tasks - Assign roles within each group, such as researcher, writer, designer, or presenter. Clearly outline the tasks each role will handle to ensure everyone knows their responsibilities.
• Set goals and deadlines - Establish clear goals for the project and set deadlines for each phase. This helps groups stay on track and manage their time effectively.
• Provide resources and support - Give students the resources they need, such as materials, information, and tools. Offer support and guidance as they work on their project.
• Monitor progress - Check in with each group regularly to see how they are progressing. Offer feedback and help if they encounter any problems.
• Present the projects - Have each group present their project to the class. This allows students to share their work and learn from each other’s projects.
• Reflect and evaluate - After the presentations, reflect on the project process with the class. Discuss what worked well and what could be improved. Provide feedback on both the process and the final product.

5. Think-pair-share

Think-pair-share is a technique where students first think about a question or problem individually. They then pair up with a classmate to discuss their ideas before sharing their thoughts with the whole class. This approach promotes individual thinking, peer interaction, and class-wide sharing of ideas.

• Pose a question - Start by asking a clear and relevant question related to the lesson. Make sure it’s something that requires thoughtful consideration.
• Think individually - Give students a few moments to think about their answer or ideas on their own. This allows them to formulate their thoughts without immediate influence from others.
• Pair up - Have students pair up with a classmate. They should share their thoughts and discuss their answers with each other. This step helps them clarify their ideas and hear different perspectives.
• Share with the class - After discussing in pairs, invite pairs to share their ideas or answers with the whole class. This provides an opportunity for students to learn from each other and see a range of viewpoints.
• Facilitate discussion - Encourage a class discussion based on the shared ideas. Ask follow-up questions to deepen the conversation and connect it to the lesson.
• Reflect - Conclude by summarizing the main points and discussing how they relate to the lesson. Encourage students to reflect on what they learned from both their partner and the class discussion.

6. Jigsaw technique

The jigsaw technique divides a topic into several sections. Each student is assigned a different section to learn and then teach to their group. Once each student has taught their part, the group pieces together the complete topic. This method helps students become experts in their section and supports collaborative learning as they share their knowledge.

• Divide the topic - Break the topic into several sections or parts. Each section should cover a different aspect of the overall subject.
• Form expert groups - Create small groups where each group is assigned one section of the topic. These groups, called “expert groups,” focus on learning their specific section.
• Research and learn - Have the expert groups study their assigned section. They can use textbooks, articles, or other resources to become knowledgeable about their part of the topic.
• Reform groups - After learning their sections, reform new groups where each member represents a different expert group. These new groups will now have members who are experts on different sections of the topic.
• Share knowledge - In the new groups, each student teaches the other members about their section. This way, all group members learn about each part of the topic from their peers.
• Discuss and integrate - Encourage the new groups to discuss the information and put together the complete picture of the topic. This helps them understand how each part connects to the others.
• Present findings - Have each group present what they’ve learned to the class. This allows everyone to hear about each section and understand the entire topic.
• Reflect - After presentations, discuss the topic as a class. Reflect on what was learned and how the different sections fit together.

7. Collaborative problem-solving

Collaborative problem-solving involves presenting a problem or challenge for the group to solve together. Students discuss and brainstorm possible solutions, working together to reach a consensus. This strategy encourages critical thinking, teamwork, and the application of problem-solving skills.

• Present a problem - Start by giving the class a clear, engaging problem or challenge related to the lesson. The problem should be open-ended and require thoughtful discussion.
• Form groups - Divide the students into small groups. Each group will work together to find a solution to the problem.
• Discuss and brainstorm - Have each group discuss the problem and brainstorm possible solutions. Encourage them to consider different approaches and ideas.
• Develop a solution - Ask the groups to choose the best solution from their brainstormed ideas and develop a plan to address the problem. They should outline their reasoning and how their solution will work.
• Present solutions - Have each group present their solution to the class. They should explain their approach and how they arrived at their answer.
• Evaluate and discuss - After all groups have presented, discuss the different solutions as a class. Compare the approaches and consider the strengths and weaknesses of each solution.
• Reflect on the process - Reflect on the collaborative process. Discuss what worked well in the group discussions and what could be improved for future problem-solving activities.

8.Group brainstorming

Group brainstorming is a technique where students generate ideas on a topic together. Students contribute their thoughts and build on each other’s ideas to come up with a variety of solutions or approaches. This method promotes creativity and helps students consider different perspectives.

Explore more group brainstorming strategies to drive innovation.

• Introduce the topic - Start by presenting a clear and relevant topic or question for the brainstorming session. Make sure it’s something that encourages creative thinking.
• Form groups - Divide the class into small groups, ideally 3-5 students per group. Each group will brainstorm ideas together.
• Set guidelines - Explain the rules for brainstorming: encourage all ideas, avoid criticism, and build on each other’s thoughts. The goal is to generate as many ideas as possible.
• Brainstorm ideas - Give groups time to discuss and list their ideas. They can use a whiteboard or paper to write down their thoughts as they come up.
• Share ideas - After brainstorming, have each group share their ideas with the class. This allows everyone to see the range of ideas generated and contributes to the overall discussion.
• Discuss and refine - Discuss the ideas as a class. Identify the most promising ones and explore how they can be developed or combined.
• Reflect on the process - Reflect on the brainstorming session. Discuss what worked well and how the group process helped in generating ideas.

Learn more about how to brainstorm effectively with our brainstorming guide .

Debates involve students preparing arguments for or against a particular issue. They work in teams to research and develop their positions before presenting their arguments to the class. This technique enhances teamwork, encourages critical thinking, and improves public speaking skills.

• Choose a topic - Select a relevant and engaging topic for the debate. It should be something with clear sides or viewpoints, and relevant to the lesson.
• Divide into teams - Split the class into two or more teams, each representing a different side of the issue. Assign each team a position to argue for or against.
• Research and prepare - Give each team time to research their assigned position. They should gather evidence and prepare arguments to support their side of the debate.
• Set up the debate - Arrange a time for each team to present their arguments. Establish ground rules, such as time limits for speaking and guidelines for respectful communication.
• Hold the debate - Allow each team to present their arguments and respond to opposing points. Encourage students to listen carefully and engage with each other’s ideas.
• Facilitate discussion - After the debate, facilitate a class discussion about the arguments presented. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each side and any new insights gained.
• Reflect on the experience - Reflect on the debate process with the class. Talk about what was learned, how the debate helped in understanding the topic, and what could be improved.

10. Peer review

Peer review requires students to evaluate and provide feedback on each other’s work. After completing an assignment, students review their peers' work and offer constructive criticism. This method helps students improve their work through feedback and fosters a collaborative learning environment.

• Set clear guidelines - Explain what students should look for when reviewing their peers' work, such as clarity, accuracy, and completeness. Provide a checklist or rubric if needed.
• Pair up students - Assign each student a peer to review. Ensure that everyone knows who they will be reviewing and who will be reviewing their work.
• Review work - Have students read and evaluate their peer’s work based on the guidelines provided. They should note strengths and areas for improvement.
• Give feedback - Ask students to provide constructive feedback to their peers. They should offer specific suggestions for how to improve and highlight what was done well.
• Discuss feedback - Allow time for students to discuss the feedback they received and give. This can be done in pairs or small groups, focusing on understanding and applying the feedback.
• Revise and improve - Encourage students to use the feedback to revise and improve their own work. They should consider the suggestions and make changes as needed.
• Reflect on the process - After the peer review, discuss what students learned from giving and receiving feedback. Reflect on how the feedback helped them improve their work and how they can use it in future assignments.

Team building activities

Team building activities are exercises designed to strengthen relationships and improve teamwork among students. Activities such as trust exercises or group games help students build trust, improve communication, and work together more effectively.

• Choose an activity - Pick a team-building activity that fits the class size, age, and objectives. Activities should be fun and encourage cooperation, such as problem-solving tasks, games, or challenges.
• Explain the purpose - Start by explaining the goal of the activity. Let students know that the purpose is to improve teamwork and communication, not just to have fun.
• Divide into teams - Split the class into small teams. Make sure the teams are balanced in terms of skills and abilities to ensure everyone can contribute.
• Set up the activity - Provide clear instructions on how the activity will be conducted. Explain the rules and any materials needed.
• Participate and facilitate - Have students complete the activity while you observe and facilitate. Offer guidance and support if needed, but let students take the lead in working together.
• Debrief and discuss - After the activity, gather the class and discuss what happened. Ask students to reflect on how they worked together and what they learned about teamwork.
• Apply lessons learned - Encourage students to apply the teamwork skills they practiced in the activity to their regular classwork. Reinforce the importance of collaboration in achieving common goals.

Collaborative technology tools

Collaborative technology tools include digital platforms like shared documents, online whiteboards, or group chat applications. These tools allow students to work together in real-time or remotely, making it easier to collaborate on projects, share ideas, and provide feedback.

• Choose the right tool - Select a collaborative tool that fits your classroom needs. Popular options include online whiteboards, shared document editors, and communication platforms.
• Introduce the tool - Show students how to use the tool. Explain its features and how it can help them work together on tasks or projects.
• Set clear goals - Define what you want students to achieve using the tool. Set clear objectives for how the tool should be used in their collaborative work.
• Form groups - Divide students into small groups, if needed. Each group will use the tool to collaborate on their tasks or projects.
• Provide guidance - Offer support as students begin using the tool. Help them with any technical issues and remind them of best practices for online collaboration, such as clear communication and respecting others’ contributions.
• Monitor progress - Keep track of how students are using the tool. Check in regularly to see how they are collaborating and if they need any help.
• Review and reflect - After the task or project is complete, review how the tool helped with the collaboration. Discuss what worked well and what could be improved for future use.
• Encourage feedback - Ask students to provide feedback on their experience using the tool. This helps in understanding their needs and making improvements.

Best Practices for Implementing Collaborative Learning Strategies

Implementing collaborative learning strategies effectively involves careful planning and execution. Here are some best practices to ensure success:

• Clearly define objectives - Set clear goals for what you want to achieve with collaborative learning. Ensure that the objectives align with your lesson plans and learning outcomes.
• Choose appropriate strategies - Select collaborative learning strategies that fit your classroom’s needs and the specific goals of the lesson. Consider the students’ age, skill level, and the subject matter.
• Organize groups effectively - Form groups that are balanced in terms of skills and abilities. Mix students with different strengths to promote diverse perspectives and equitable participation.
• Provide clear instructions - Explain the tasks and expectations to students clearly. Make sure they understand their roles, responsibilities, and the purpose of the collaborative activity.
• Foster a positive environment - Create a supportive classroom atmosphere where students feel comfortable sharing their ideas and collaborating with others. Encourage respectful communication and teamwork.
• Monitor and support - Observe group interactions and offer support as needed. Provide guidance to help students stay on track and address any challenges they may encounter.
• Use technology effectively - Incorporate collaborative technology tools that enhance group work. Ensure that students are familiar with the tools and can use them effectively.
• Encourage reflection - After collaborative activities, have students reflect on their experience. Discuss what worked well, what could be improved, and how they can apply their learning to future group work.
• Assess and evaluate - Evaluate both the process and the outcomes of the collaborative activities. Use assessments to gauge individual contributions and group effectiveness.
• Provide feedback - Offer constructive feedback on the collaborative process and the results. Recognize achievements and provide suggestions for improvement.

