collaborative problem solving training free

« All Events

• This event has passed.

Free Collaborative Problem Solving Course (8 weeks, online)

April 21, 2022 @ 12:00 pm - 2:00 pm.

FREE online Collaborative Problem Solving classes, from the State of Oregon, starting April 14, 2022 with an 8 week course focused Autism and IDD. More courses will be available through the end of the year.

To register for this course:  https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cps-w-a-focus-on-autismidd-8-wk-thur-parent-class-oregon-residents-oha-tickets-310165632757?aff=odcleoeventsincollection

For information about the program with dates for other courses: https://sites.google.com/thechildcenter.org/cpsfororegonparents/home

About this event

Free & web-based.

All current classes are offered via Zoom and generously funded by the Oregon Health Authority.

Classes are facilitated by expert local Oregon trainers certified by Think:Kids

• Learn the Collaborative Problem Solving® approach & effective ways to reduce conflict

• Build skills & confidence in using the CPS approach

• Network & share information about community resources

• Develop new understanding of challenging behavior & learn new ways to help your child

• Rethink conventional approaches to behavioral difficulties and strengthen relationships

• Gain support from other parents, grandparents, foster parents, and caregivers

The CPS Approach

The Collaborative Problem Solving® approach is an evidence-based method to managing challenging behavior that promotes the understanding that challenging kids lack the skill – not the will – to behave; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility and frustration tolerance.

Unlike traditional models of discipline, the CPS approach avoids the use of power, control and motivational procedures and instead focuses on collaborating with the child/ youth/ young adult to solve the problems leading to challenging behavior and building the skills they need to succeed.

This class runs from Noon to 2:00PM on the following Thursdays:

4/14/22 – First Class 4/21/22, 4/28/22 5/5/22 5/12/22 5/19/22 5/26/22 6/2/22 – Last Class

Class Instructor:

Randi Cooper, M.Ed. , is a behavior consultant, special educator, and trainer with over 20 years experience working with individuals who experience challenging behaviors. Her background is Special Education as a classroom teacher and behavior specialist. Currently, she is a Behavior Professional Provider/Consultant who provides training and coaching for schools, clinicians, parents, and other agencies in using the most effective strategies and evidence-based approaches. Randi is an expert in Collaborative Problem Solving and is a staff member of Think:Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston as a Clinical Trainer and Consultant. Randi lives in Portland, Oregon, but works with programs across the country. She is passionate about helping others increase confidence, feel empowered, and shift people’s thinking of how they view and help those individuals who need some extra support at home, in school, and in life.

• Google Calendar
• Outlook 365
• Outlook Live

Related Events

The Abundant Basket – Exploring and celebrating brains that think differently

© 2016 Autism Society of Oregon Privacy Policy           Board Login

Jump to content

Psychiatry Academy

Bookmark/search this post.

You are here

Parenting, teaching and treating challenging kids: the collaborative problem solving approach.

• CE Information
• Register/Take course

Think:Kids and the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital are pleased to offer an online training program featuring Dr. J. Stuart Ablon. This introductory training provides a foundation for professionals and parents interested in learning the evidence-based approach to understanding and helping children and adolescents with behavioral challenges called Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). This online training serves as the prerequisite for our professional intensive training.

The CPS approach provides a way of understanding and helping kids who struggle with behavioral challenges. Challenging behavior is thought of as willful and goal oriented which has led to approaches that focus on motivating better behavior using reward and punishment programs. If you’ve tried these strategies and they haven’t worked, this online training is for you! At Think:Kids we have some very different ideas about why these kids struggle. Research over the past 30 years demonstrates that for the majority of these kids, their challenges result from a lack of crucial thinking skills when it comes to things like problem solving, frustration tolerance and flexibility. The CPS approach, therefore, focuses on helping adults teach the skills these children lack while resolving the chronic problems that tend to precipitate challenging behavior.

This training is designed to allow you to learn at your own pace. You must complete the modules sequentially, but you can take your time with the content as your schedule allows. Additional resources for each module provide you with the opportunity for further development. Discussion boards for each module allow you to discuss concepts and your own experiences with other participants. Faculty from the Think:Kids program monitor the boards and offer their point of view.

Registrants will have access to course materials from the date of their registration through the course expiration date.

All care Providers: $149 Due to COVID-19, we are offering this course at the reduced rate of $99 for a limited time.

NOTE: If you are paying for your registration via Purchase Order, please send the PO to [email protected] . Our customer service agent will respond with further instructions.

Cancellation Policy

Refunds will be issued for requests received within 10 business days of purchase, but an administrative fee of $35 will be deducted from your refund. No refunds will be made thereafter. Additionally, no refunds will be made for individuals who claim CME or credit, regardless of when they request a refund.

Through the duration of the course, the faculty moderator will respond to any clinical questions that are submitted to the interactive discussion board. The faculty moderator for this course will be:

J. Stuart Ablon, PhD

*** Please note that discussion boards are reviewed on a regular basis, and responses to all questions will be posted within one week of receipt. ***