Using Creately for Enhancing Collaborative Learning in the Classroom

Creately is a visual collaboration tool that helps make collaborative learning easier and more effective. Using Creately in the classroom helps students work together more efficiently, share ideas clearly, and manage projects effectively. It makes collaborative learning more interactive and productive.

Interactive Diagrams

Creately allows students to create and edit diagrams together in real-time. They can work on flowcharts, mind maps, and other visual aids, making it easier to brainstorm and organize ideas collectively.

Shared Workspaces

Students can collaborate in shared workspaces, where they can see and edit the same document or diagram simultaneously. This feature ensures everyone is on the same page and can contribute to the project.

Commenting and Feedback

Students and teachers can leave comments on specific parts of the work. This feature helps in providing instant feedback, asking questions, and discussing ideas directly on the document.

Templates and Examples

Creately offers a range of templates for different types of projects, like project planning or SWOT analysis and graphic organizers for writing, reading, note-taking and much more. These templates help students start their work quickly and stay organized.

Easy Integration

Creately integrates with other tools like Google Drive and Microsoft Teams. This makes it easy for students to share their work and collaborate across different platforms.

Real-Time Collaboration

With real-time updates, students can see changes made by their peers immediately. This keeps everyone synchronized and helps in making quick adjustments.

Visual Communication

Creately’s visual tools help in presenting ideas clearly. Students can use charts, diagrams, and other visuals to explain complex concepts more effectively.

Access Control

Teachers can control who can view or edit the documents. This ensures that only authorized members of the group can make changes and helps in managing group work securely.

Collaborative learning strategies can greatly enhance the classroom experience by encouraging teamwork and active participation. Techniques like group discussions, peer teaching, and project-based learning help students learn from each other and build important skills.

To make these strategies effective, set clear goals, choose the right methods, and support students throughout the process. This approach not only improves learning but also helps students develop skills they’ll need in the real world, such as communication and problem-solving. Embracing collaborative learning creates a more engaging and successful educational experience for everyone.

Smith, B., Macgregor, J., Goodsell, A., Maher, M. and Tinto, V. (1992). What is collaborative learning? Washington center for improving the quality of undergraduate education what is collaborative learning? *. [online] Available at: https://teach.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WhatisCollaborativeLearning.pdf .

Cornell University (2022). Collaborative learning. [online] Center for Teaching Innovation. Available at: https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/active-collaborative-learning/collaborative-learning .

Laal, M. and Ghodsi, S.M. (2011). Benefits of Collaborative Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, [online] 31(31), pp.486–490. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091 .

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

FAQs About Collaborative Learning Strategies

What are the key features of collaborative learning, how does collaborative learning work.

• Group assignments: The teacher assigns a task that requires teamwork, such as a project, problem-solving activity, or discussion. Each group works together to complete the task.
• Roles and responsibilities: In some cases, students may be assigned specific roles within the group (e.g., leader, note-taker, presenter). This ensures that everyone contributes and the group stays organized.
• Guidance and support: The teacher acts as a facilitator, providing guidance and support when needed, but allowing students to take charge of their learning. The goal is to encourage independence and collaboration among the students.

What is the difference between cooperative vs collaborative learning?

• Cooperative Learning: Involves students working together on a specific task, with each member contributing to achieve a common goal. It often involves structured roles and tasks.
• Collaborative Learning: Focuses on the process of working together to build knowledge and understanding through shared interaction and discussion. It emphasizes mutual learning and shared responsibility.

What is the role of the teacher in collaborative learning?

The teacher’s role in collaborative learning includes:

• Facilitator: Guiding and supporting groups as they work together, ensuring that they stay on task and communicate effectively.
• Planner: Designing and structuring collaborative activities that align with learning objectives.
• Monitor: Observing group interactions and providing feedback to enhance the learning process.
• Mediator: Resolving any conflicts or issues that arise during group work.
• Evaluator: Assessing both the process and the outcomes of collaborative activities to ensure that students meet learning goals.

What are the benefits of collaborative learning?

• Enhances critical thinking: Students discuss various viewpoints, deepening their understanding.
• Improves communication skills: Students practice clear expression and active listening.
• Fosters teamwork: Group work teaches effective collaboration and shared responsibility.
• Builds social skills: Encourages positive interactions and skills like empathy and conflict resolution.
• Increases engagement: Makes learning more dynamic and motivates active participation.
• Enhances problem-solving skills: Promotes creative and strategic thinking through group problem-solving.
• Supports diverse perspectives: Brings together different viewpoints, enriching the learning experience.

More Related Articles

Amanda Athuraliya is the communication specialist/content writer at Creately, online diagramming and collaboration tool. She is an avid reader, a budding writer and a passionate researcher who loves to write about all kinds of topics.

• Open access
• Published: 05 September 2024

Breaking the taboo of using the nursing process: lived experiences of nursing students and faculty members

• Amir Shahzeydi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9095-2424 1 , 2 ,
• Parvaneh Abazari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4024-2867 3 , 4 ,
• Fatemeh Gorji-varnosfaderani   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6830-982X 5 ,
• Elaheh Ashouri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7566-6566 6 ,
• Shahla Abolhassani   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5191-7586 6 &
• Fakhri Sabohi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1448-6606 6  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  621 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Despite the numerous advantages of the nursing process, nursing students often struggle with utilizing this model. Therefore, studies suggest innovative teaching methods to address this issue. Teaching based on real clinical cases is considered a collaborative learning method that enhances students’ active learning for the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. In this method, students can acquire sufficient knowledge about patient care by accessing authentic information.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the experiences of nursing students and faculty members regarding the implementation of nursing process educational workshops, based on real case studies.

A qualitative descriptive study.

Participants

9 Nursing students and 7 faculty members from the Isfahan School of Nursing and Midwifery who attended the workshops.

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted from 2021 to 2023. Data was collected through semi-structured individual and focus group interviews using a qualitative content analysis approach for data analysis.

After analyzing the data, a theme titled “Breaking Taboos in the Nursing Process” was identified. This theme consists of four categories: “Strengthening the Cognitive Infrastructure for Accepting the Nursing Process,” “Enhancing the Applicability of the Nursing Process,” “Assisting in Positive Professional Identity,” and “Facilitating a Self-Directed Learning Platform.” Additionally, thirteen subcategories were obtained.

The data obtained from the present study showed that conducting nursing process educational workshops, where real clinical cases are discussed, analyzed, and criticized, increases critical thinking, learning motivation, and understanding of the necessity and importance of implementing the nursing process. Therefore, it is recommended that instructors utilize this innovative and effective teaching method for instructing the nursing process.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The nursing process is a systematic and logical method for planning and providing nursing care [ 1 ] that provides an opportunity for nurses to efficiently and dynamically utilize their knowledge and expertise. It also creates a common language, known as nursing diagnosis, which facilitates action, promotes creative solutions, and minimizes errors in patient care [ 2 ]. Clinical education, based on the nursing process, provides an appropriate setting for nursing students to gain clinical experiences and foster professional development [ 3 ].

Despite the numerous advantages, nursing students face difficulties in implementing this model in various countries [ 4 , 5 ], lack of appropriate knowledge, lack of clinical practice, and insufficient learning are among the most significant obstacles to the implementation of the nursing process by students. This can be attributed to the poor quality of education regarding this important nursing care model. Therefore, it is necessary for educators in this field to use innovative and participatory teaching methods [ 3 , 6 ]. According to research conducted in Iran, 72% of nursing faculty members use passive teaching methods. Meanwhile, 92% of nursing students prefer active and innovative learning methods over traditional and passive methods [ 7 ]. Therefore, the use of modern methods, which aim to stimulate students’ thinking and enhance their responsiveness in acquiring and applying knowledge, can be effective [ 6 ].

Case-based learning is a collaborative learning method that aims to develop and enhance critical thinking and problem-solving skills [ 8 ]. Teaching the nursing process based on clinical and real cases can be very important in terms of promoting critical thinking, simulating real experiences, enhancing clinical judgment, and ultimately improving the quality and effectiveness of education [ 8 , 9 ]. In this method, students gain sufficient knowledge about patient care by accessing real information, improving their skills in patient assessment, and gaining personal nursing experience. This leads to a better understanding of comprehensive care and prepares individuals for future professional roles [ 9 ].

Very few studies have been conducted on teaching methods and their impact on the quality of nursing process [ 10 , 11 ]. In Iran, case-based trainings have mostly focused on hypothetical cases [ 1 , 12 ]. In other countries, most studies conducted on the case-based educational method have not focused on the nursing process. The few studies that have been conducted on the nursing process have either not been based on real clinical cases [ 13 ] or, if clinical cases have been researched, the studies have been conducted quantitatively [ 8 , 9 ] While qualitative research provides researchers with more opportunities to discover and explain the realities of the educational environment and gain a better understanding of many challenging aspects related to the nursing education process. Researchers are able to provide a practical model that helps improve and enhance the current process by gaining insight and a deep understanding of what is happening in the field of study [ 14 ]. This study represents the first qualitative research that describes the lived experiences of nursing students and faculty members regarding the teaching of the nursing process through real-based case workshops.

Study design

This qualitative descriptive study was conducted from 2021 to 2023. Qualitative descriptive studies typically align with the naturalistic inquiry paradigm, which emphasizes examining phenomena in their natural settings as much as possible within the context of research. Naturalistic inquiry, rooted in a constructivist viewpoint, enables a deeper understanding of phenomena by observing them within the authentic social world we inhabit [ 15 ]. In this type of study, researchers provide a comprehensive summary of an extraordinary occurrence or circumstance of interest and its related factors, but they do not delve into deep interpretation [ 16 ]. This study was undertaken to explore students and faculty members perceptions of the effect of the educational workshops on knowledge, skills and attitudes of students to the nursing process.

Setting and sample

Participants were selected from nursing students and faculty members who participated in nursing process workshops (Table  1 ). The criteria for entry into the study included volunteering to participate in the study and attending at least 3 sessions of the workshops.

Workshop details

The workshops were held in the conference hall of the Nursing and Midwifery Faculty. They consisted of 9 sessions, each lasting 2 h, from 16:00 to 18:00. Students from terms 2 to 8 and faculty members participated in these workshops. Each session was attended by an average of 60 members. Despite the inconvenience of scheduling the sessions outside of the official class hours, all the members stayed until the end of the meeting, showing a keen interest in the material and actively participating in discussions. Attendance was open to all students and faculty members, and participants in each of the workshop sessions were not the same.

It should be noted that all workshops were accompanied by a specialized instructor in the field of the nursing process, as well as a specialized instructor in the field of the specific disease being discussed. The details of these workshops are summarized in three stages:

First Stage

Step 1 . The researcher visited one of the inpatient clinical wards of the hospital based on the assigned topic for each workshop. They selected a patient, conducted a comprehensive assessment, and recorded the information using Gordon’s assessment form. This included the patient’s current and past medical history, paraclinical tests, physical examinations, medications, and information gathered from credible sources such as interviews with the patient and their family, medical records, and the patient’s treatment and care interventions documented in their medical file and Cardex.

Step 2 . Preparing the presentation file, which includes the following items:

Writing the comprehensive patient assessment based on step one.

Writing actual and at-risk nursing diagnoses according to PES (Problem/ Etiology/ Signs and Symptoms) and PE (Problem/ Etiology) rules, as well as collaborative problems, and then prioritizing them based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Writing objectives and outcomes for each nursing diagnosis based on the SMART (Specific/ Measurable/ Attainable/ Realistic/ Time Bound).

Writing nursing interventions (based on objectives and outcomes), along with the rationales according to evidence-based, up-to-date, and reliable sources for each intervention.

Step 3 . Sending the presentation file to an expert professor in the field of nursing process for review and implementing her comments.

Second stage

Step 1 . Announcing the date and time of the workshop session to students and faculty members.

Step 2 . Providing students and faculty members with a comprehensive patient assessment.

Third stage (workshop implementation)

Step 1. Presenting all stages of the nursing process based on the case study:

Providing a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition. (Giving time for students, faculty members, and presenters to discuss with each other, express their comments, and summarize)

Presenting diagnoses along with the objectives and expected outcomes. (Giving time for students, faculty members, and presenters to discuss with each other, express their comments, and summarize)

Presentation of nursing interventions. (Giving time for students, faculty members, and presenters to discuss with each other, express their comments, and summarize)

Presentation on assessing the level of achievement of expected outcomes and evaluating interventions. (Giving time for students, faculty members, and presenters to discuss with each other, express their comments, and summarize)

Data Collection Tools

Demographic questionnaire.

It included age, gender, Position, degree and number of sessions attended in the workshop.

Semi-structured interview

It included the following questions:

What was your motivation to attend these meetings?

Before entering the nursing process meetings, what did you expect from the meeting?

How many of your expectations were met by participating in the meetings?

How much did these meetings help you in applying the nursing process in the clinical setting?

What do you think about the continuation of such meetings?

Data collection

After obtaining official permission from the university in 2021, the phone numbers of students and faculty members who participated in more sessions of the workshop were collected in 2023. A specific time and location were subsequently arranged to contact and interview participants who had indicated their willingness to take part in the study. Approximately 40 individuals expressed their consent to participate; however, data saturation was achieved after interviewing 16 participants. It is important to note that interviews were conducted through both individual sessions and focus groups. Individual interviews were carried out with 3 faculty members, while two focus groups were conducted separately with 9 students and 4 faculty members.

Individual Interviews

The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner and began with a general question to establish initial and closing communication. These interviews were conducted by one of the researchers who holds a PhD in nursing and has published several qualitative articles in reputable journals. In each of these sessions, the interviewer introduced themselves and welcomed the participants. The goals of the session were discussed, and participants were given complete freedom to express their opinions. The interviewer refrained from interfering or reacting to their opinions, and the information discussed was kept completely confidential under the guise of a code. Participants were subsequently asked to provide consent for voice recording during the interviews. Once consent was obtained from the participants, their voices were recorded. Each individual interview lasted between 30 and 45 min.

Focus Group Interviews

All the conditions of these interviews were similar to individual interviews. However, in focus group sessions, an additional researcher acted as an assistant to the main interviewer. The assistant’s role was to determine the order of speaking based on the participants’ requests, observe their facial expressions while speaking, and take necessary notes. Each of the focus group sessions lasted approximately 5 h. It should be noted that participant selection and sampling continued until data saturation was achieved. Saturation of data refers to the repetition of information and the confirmation of previously collected data.

Data analysis

The qualitative content analysis approach proposed by Graneheim and Lundman was used for data analysis [ 16 ]. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim (The transcripts were sent to the participants for feedback and were approved by them), and then each word was carefully examined to identify codes Two independent individuals encoded the data. Words that accurately represented thoughts or concepts within the data were highlighted. Then, the researcher added her own notes about his thoughts, interpretations of the text, and initial analysis of the text. With the progression of this process, appropriate names for the codes emerged, and the codes were organized into subcategories. These subcategories were created to organize and categorize the codes within clusters. The researcher reorganized the subcategories based on their relationships, condensing them into a smaller number of organizational categories. And then the concepts of each category, subcategory, and code were developed.

Trustworthiness

Data was managed using the Lincoln and Guba criteria. These criteria include acceptability, which is equivalent to internal validity; transferability, which is equivalent to external validity; similarity, which is equivalent to reliability; and verifiability, which is equivalent to objectivity [ 17 ]. The use of member checks by participants is considered a technique for exploring the credibility of results. In this regard, the interview text and the primary codes extracted from it were made available to several participants to verify the accuracy with their experiences. External supervision was employed to ensure that the criterion of internal consistency was met. For this purpose, the data was given to a researcher who did not participate in the study. If there was agreement in the interpretation of the data, it confirmed the presence of internal consistency. Finally, an audit or verification inquiry was conducted. The researcher accurately recorded and reported all stages and processes of the research from beginning to end. This allows external supervisors to conduct audits and assess the credibility of the findings.

Data analysis resulted in the emergence of 13 subcategories, 4 categories, and 1 theme (Table  2 ).

Strengthening the intellectual infrastructure of accepting the nursing process

Subcategories such as “improving nursing perception,” “strengthening critical thinking,” “evidence-based nursing practice,” and “filling an educational gap” contributed to the emergence of the category “Strengthening the intellectual infrastructure of accepting the nursing process.”

Improving nursing perception

Participants’ experiences indicate the significant positive impact of the workshop on improving students’ perception of the nursing process. Most nurses in departments do not provide patient care based on the nursing process. As a result, students do not have the opportunity to practically experience the real application of the nursing process in the department. Instead, they only perceive the nursing process as a written task.

For me, it was a question of what the nursing process is, for instance. How difficult is it?” and it really helped me overcome my fear in a way. (P3 student) Usually, they would explain the nursing process to us, but it was not practical or based on real cases, like this. (P1 Student)

Strengthening critical thinking

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill in the nursing process that involves various stages and activities. These include questioning to gather adequate information, validating and analyzing information to comprehend the problem and its underlying factors, evaluating interventions, and making appropriate decisions for effective problem-solving. The experiences of the participating students clearly reflected the formation of these stages during the workshop sessions.

I learned in the workshop about the importance of using critical thinking to successfully connect knowledge and practice. It’s a shame that critical thinking has not been cultivated in the minds of students, and these workshops have laid the foundation for it in our minds. (P6 student) Students often come across hypothetical cases in textbooks, but when they are confronted with real cases, the circumstances are different… This is when critical thinking becomes crucial and the art of nursing is demonstrated… These sessions have made a significant contribution to this subject. (P15 Faculty member)

Evidence-based nursing practice

One of the features of the sessions was that in introducing the case from assessment to evaluation, to justify the rationale and process of collecting and formulating nursing diagnoses, establishing expected outcomes, and providing reasons for each intervention, relied on up-to-date and reliable nursing and medical resources

It had a strong scientific foundation, consistently emphasizing the importance of evidence-based practices and a scientific approach, effectively communicating this perspective to audience. (P2 Student). I became familiar with the book ‘Carpenito,’ and it helped me a lot in understanding my shortcomings. (P3 student). In my opinion, one of the factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the work was consulting the references. They emphasized that as a nurse, I should not solely rely on my personal opinion but should instead base my actions on the reference materials (P14 Faculty member).

Filling an educational gap

From the perspective of workshop participants, the workshop has increased their awareness of their limited knowledge about the application of the nursing process. It has also helped them recognize their shortcomings, and motivated them to pursue additional studies in this field.

Exactly, there was a vacant spot for this educational program in our classes. And there should have been sessions that would prove to us that nursing is not just about the theoretical concepts that faculty members teach in class. (P5 Student) The nursing process has a theoretical aspect that students learn, but when they attempt to apply it in practice, they often encounter difficulties. These sessions helped to fill the gap between theory and practice. (P15 Faculty member)

Practicality of the nursing process

Subcategories of “linking the nursing process with team care,” “demonstrating the role of the nursing process in improving care quality,” “comprehensive view in care,” and “student’s guiding light in the clinic,” Created the category “Practicality of the Nursing Process”.

Linking the nursing process with team care

Participants’ experiences indicated that participating in nursing process sessions helped them realize that the nursing process is a model that will lead to collaborative team care. Prior to attending these sessions, nursing students like nurses considered their duty to be solely executing medical orders under the supervision of clinical faculty members and staff nurses.

I realized that in certain situations, I am able to confidently express my opinion to the doctor. For instance, if I believe that a particular course of action would yield better results, I can easily communicate this and provide reasons to support my viewpoint (P7 Student). Teaching the pathway when it’s categorized with knowing what we’re assessing… Let’s go up to the patient; our confidence can really guide them along with us as we progress step by step and systematically. Often, the patient accompanies us, and sometimes they voice their unspoken concerns, which helps improve their care. It means the patient themselves are partnering with us. (P6 student)

Demonstrating the role of the nursing process in improving care quality

Strengthening the attitude and belief in the role and application of the nursing process in improving the quality of care was another concept that emerged from the experiences of the students. Presenting reports on the implementation of the nursing process on real cases led them to believe that providing care based on the nursing process results in organized care planning and enhances the quality of care.

In these workshops, the needs of patients were prioritized, documented, and then organized systematically. This concept remains ingrained in a person’s mind and enables us to deliver comprehensive care to the patient without overlooking any aspect. This has been very helpful for me, and now it greatly assists me in the clinic. (P4 Student) Another great aspect of these sessions was the emphasis they placed on the nurse-patient relationship. I could see that the students had been following up with patients for a while and implementing the process. This was very helpful to me. For instance, diagnosing based on the patient’s current health status was an ongoing process. In my opinion, the connection between the patient and nurse was more important and practical for me.(P1 Student).

Comprehensive view in care

Attention to the patient’s care needs went beyond focusing solely on physiological aspects. It involved a holistic approach that addressed the patient’s needs related to all aspects of biology, psychology, society, spirituality, and economics. This was clearly reflected in the students’ experiences during the nursing process sessions.

…I paid attention to all aspects of the patient. For example, perhaps I overlooked her anxiety issue and never took it into consideration. However, I eventually came to realize that addressing anxiety is crucial, as it is one of the primary concerns and needs of patients. (P2 Student) …that the students had a holistic view of the patient (they had examined the patient thoroughly, including the patient’s skin, etc.) and had compiled a list of the patient’s issues, paying attention to all aspects of the patient (P14 Faculty member).

Student’s guiding light in the clinic

One of the significant accomplishments of nursing process sessions, as evidenced by the students’ experiences, was the role of these sessions in assisting students in overcoming confusion and uncertainty during their internships. These sessions enabled them to establish a mental connection between the theoretical knowledge learned in the classroom and its application in the real clinical setting, also helped them understand how to effectively utilize their theoretical knowledge in a clinical learning environment.

.I was feeling incredibly lost and confused. I didn’t know what steps to take next. Many of us find ourselves in this situation, unsure of what to do. At least for me, as someone who grasps concepts better through examples, the case-based studies conducted during the workshop had a significant impact. (P6 Student)

Supporting a positive professional identity

Two subcategories, “highlighting the importance of nursing science” and “reforming the perception of nursing nature,” have contributed to the development of the category “supporting a positive professional identity.”

Highlighting the importance of nursing science

Based on students’ experiences, the nursing process sessions have been able to answer an important question. Why should they be bombarded with information and expected to possess extensive knowledge in the field of disease recognition, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and nursing care during their studies? The students believed that the content of the nursing process sessions clarified the necessity and importance of nursing knowledge for them. In these sessions, they came to believe that providing care based on the nursing process requires extensive nursing knowledge.

. In my opinion, this work showcases a significant strength by highlighting the importance of working scientifically as a nurse. Personally, I feel its impact on myself is profound. (P2 Student) In my opinion, it was very touching and captivating because it accurately portrayed the immense power of a nurse. However, amidst the demanding and difficult nature of the job, what specific details should a nurse pay attention to? and it is precisely these details that shape the work of a nurse. It was very interesting and beneficial for me. (P5 student)

Reforming the perception of nursing nature

The student is seeking ways to comprehend and value the practical aspects of nursing as a genuine science, assuming that nursing is indeed regarded as a science. Participants’ experiences have shown that nursing process sessions have been able to address this identity challenge and modify and enhance students’ understanding of the nature of nursing.

I used to believe that nursing was primarily an art complemented by science until I entered term 2 and participated in these workshops. And now I realize that it has the scientific foundation that I expected from an evidence-based practice. (P5 student). . The important point was that lower-term students, who sometimes lacked motivation and thought nursing had nothing to offer, gained motivation and had a change in perspective by attending these sessions. (P2 faculy members)

Self-directed learning facilitator

Subcategories of “stimulating a thirst for learning,” “creating a stress-free learning atmosphere,” and “teaching fishing,” formed the category of “self-directed learning facilitator.”

Stimulating a thirst for learning

Participants’ experiences indicated that the format of conducting sessions, ranging from step-by-step training to training accompanied by multiple examples, had a significant impact on creating a sense of necessity and stimulating learners’ motivation to learn.

First of all, the challenges that you yourself raised (faculty member) for example, why did you make this diagnosis?” Why did you include this action? Why is this a priority? Really, it shook me and made me think that maybe there is more to this, maybe there is more to the nursing process that I haven’t understood yet…. That’s why it became my motivation. (P3 student) …But these sessions helped me a lot. At least, they sparked my curiosity and motivated me to delve deeper into the subject. I began actively participating in these sessions and found them to be highly effective for my personal growth. (P6 student) In my opinion, one of the things that empowered the work was the act of seeking references. They emphasized that as a nurse, I should not solely rely on my personal opinion but should instead base my actions on credible sources. (P14 Faculty member)

Creating a stress-free learning atmosphere

Students believed that the absence of a legal requirement to attend these workshops, coupled with the understanding that their participation or non-participation would not be evaluated for grading purposes, would enable them to engage in these sessions without concern for their academic performance and in accordance with their own volition.

I was more scared… In my internships, for example, we would sit and talk with the instructor. However, the discussions primarily revolved around grades and other academic matters, which created a stressful environment where students were hesitant to freely express their thoughts. But the sessions here are very relaxed, and students no longer have the fear of grades. (P7 student) The essence of these sessions was that they came from the heart and inevitably touched the heart. The beauty of this program was that it was built on love. (P10 Faculty member)

Teaching fishing

Direct reference to teaching fishing in the participants’ experiences points to one of the very important features that effectively prepares the way for self-guided learning. The term “teaching fishing” was repeatedly mentioned in the participants’ experiences. They believed that these sessions served as a roadmap to easily enhance their knowledge and skills in the field of nursing process application.

.And actually, teaching fishing, as mentioned by other students, is important. In my opinion, it has a positive impact both professionally and in terms of the effectiveness of the nursing process. (P2 student) The important aspect was the involvement and full participation of the students, who prepared the materials themselves… The meaning and concept of being a student were more evident, and the talents of the students flourished. They actively participated in discussions about learning and education. (P15 Faculty member)

Planners, in their efforts to help students gain a better understanding of the nature and application of the nursing process, are constantly striving to innovate in teaching this model. The aim of the present study was to describe and explain the experiences of nursing students and faculty during clinical-based nursing process workshops involving real cases.

Hanisch et al. (2020) recommend using data from actual patients [ 18 ], and Yilmaz et al. (2015) suggest providing nursing students with opportunities to apply the nursing process in diverse patient populations during clinical training [ 19 ]. The study conducted by Karimi et al. (2011) demonstrated that organizing nursing process classes as workshops stimulated a sense of competition and superiority both among and within groups. This approach also enhanced participants’ concentration on learning the content of each session. In addition, the workshop fostered a sense of cooperation and cohesion among the students, which was evident in their increased interest and excitement [ 1 ]. The importance of utilizing workshop-based training with real clinical cases is clearly evident. When students receive data related to a real patient, they directly experience the clinical environment. This, in turn, leads to an improvement in their critical thinking and decision-making skills when they encounter similar cases. For this purpose, nursing educators can present the rich clinical cases they encounter during their internships in theory classes based on the stages of the nursing process. They can also ask students to present these cases for their peers to comment on and critique the care provided, in order to stimulate discussion.

The category of " Strengthening the intellectual infrastructure of accepting the nursing process " indicates that the teaching method used in this study has been able to help students better understand and recognize the nature and improvement of insight into the nursing process. In the study by Thuvaraka et al. (2018), 52% of participants strongly agreed on the necessity of having a positive attitude and insight towards the nursing process for its proper implementation [ 20 ]. According to the study by Mert et al. (2020), a lack of insight into the nursing profession and process can even lead students to consider dropping out of their studies [ 21 ]. The importance of reviewing the nursing education process to enhance this perception has been emphasized in various studies. Zamanzadeh et al. (2015) discuss several challenges in the implementation of the nursing process. These challenges include a lack of clarity regarding its meaning, differences in perspectives, and insufficient training leading to a lack of awareness on how to properly implement it [ 22 ]. More than 90% of students (93.5%) in the study conducted by Rajabpoor et al. (2018) [ 4 ] and over two-thirds (75.6%) of students in the study conducted by Sharghi et al. (2015) identified lack of proper training and insufficient time allocated for teaching as the most significant barriers to implementing the nursing process. They attributed this to traditional and routine teaching methods [ 23 ]. This causes students to undervalue the nursing process, perceiving it only at a theoretical level rather than practical. As a result, they become overwhelmed by the routine when working as clinical nurses [ 7 ]. Therefore, by teaching the case method based on real clinical cases, nursing instructors can strengthen students’ positive outlook and ability to apply the nursing process. This increases the percentage of students implementing the nursing process in clinical wards.

Strengthening critical thinking is one of the concepts derived from analyzing the experiences of the students and faculty who participated in the present study. Based on a review study by Carvalho et al. (2017), the utilization of the nursing process, particularly the stage of nursing diagnosis formulation, enables nurses to employ critical thinking in making judgments and providing clinical care [ 24 ]. This process also helps ensure the delivery of high-quality care [ 25 ]. But if the nursing process is presented in an undesirable manner, it suppresses critical thinking. According to Heidari et al. (2016), the nursing process resulted in students relying on copying from books, which led to a decline in creativity and an increase in their dissatisfaction [ 26 ]. According to the study conducted by Ghanbari et al. (2017), the implementation of collaborative workshops focused on the nursing process resulted in an improvement in critical thinking skills among nursing students [ 3 ]. Therefore, nursing instructors can teach theoretical classes based on the clinical cases they have experienced in the hospital. By doing so, students can immerse themselves in the clinical environment during theoretical classes, which significantly enhances their critical thinking skills.

The evidence-based nursing display was one of the achievements of nursing process educational workshops, which were based on real cases. Mackey et al. (2017) consider evidence-based practice as a means to bridge the gap between theory and practice in nursing education for undergraduate and graduate students [ 27 ]. And likewise, Sin et al. (2017) believe that nursing faculties are obligated to enhance the competence and knowledge of students for evidence-based practice by employing innovative methods [ 28 ]. Therefore, it is recommended that nursing instructors use up-to-date scientific references for nursing interventions when teaching about the nursing process of diseases. This practice helps students feel that the care they provide is supported by scientific evidence and motivating them to carry out nursing care more effectively.

One of the emerging concepts in this study was the focus on the practicality of the nursing process. In the study conducted by Agyeman-Yeboah et al. (2017), participants reported that new students and nurses tend to neglect the implementation of the nursing process when they observe experienced nurses failing to apply it in a scientific and systematic manner [ 5 ]. The lack of implementation of the nursing process by nurses is due to a lack of knowledge and a negative attitude towards it. Zerihun Adraro and Adugna Cherkos (2021) conducted a study in Ethiopia and found that the majority of nurses had inadequate knowledge, and half of them lacked a positive attitude towards the implementation of the nursing process [ 29 ]. In the study by Thuvaraka et al. (2018), only 17% of nurses had sufficient knowledge about the nursing process and implemented it [ 20 ]. One of the important experiences for students in the “Practicality of the Nursing Process” category is the development of their participatory and interprofessional spirit. They are encouraged to express their opinions about the care and treatment process of patients, rather than blindly following the doctor’s orders. According to a systematic review study, the level of physicians’ proficiency in their management systems is a significant issue for the healthcare system [ 22 ]. According to the study conducted by Nakhaee et al. (2017), doctors are the ones responsible for making decisions regarding all patient matters, while the efforts of nurses often go unappreciated. This lack of recognition can result in a decline in their self-esteem [ 30 ]. While according to Adamy et al. (2019), the implementation of the nursing process at a professional level is highly effective in creating an independent nursing role, rather than just serving as assistants to physicians. This implementation also enhances the credibility of the nursing profession [ 31 ]. The recommendation of the present researchers to nursing instructors is to take a significant step in enhancing the knowledge and independent spirit of nursing students by basing their teaching on real clinical cases. When students perceive that they have independence and are not merely following doctors’ orders, their engagement in operationalizing the nursing process and evidence-based care will increase.

Strengthening the holistic perspective was one of the positive experiences for students and faculty members who attended these workshops. According to the study by Hackett et al. (2017), physical problems can result in mental stress among patients. Therefore, it is essential to consider all dimensions of care [ 32 ]. According to Ericsson (1995), humans should be considered as a whole, and nursing care should be tailored to address biological, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects [ 33 ]. The importance of holistic care has been emphasized by Florence Nightingale, who encouraged caregivers to practice it [ 34 ]. Holistic care emphasizes partnership and dialogue between nurse and patient about health care needs [ 35 ]. Adequate training is crucial in ensuring that nurses and nursing students are well-prepared to meet the diverse needs of patients and deliver comprehensive care [ 36 ]. It is recommended for nursing instructors to focus on the mental aspect in addition to the physical aspect when teaching the nursing process and encourage students to apply this approach during clinical internships.

Another advantage of these sessions was the successful implementation of the nursing process in apprenticeship. Work disorder and confusion in implementing the nursing process are significant challenges. According to the study by Korkut et al. (2021), students were unable to collect appropriate data from their patients and were confused when formulating and prioritizing nursing diagnoses, determining goals, and planning care. However, due to the fear of receiving a low grade, they were compelled to present fabricated data [ 37 ]. Therefore, nursing instructors should incorporate real clinical cases encountered during internships into their theoretical classes. This simulation helps students perform better in implementing the nursing process in the hospital environment later on.

During these workshop sessions, the students’ awareness of the professional identity of nursing was heightened. They came to understand that this professional identity is a crucial principle that underpins their comprehension of nursing and scientific care. As a result, they recognized the significance of studying pathophysiology and the fundamental principles of scientific care for different diseases. Professional identity is described as a person’s perception of themselves within a profession or the collective identity of the profession [ 38 ]. In nursing, professional identity plays a crucial role in delivering high-quality services to patients [ 39 ] because it effectively enhances clinical competence, self-assurance, self-esteem, and interpersonal communication skills [ 40 , 41 ]. In this regard, the study by Sun et al. (2016) found that professional identity and education level had the greatest impact on the stress levels of nursing students. The results of that study showed that developing and enhancing professional identity could be beneficial for nursing students in managing stress [ 42 ]. Similarly, according to the study by Sabanciogullari et al. (2015), there was a positive and significant correlation between nurses’ job satisfaction and professional identity. This study found that 15.5% of nurses who intended to leave their profession had insufficient professional identity and lower job satisfaction. Professional identity is a significant factor in job satisfaction [ 41 ]. According to the study by Van der Cingel et al. (2021), a lack of attention to the professional identity of nursing contributes to the departure of nursing students and young nurses from the nursing profession [ 43 ]. Therefore, focusing on professional identity in nursing education is crucial and should be a primary objective [ 38 ], despite findings from Haghighat et al. (2019) indicating that nursing education programs in Iran have not effectively nurtured nursing students [ 44 ]. This highlights a greater focus on teaching based on real clinical cases, which enhances the professional identity of nursing and facilitates the implementation of the nursing process.

“Self-directed learning facilitator” is one of the important categories identified in the present study. It encompasses three crucial concepts: “stimulating a thirst for learning”, “creating a stress-free learning atmosphere”, and “teaching fishing”. The students’ experiences indicated that engaging in discussions, asking questions, and providing answers had a significant impact on motivating them to study and enhancing their motivation for learning. This learning took place in a calm and stress-free environment. Participants were able to analyze the content calmly, as grades were not involved. As a result, they were able to diagnose what to prioritize in a clinical setting, even without the assistance of a clinical instructor. In fact, during these sessions, the instructors focused on teaching the students how to fish instead of simply giving them fish. As a result, the students’ spirit of independent learning increased. Kholmuratovich et al. (2020) stated in their study that independent learning helps students to learn effectively and efficiently [ 45 ]. It increases their independence and critical thinking skills, while also effectively enhancing their self-esteem and motivation [ 46 ]. For this reason, Lau et al. (2017) recommend promoting this teaching method in their study [ 47 ]. Based on the aforementioned studies, independent and self-directed learning leads to improved comprehension and learning, increased motivation, enhanced self-confidence, and critical thinking among students. Consequently, it can be argued that teaching based on clinical cases and workshop-based approaches, beyond aiding students in better understanding and applying the nursing process, has the potential to transform students’ overall learning approach.

Teaching the nursing process through workshops based on clinical cases has broken the taboo surrounding the application of the nursing process. The organization of these workshops in a friendly and stress-free environment, where real clinical cases were discussed, analyzed, and criticized, motivated the students to apply the nursing process in clinical setting. This approach led to a correction in their perception that they considered the implementation of the nursing process as time-consuming and unnecessary, and it also increased the students’ critical thinking abilities. The nature and process of conducting the workshops proved to be beneficial in implementing the theoretical standards in practical settings. The nursing interventions program was evidence based. This approach not only fostered students’ motivation for self-directed learning but also heightened their curiosity for acquiring knowledge. In these sessions, the approach involved teaching students how to fish rather than simply giving them fish. On the other hand, one of the significant challenges in the application of the nursing process in clinical practice by students is the lack of knowledge and skills among nurses to provide care based on the nursing process, it is recommended that these workshops also be conducted for nurses. Furthermore, action research should be employed to evaluate the role of this educational approach in enhancing the knowledge and skills of clinical nurses.

Limitations

Considering that the workshops had to be held outside of the regular class hours of the faculty, which is at 16:00, and taking into account the transportation issues of the students, the workshops could only continue until 18:00. The limitations of this study include the restricted hours and duration of these workshops. Another limitation of this study is the lack of implementation of nursing interventions by the researchers for the patient and subsequently the real evaluation of the interventions performed, due to ethical considerations. In fact, considering that the biggest problem for students is the application of the nursing process related to assessment, diagnosis, and planning, the focus of the workshops was on these stages. However, it seems that by covering all stages of the nursing process in educational workshops, the challenges faced by students in the implementation and evaluation stages can also be addressed.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the cor - responding author upon reasonable request.

Karimi H. Applying nursing process education in workshop framework. Procedia-Social Behav Sci. 2011;29:561–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.276 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Mwangi C, Meng’anyi LW, Mbugua RG. Utilization of the nursing process among nurses working at a level 5 hospital, Kenya. Int J Nurs Sci. 2019;9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.nursing.20190901.01 .

Ghanbari A, Monfared A, Hoseinzadeh T, Moaddab F, Sedighi A. The impact of the nursing process education on critical thinking of nursing students. Res Med Educ. 2017;9(2):33–25.

Google Scholar  

Rajabpoor M, Zarifnejad GH, Mohsenizadeh SM, Mazloum SR, Pourghaznein T, Mashmoul A, Mohammad A. Barriers to the implementation of nursing process from the viewpoint of faculty members, nursing managers, nurses, and nursing students. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2018;28(2):137–42. https://doi.org/10.29252/hnmj.28.2.137 .

Agyeman-Yeboah J, Korsah KA, Okrah J. Factors that influence the clinical utilization of the nursing process at a hospital in Accra, Ghana. BMC Nurs. 2017;16(30):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-017-0228-0 .

Nes AA, Høybakk J, Zlamal J, Solberg MT. Mixed teaching methods focused on flipped classroom and digital unfolding case to enhance undergraduate nursing students’ knowledge in nursing process. Int J Educational Res. 2021;109:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101859 .

Amouzeshi Z, Mohsenizadeh M, Amouzeshi A. Effect of teaching nursing process using integrated method (Concept map and advance organizer) on nursing students’ clinical learning. Future Med Educ J. 2015;5(1):68–71. https://doi.org/10.22038/FMEJ.2015.4042 .

Hong S, Yu P. Comparison of the effectiveness of two styles of case-based learning implemented in lectures for developing nursing students’ critical thinking ability: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;68:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.12.008 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Forsgren S, Christensen T, Hedemalm A. Evaluation of the case method in nursing education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2014;14(2):164–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.08.003 .

Kestel S, Korkmaz F. Effectiveness of blended learning in nursing process teaching: first-year nursing students. Teach Learn Nurs. 2023;18(4):212–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2023.07.005 .

Keshk LI, Qalawa SAA, Ibrahim NM. Effectiveness of an educational program regarding nursing process on acquiring advanced skills among internship nursing students. Int J Nurs Educ. 2018;5(2):32–44. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijn.v5n2a4 .

Gholami M, Saki M, Toulabi T, Moghadam PK, Pour AHH, Dostizadeh R. Iranian nursing students’ experiences of case-based learning: A qualitative study. J Prof Nurs 2017, 33(3):241–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.08.013

Raurell-Torredà M, Olivet‐Pujol J, Romero‐Collado À, Malagon‐Aguilera MC, Patiño‐Masó J, Baltasar‐Bagué A. Case‐based learning and simulation: useful tools to enhance nurses’ education? Nonrandomized controlled trial. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015;47(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12113 .

Majid U, Vanstone M. Appraising qualitative research for evidence syntheses: a compendium of quality appraisal tools. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(13):2115–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318785358 .

Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Global Qualitative Nurs Res. 2017;4:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282 .

Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage; 2018.

Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x .

Hanisch M, Kroeger E, Dekiff M, Timme M, Kleinheinz J, Dirksen D. 3D-printed surgical training model based on real patient situations for dental education. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082901 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Yilmaz FT, Sabanciogullari S, Aldemir K. The opinions of nursing students regarding the nursing process and their levels of proficiency in Turkey. J Caring Sci. 2015;4(4):265.

Thuvaraka S, Vijayanathan S, Pakeerathy M, Subathra R, Laavanya M, Priyanthi W. Challenges faced by nurses in implementation of nursing process in special units at Teaching Hospital. Jaffna. 2018;3(1):61–4.

Mert S, Altuntaş Yildiz T, Gönen Şentürk S, Durualp E. Senior high school students’ opinions on the nursing profession: A ten-year comparative study. J Adv Nurs 2020, 76(8):2082–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14403

Zamanzadeh V, Valizadeh L, Tabrizi FJ, Behshid M, Lotfi M. Challenges associated with the implementation of the nursing process: a systematic review. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2015;20(4):411–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-9066.161002 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sharghi NR, Alami A, Khosravan S, Mansoorian MR, Ekrami A. Academic training and clinical placement problems to achieve nursing competency. J Adv Med Educ Professionalism. 2015;3(1):15–20.

Carvalho DP, Azevedo IC, Cruz GK, Mafra GA, Rego AL, Vitor AF, Santos VE, Cogo AL, Júnior MAF. Strategies used for the promotion of critical thinking in nursing undergraduate education: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;57:103–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.07.010 .

Rahmani M, Alijani H, Dashtbozorge B, Haghighizadeh MH. Effect of the nursing process using via. J Clin Nurs Midwifery. 2016;5(2):75–83.

Heidari H, Mardani Hamooleh M. Nursing students’ experiences regarding nursing process: a qualitative study. Res Dev Med Educ. 2016;5(2):101–4. https://doi.org/10.15171/rdme.2016.021 .

Mackey A, Bassendowski S. The history of evidence-based practice in nursing education and practice. J Prof Nurs. 2017;33(1):51–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.05.009 .

Sin M-K, Bliquez R. Teaching evidence based practice to undergraduate nursing students. J Prof Nurs. 2017;33(6):447–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.06.003 .

Adraro Z. A Cherkos 2021 Knowledge and attitude of nurses about the nursing process in selected public hospitals in South-West Ethiopia. Adv Nurs Midwifery 30 1 34–41 https://doi.org/10.22037/jnm.v30i1.34285 .

Nakhaee S, Nasiri A. Inter-professional relationships issues among Iranian nurses and physicians: a qualitative study. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2017;22(1):8–13.

Adamy EK, Zocche DAA, Almeida MA. Contribution of the nursing process for the construction of the identity of nursing professionals. Revista Gaúcha De Enfermagem. 2019;41:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-1447.2020.20190143 .

Hackett J. The importance of holistic care at the end of life. Ulster Med J. 2017;86(2):143–4.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dyrstad DN, Bodsberg KG, Søiland M, Bergesen ÅU, Urstad KH. Value of simulating holistic nursing care: a quantitative study. Clin Simul Nurs. 2021;54:113–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2021.02.002 .

Hajbaghery MA, Mokhtari R. Complementary and alternative medicine and holistic nursing care: the necessity for curriculum revision. J Complement Med. 2018;5(4):1–2.

Jasemi M, Valizadeh L, Zamanzadeh V, Keogh B. A concept analysis of holistic care by hybrid model. Indian J Palliat Care. 2017;23(1):71–80. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1075.197960 .

Zamanzadeh V, Jasemi M, Valizadeh L, Keogh B, Taleghani F. Effective factors in providing holistic care: a qualitative study. Indian J Palliat Care. 2015;21(2):214–24. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1075.156506 .

Korkut S, Sahin S, Ulker T, Cidem A. Nursing students’ views of the nursing process and its challenges, and their solutions: a qualitative study. Int J Caring Sci. 2021;14(2):811–24.

Browne C, Wall P, Batt S, Bennett R. Understanding perceptions of nursing professional identity in students entering an Australian undergraduate nursing degree. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;32:90–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2018.07.006 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Baraz PS, Memarian R, Vanaki Z. Damaged professional identity as a barrier to Iranian nursing students’clinical learning: a qualitative study 2014,3(3):1–15.

Hood K, Cant R, Baulch J, Gilbee A, Leech M, Anderson A, Davies K. Prior experience of interprofessional learning enhances undergraduate nursing and healthcare students’ professional identity and attitudes to teamwork. Nurse Educ Pract. 2014;14(2):117–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.07.013 .

Sabanciogullari S, Dogan S. Relationship between job satisfaction, professional identity and intention to leave the profession among nurses in Turkey. J Nurs Adm Manag. 2015;23(8):1076–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12256 .

Sun L, Gao Y, Yang J, Zang X-Y, Wang Y-G. The impact of professional identity on role stress in nursing students: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;63:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.08.010 .

Van der Cingel M, Brouwer J. What makes a nurse today? A debate on the nursing professional identity and its need for change. Nurs Philos. 2021;22(2):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12343 .

Haghighat S, Borhani F, Ranjbar H, Naseri P. Evaluating the formation of professional identity in Iranian nursing students after implementation of a new curriculum. J Nurs Midwifery Sci. 2019;6(3):138–43. https://doi.org/10.4103/2345-5756.231386 .

Kholmuratovich MK, Mardanqulovich A, Ravshanovich JR, Sharifovna KU, Shodiyevna BO. Methodology of improving independent learning skills of future fine art teachers (on the example of still life in colorful paintings). Int J Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 2020;24(05):285–8. https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I5/PR201880 .

Shah UV, Chen W, Inguva P, Chadha D, Brechtelsbauer C. The discovery laboratory part II: a framework for incubating independent learning. Educ Chem Eng. 2020;31:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.03.003 .

Lau K. The most important thing is to learn the way to learn’: evaluating the effectiveness of independent learning by perceptual changes. Assess Evaluation High Educ. 2017;42(3):415–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1118434 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to express their gratitude to the students and professors who participated in the workshops and Student Research Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

This study was financed by the Student Vice Chancellor for Research of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Project number 1400254).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pediatric Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Amir Shahzeydi

Student of Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Parvaneh Abazari

Nursing and Midwifery Sciences Development Research Center, Najaf abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najaf abad, Iran

Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran

Fatemeh Gorji-varnosfaderani

Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Department of Adult Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Elaheh Ashouri, Shahla Abolhassani & Fakhri Sabohi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ASH, PA, FG designed the study. ASH, PA, FG, EA, SHA, FS helded the Workshops. PA interviewed the participants. ASH and FG wrote the interviews. PA, EA and SHA analyzed the interviews. ASH, PA and FS prepared the manuscript, and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parvaneh Abazari .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study has been approved by the ethics committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR.MUI.NUREMA.REC.1400.139) in 2021. Initially, the research purpose was explained to the patients and their caregivers. They were informed that participation in the research is entirely voluntary and free of charge. Not participating in the research would not affect their care and treatment interventions. They were assured that they could withdraw from the research at any time. Furthermore, it was emphasized that their information would be presented in the workshop in a strictly confidential manner, without disclosing their names, photos, file numbers, etc. Subsequently, both oral and written consent were obtained from them. After that, the study’s purpose was also explained to nursing students and faculty members, and informed oral and written consent was obtained from them. Numeric codes were used instead of personal names to ensure the confidentiality of the interviews. The participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time. All methods were conducted following the applicable guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, 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 licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shahzeydi, A., Abazari, P., Gorji-varnosfaderani, F. et al. Breaking the taboo of using the nursing process: lived experiences of nursing students and faculty members. BMC Nurs 23 , 621 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02233-z

Download citation

Received : 05 February 2024

Accepted : 06 August 2024

Published : 05 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-02233-z

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

• Nursing students
• Nursing process
• Clinical case

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Does collaborative learning can enhance critical thinking skills?  

Insight from top 5 papers.

Collaborative learning has been consistently shown to enhance critical thinking skills among students across various studies. By engaging in activities that promote interaction, idea-sharing, and teamwork, students can develop their ability to think critically and solve problems creatively [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . The incorporation of collaborative learning approaches, such as inquiry-based collaborative writing, interactive learning environments, and cooperative learning methods, not only fosters critical thinking but also improves students' cognitive abilities, academic proficiency, and learning outcomes. These methods encourage students to actively participate in the learning process, analyze information, evaluate results, and engage in discussions and debates, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of concepts and the development of essential critical thinking skills. Therefore, collaborative learning stands as a potent tool in nurturing students' critical thinking abilities and preparing them for success in their academic and professional endeavors.

Related Questions

Collaborative learning significantly enhances learners' critical thinking and problem-solving skills in mathematics by fostering peer interaction, engagement, and diverse perspectives. This approach not only encourages students to articulate their reasoning but also allows them to learn from one another, leading to deeper understanding and skill development. ## Enhancing Critical Thinking - Collaborative learning promotes critical thinking by requiring students to analyze, evaluate, and interpret mathematical problems collectively. Research indicates that students engaged in collaborative settings demonstrate improved critical thinking abilities, with a notable increase in skills such as interpretation and analysis. - A study found that 79.6% of the increase in critical thinking was attributed to collaborative learning, highlighting its effectiveness in educational settings. ## Problem-Solving Skills Development - Collaborative problem-solving in mathematics allows students to tackle complex problems together, enhancing their ability to negotiate solutions and share strategies. This interaction is particularly beneficial for lower-performing students, who become more engaged when working alongside peers of varying abilities. - The process of working through problems collaboratively helps students develop a more profound understanding of mathematical concepts, as they learn to articulate their thought processes and consider alternative viewpoints. While collaborative learning is beneficial, it is essential to recognize that not all students may thrive in such environments. Some may require additional support to engage effectively, indicating that a balanced approach combining collaborative and individual learning strategies may be necessary for optimal outcomes.

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) can significantly enhance student critical thinking skills by incorporating mixed teaching methods that promote agility, creativity, and analytical thinking . By implementing practical, real-world learning experiences into the curriculum, OBE can help students develop sound reasoning skills essential for critical thinking . Additionally, utilizing critical discourse analysis within OBE can further improve students' critical thinking abilities by making them aware of how language is used to manipulate media and express different viewpoints . Active learning approaches like content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in OBE environments have been shown to stimulate critical thinking development, as evidenced by the results of the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS) and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test (CCTT) Level Z in Japanese EFL learners . Moreover, incorporating technology simulations and scaffolding approaches in subjects like Physics Education can lead to a significant improvement in students' critical thinking skills, as demonstrated by the results of a study using the single pretest posttest group model .

Communication and collaboration tools play a crucial role in enhancing critical thinking skills among students. Utilizing Open Educational Resources (OER) in collaborative learning settings has been shown to significantly improve critical thinking abilities, as evidenced by studies focusing on physics lessons at secondary schools . Additionally, collaborative problem-solving, a key component of modern education, has been found to effectively foster students' critical thinking, particularly in terms of attitudinal tendencies, although there is room for improvement in enhancing cognitive skills . Furthermore, the use of asynchronous discussion forums (ADFs) in blended learning approaches has been identified as influential in developing collaborative critical thinking, with factors like virtual presence and skill development playing significant roles in this process . Moreover, implementing Collaborative Learning has been proven to enhance college students' critical thinking in writing, emphasizing the importance of providing appropriate arguments, evidence, alternative viewpoints, and clear conclusions . Overall, these studies highlight the positive impact of communication and collaboration tools in nurturing critical thinking skills among students across various educational settings.

ChatGPT enhances critical thinking skills by serving as an "object-to-think-with" in educational settings, fostering reflective thinking, problem-solving abilities, and concept comprehension . Integrating ChatGPT with Artifact intelligence and the Critical Thinking Method can expedite data presentation and enhance the quality of academic output . However, reliance on ChatGPT for assignments may lead to a decline in higher-order thinking skills among students . To address this, educators must use ChatGPT ethically and responsibly, emphasizing the importance of developing critical thinking skills to discern accurate information from misinformation . Overall, leveraging ChatGPT in physics classrooms has shown positive impacts on students' perceptions, increasing agreement on its benefits and incorporation into daily learning .

Collaborative learning has been found to have a positive impact on the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills among senior high school students. It has been shown to improve language proficiency, motivation, and critical thinking skills, as well as enhance collaboration competencies . The combination of collaborative learning and problem-solving approaches creates a collaborative learning environment that supports students in developing knowledge through their own experiences and fosters scientific attitudes . Problem-Based Learning (PBL) has been found to significantly improve students' critical thinking skills . Cooperative learning models, such as the Numbered Head Together (NHT) model, have been shown to increase students' critical thinking skills and concept mastery . Collaborative problem-solving has been found to be an effective teaching approach for fostering students' critical thinking, particularly in terms of attitudinal tendencies . These findings suggest that collaborative learning can play a significant role in promoting the development of critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills among senior high school students.

Trending Questions

EFL learners face a variety of reading comprehension challenges that can hinder their ability to effectively understand and interpret English texts. These challenges are often rooted in linguistic, cognitive, and cultural factors, which can vary depending on the learners' backgrounds and educational contexts. The following sections outline the most common difficulties identified in recent studies. ## Vocabulary and Language Knowledge - A significant challenge for EFL learners is a lack of vocabulary, which impedes their ability to grasp the meaning and general idea of texts. This issue is compounded by difficulties in understanding word meanings and recognizing words, which are critical for reading comprehension . - Additionally, learners often struggle with translating terms and finding equivalent words between languages, which can further complicate comprehension. ## Identifying Main Ideas and Details - EFL students frequently encounter difficulties in distinguishing between main ideas and supporting details within texts. This includes challenges in identifying the main idea across paragraphs and understanding the topic of texts from different cultural contexts. - Determining the main idea is also a noted difficulty, as it requires synthesizing information from various parts of the text. ## Sentence Structure and Inference - Understanding long and complex sentences poses another challenge, as it requires advanced syntactic knowledge and cognitive processing. - Making inferences from texts is a common difficulty, as it involves connecting implicit information with prior knowledge, which many EFL learners find challenging . ## Psycholinguistic and Cognitive Factors - Factors such as lack of interest, concentration, and the length of texts contribute to comprehension difficulties. These issues can affect learners' engagement and ability to process information effectively. - Anxiety and concentration problems, often linked to language interpretation tasks, can also impact reading comprehension. While these challenges are prevalent, it is important to consider that EFL learners' difficulties in reading comprehension are not solely due to linguistic barriers. Emotional and cognitive engagement, as well as cultural familiarity with the text, play crucial roles in comprehension. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach, including vocabulary enhancement, reading strategy instruction, and fostering a supportive learning environment.

Experience among workers plays a crucial role in enhancing safety behavior, as it influences risk perception, safety attitudes, and the ability to implement effective safety practices. Experienced workers often demonstrate better safety behavior due to their accumulated knowledge and familiarity with workplace hazards. This response explores how experience contributes to safety behavior, drawing insights from various studies. ## Influence of Experience on Safety Behavior - **Risk Perception and Safety Behavior**: Experience enhances workers' risk perception, which is a critical factor in promoting safety behavior. In a study of cement factory workers, it was found that those with higher risk perception, often developed through experience, were more engaged in safety behaviors. Similarly, experienced workers in small construction firms use their situated knowledge to assess risks quickly and manage their work environment effectively, thereby preventing accidents. - **Incident Experience and Safety Attitude**: Workers who have experienced incidents tend to develop a more cautious approach to safety. Research conducted in gas stations in Thailand showed that workers with incident experience (IE2) exhibited better safety behavior compared to those without such experience (IE1). This suggests that experiencing incidents can lead to a heightened awareness and improved safety practices. - **Safety Culture and Performance**: Experience contributes to the development of a strong safety culture, which in turn enhances safety performance. A study on rice farm workers demonstrated that safety culture, influenced by workers' experience, was a strong predictor of safety behavior and performance. Experienced workers are more likely to internalize safety norms and practices, leading to a safer work environment. ## Experience and Safety Training - **Role of Safety Training**: While experience is vital, safety training complements it by providing structured knowledge. A study in the construction industry highlighted that safety training, when combined with experience, can significantly improve safety perceptions and behaviors. Training helps in codifying safety knowledge, which experienced workers can apply practically. - **Impact of Workload and Leadership**: Experience also helps workers manage workload and respond to safety leadership, which are crucial for maintaining safety behavior. In the automobile industry, experienced workers were better at handling physical and mental workloads, which reduced the likelihood of accidents. Moreover, effective safety leadership can enhance the safety climate, further promoting safe behaviors among experienced workers. ## Experience and Informal Safety Practices - **Informal Safety Practices**: Experienced workers often develop informal safety practices that are not captured in formal training. In small construction firms, experienced workers use verbal and non-verbal communication to ensure safety, demonstrating the importance of experience in developing practical safety solutions. These practices are often tailored to specific work environments and can be more effective than standardized procedures. While experience significantly enhances safety behavior, it is important to recognize that it can also lead to overconfidence, potentially reducing risk awareness. A study in the construction sector found that experienced workers might underestimate risks due to familiarity, highlighting the need for continuous safety training and awareness programs. Additionally, the influence of experience on safety behavior can vary across industries and work environments, necessitating tailored interventions to maximize its benefits.

Crossmodal correspondence refers to the associations between different sensory modalities, often occurring without simultaneous stimuli. Research indicates that these correspondences can manifest even when stimuli from different modalities are not presented concurrently. ## Evidence of Non-Simultaneous Correspondence - Studies show that individuals can match auditory features, such as pitch, with visual stimuli, like motion, even when these stimuli are presented separately. - Correspondences between tactile qualities and visual or auditory features have been observed, suggesting that cognitive systems can integrate information across modalities without requiring simultaneous input. - The perception of crossmodal correspondence can arise from shared features, such as amplitude modulations, indicating that temporal alignment is not a prerequisite for these associations. ## Implications for Multisensory Integration - Crossmodal correspondences can enhance attentional processing and motor control, suggesting that they play a significant role in how we integrate sensory information, even when stimuli are not presented at the same time. While the traditional view emphasizes simultaneous stimuli for crossmodal correspondence, emerging evidence supports the idea that these associations can occur independently of temporal alignment, highlighting the brain's capacity for multisensory integration.

To effectively plan swimming training, a structured approach is essential, focusing on long-term development, lesson organization, and performance evaluation. This ensures that swimmers progress systematically and achieve their goals. ## Long-term Planning - Multi-year training plans should include macro-, meso-, and microcycles to address various training phases. - Coaches must set specific tasks for technical, tactical, and physical skill development, ensuring a coherent training process. ## Lesson Structure - Each swimming lesson should be divided into three parts: preparatory, main, and final. This structure helps in organizing the training effectively. - The preparatory phase focuses on correcting mistakes and introducing new skills, while the main part emphasizes skill execution and conditioning. ## Performance Monitoring - Regular assessments are crucial to tailor training programs to individual swimmer needs, enhancing performance outcomes. - Monitoring variables such as stroke technique and physical development is vital, especially for young swimmers, to adapt training loads appropriately. While structured planning is critical, flexibility in training is also necessary to accommodate individual swimmer responses and unforeseen circumstances, ensuring optimal performance and development.

Winning a talent show does not guarantee long-term success for singers, as several common factors contribute to their struggles post-competition. ## Psychological Challenges - **Performance Anxiety**: Many winners face significant anxiety, which can hinder their ability to perform consistently at high levels. This anxiety often stems from the pressures of competition and public scrutiny. - **Emotional Well-being**: Singers often lack the emotional support needed to navigate the industry's challenges, leading to issues like depression and decreased self-esteem. ## Industry Dynamics - **Lack of Preparation**: Many contestants enter talent shows without a solid understanding of the music industry, which can lead to poor career decisions. - **Commodification of Talent**: The focus on instant fame can overshadow the importance of developing a sustainable career, leaving winners unprepared for the realities of the music business. While talent shows can provide a platform, the psychological and industry-related challenges often impede sustained success for winners.

• Hausa Edition
• Conferences
• LeVogue Magazine
• Business News
• Print Advert Rates
• Online Advert Rates

• Entertainment
• National Economy

Strategic Agility In Action: Leaders Empowered At Texem’s Transformative Liverpool Programme The recent TEXEM Strategic Agility and Inspiring Change programme, held from August 26th to 29th, 2024, was a remarkable gathering that left an indelible mark on all who attended. This executive development programme, which took place in the vibrant city of Liverpool, was not just a capacity development programme but an immersive experience that combined cutting-edge leadership insights with practical applications, all aimed at empowering leaders to navigate the complexities of today’s turbulent environment. Hosted at the prestigious Hilton Liverpool City Centre, the programme commenced with a warm welcome on Monday, August 26th. The morning session, led by the esteemed Prof. Rodria Laline, delved into the foundations of strategic agility, setting the stage for a week of deep learning and transformative discussions. Participants were introduced to the principles of strategic agility, exploring how these concepts provide a critical leadership edge in times of uncertainty—the afternoon continued with an exploration of effective leadership in change management, where executives learned best practices in implementing change—a crucial skill in maintaining organisational resilience. Tuesday, August 27th, was a day that blended rigorous academic inquiry with an unforgettable practical experience. Dr Alim Abubakre, Founder of TEXEM, UK, guided participants through a detailed analysis of strategic agility versus agile strategy, drawing on the resource-based view to provide a robust framework for leveraging organisational strengths to win. Specifically, the presentation on “Strategic Agility vs. Agile Strategy: Leveraging the Resource-Based View” provides leaders with a clear distinction between these two concepts, emphasising the importance of organisational flexibility and rapid adaptation in a dynamic business environment. By leveraging unique resources and capabilities, leaders can sustain competitive advantages and foster resilience against disruptions. The benefits include enhanced decision-making, faster response times, and the ability to capitalise on emerging opportunities, ultimately driving sustainable success in turbulent times. The evening offered a unique opportunity to visit Liverpool Football Club, where participants engaged in a working trip that transcended the usual confines of corporate capacity development programmes. Led by the legendary Ian Callaghan, who holds the record for the most appearances for Liverpool and was a key player in their FA Cup success and England’s World Cup-winning squad, this guided tour provided not just inspiration but a living example of dedication, teamwork, and strategic thinking. The third day, Wednesday, August 28th, facilitated by Ambassador Charles Crawford, brought forward big ideas on how to make meetings more effective—a critical component of strategic agility. Participants were then challenged to engage in practical speaking exercises, sharpening their communication skills, which are essential for motivating teams and driving change. The afternoon was dedicated to case studies highlighting diplomatic agility, providing real-world examples of how strategic thinking can be applied in high-stakes situations. The day concluded with discussions that distilled vital messages from the day’s activities, leaving participants with actionable insights to bring back to their organisations. The final day, Thursday, August 29th, under the guidance of Prof. Roger Delves, was a masterclass in emotional intelligence (EQ) and transformational leadership. Participants explored how strategic relational management fuels sustainable success, delving into authentic and purpose-driven leadership. This session culminated the week’s learning, bringing together the threads of strategic agility, change management, and leadership authenticity into a coherent approach to leading in uncertain times. Throughout the programme, participants were engaged in learning and networking during informal discussions over lunch and dinner, creating connections that are sure to last well beyond the programme. The farewell dinner on Thursday evening marked the conclusion of a week that was as much about building community as it was about gaining knowledge. The programme’s methodology encompasses group and individual impactful activities, peer-to-peer learning, games, observation practice, and self-reflection to make learning fun, engaging, and insightful. This approach not only made the sessions more enjoyable but also ensured that the insights were deeply ingrained, practical, and immediately applicable. Participants left with a sense of accomplishment, armed with actionable strategies to drive organisational success. The benefits of this methodology were manifold—enhanced retention of knowledge through active engagement, a supportive learning environment that fostered collaboration, the opportunity to immediately apply new skills in a safe setting, the development of critical thinking through interactive exercises, and the ability to reflect on personal leadership styles and their impact. Testimonials from the participantss underscored the programme’s success: “The programme is all about strategic agility, and we’re living in times of disruption. The programme has equipped me with some valuable skills in terms of emotional intelligence, in terms of transformational leadership, and these are quite important ingredients and tools for any organisation that wants to thrive and succeed.” Rabia Wanka, Head of Oil and Gas Transactions, NEXIM Bank. “A lot has been learned. And, specifically, I like the energy. Sincerely, I’ve had other international programmes, but this is with a difference, the faculties that were brought, the way the programme is structured, you know, around organisation and around self. It’s distinct, and I want to recommend it to leaders, to come to TEXEM.” John Tizhe, Executive Director, NPF Microfinance Bank. “Well, I was coming from an environment where agility is the language, it is not strange…to me, but this programme further exposed me more, like, a firsthand information, … with this insight I’ve gotten from here, it’s going to help me to move even more faster…” – Olusola Faleye, MD/CEO, Lagos Building Investment Company Plc (LBIC). For those who missed this programme, it is not an exaggeration to say that they missed a truly transformative experience. The insights gained were not just theoretical but practical, providing leaders with the tools they need to drive their organisations forward with confidence and agility. As we all know, the ability to adapt and lead in turbulent times is not just a luxury but a necessity for sustainable success. Those who were fortunate enough to attend now carry with them a strategic edge that will undoubtedly set them apart in their respective fields. Conclusively, in the words of Charles Crawford “There’s always a fascinating dynamic tension between Agility (quick thinking and quick movement NOW!) and Strategy (setting a long-term goal then methodically driving towards it without getting distracted). This course allowed its distinguished participants to think about this tension – and to learn specific skills for getting the balance right.”

The recent TEXEM Strategic Agility and Inspiring Change programme, held from August 26th to 29th, 2024, was a remarkable gathering that left an indelible mark on all who attended. This executive development programme, which took place in the vibrant city of Liverpool, was not just a capacity development programme but an immersive experience that combined cutting-edge leadership insights with practical applications, all aimed at empowering leaders to navigate the complexities of today’s turbulent environment.

Hosted at the prestigious Hilton Liverpool City Centre, the programme commenced with a warm welcome on Monday, August 26th. The morning session, led by the esteemed Prof. Rodria Laline, delved into the foundations of strategic agility, setting the stage for a week of deep learning and transformative discussions. Participants were introduced to the principles of strategic agility, exploring how these concepts provide a critical leadership edge in times of uncertainty—the afternoon continued with an exploration of effective leadership in change management, where executives learned best practices in implementing change—a crucial skill in maintaining organisational resilience.

Tuesday, August 27th, was a day that blended rigorous academic inquiry with an unforgettable practical experience. Dr Alim Abubakre, Founder of TEXEM, UK, guided participants through a detailed analysis of strategic agility versus agile strategy, drawing on the resource-based view to provide a robust framework for leveraging organisational strengths to win. Specifically, the presentation on “Strategic Agility vs. Agile Strategy: Leveraging the Resource-Based View” provides leaders with a clear distinction between these two concepts, emphasising the importance of organisational flexibility and rapid adaptation in a dynamic business environment. By leveraging unique resources and capabilities, leaders can sustain competitive advantages and foster resilience against disruptions. The benefits include enhanced decision-making, faster response times, and the ability to capitalise on emerging opportunities, ultimately driving sustainable success in turbulent times.

The evening offered a unique opportunity to visit Liverpool Football Club, where participants engaged in a working trip that transcended the usual confines of corporate capacity development programmes. Led by the legendary Ian Callaghan, who holds the record for the most appearances for Liverpool and was a key player in their FA Cup success and England’s World Cup-winning squad, this guided tour provided not just inspiration but a living example of dedication, teamwork, and strategic thinking.

The third day, Wednesday, August 28th, facilitated by Ambassador Charles Crawford, brought forward big ideas on how to make meetings more effective—a critical component of strategic agility. Participants were then challenged to engage in practical speaking exercises, sharpening their communication skills, which are essential for motivating teams and driving change. The afternoon was dedicated to case studies highlighting diplomatic agility, providing real-world examples of how strategic thinking can be applied in high-stakes situations. The day concluded with discussions that distilled vital messages from the day’s activities, leaving participants with actionable insights to bring back to their organisations.

The final day, Thursday, August 29th, under the guidance of Prof. Roger Delves, was a masterclass in emotional intelligence (EQ) and transformational leadership. Participants explored how strategic relational management fuels sustainable success, delving into authentic and purpose-driven leadership. This session culminated the week’s learning, bringing together the threads of strategic agility, change management, and leadership authenticity into a coherent approach to leading in uncertain times. Throughout the programme, participants were engaged in learning and networking during informal discussions over lunch and dinner, creating connections that are sure to last well beyond the programme. The farewell dinner on Thursday evening marked the conclusion of a week that was as much about building community as it was about gaining knowledge.

Related News

Cac’s insistence on registration of pos operators, community action against bandits, as marwa clocks 3 scores and 11, strengthening bonds: what vice president shettima did not know when he visited taraba.

The programme’s methodology encompasses group and individual impactful activities, peer-to-peer learning, games, observation practice, and self-reflection to make learning fun, engaging, and insightful. This approach not only made the sessions more enjoyable but also ensured that the insights were deeply ingrained, practical, and immediately applicable. Participants left with a sense of accomplishment, armed with actionable strategies to drive organisational success. The benefits of this methodology were manifold—enhanced retention of knowledge through active engagement, a supportive learning environment that fostered collaboration, the opportunity to immediately apply new skills in a safe setting, the development of critical thinking through interactive exercises, and the ability to reflect on personal leadership styles and their impact.

Testimonials from the participantss underscored the programme’s success: “The programme is all about strategic agility, and we’re living in times of disruption. The programme has equipped me with some valuable skills in terms of emotional intelligence, in terms of transformational leadership, and these are quite important ingredients and tools for any organisation that wants to thrive and succeed.” Rabia Wanka, Head of Oil and Gas Transactions, NEXIM Bank. “A lot has been learned. And, specifically, I like the energy. Sincerely, I’ve had other international programmes, but this is with a difference, the faculties that were brought, the way the programme is structured, you know, around organisation and around self. It’s distinct, and I want to recommend it to leaders, to come to TEXEM.” John Tizhe, Executive Director, NPF Microfinance Bank. “Well, I was coming from an environment where agility is the language, it is not strange…to me, but this programme further exposed me more, like, a firsthand information, … with this insight I’ve gotten from here, it’s going to help me to move even more faster…” – Olusola Faleye, MD/CEO, Lagos Building Investment Company Plc (LBIC).

For those who missed this programme, it is not an exaggeration to say that they missed a truly transformative experience. The insights gained were not just theoretical but practical, providing leaders with the tools they need to drive their organisations forward with confidence and agility. As we all know, the ability to adapt and lead in turbulent times is not just a luxury but a necessity for sustainable success. Those who were fortunate enough to attend now carry with them a strategic edge that will undoubtedly set them apart in their respective fields.

Conclusively, in the words of Charles Crawford “There’s always a fascinating dynamic tension between Agility (quick thinking and quick movement NOW!) and Strategy (setting a long-term goal then methodically driving towards it without getting distracted). This course allowed its distinguished participants to think about this tension – and to learn specific skills for getting the balance right.”

Get real time update about this post categories directly on your device, subscribe now.

You May Like

NASS Must Not Repeal FGM And VAPP Act Of 2015

Of NEC Meeting, Of Fuel Crisis

P&ID: Lessons Not Learnt

Edo: again, okpebholo raises concerns over violence amid alleged arrest of lg chair, nlc president not above law, must honour security agency’s summons — presidency, 125,517 terrorists surrender in north-east — dhq, due network expands services in nigeria with virtual accounts, just-in: ncdc confirms 55 mpox cases in 21 states, fct, terror kingpin bello turji’s capture imminent — cds, police rescue 4-yr-old boy kidnapped by cousin in kano, vp shettima arrives borno for on-the-spot flood assessment, imo lg poll: ugorji hails emergence of alaribe as apc consensus candidate in aboh mbaise, psc warns policemen against involvement in land, rent, marital matters.

© 2024 Leadership Media Group - All Rights Reserved .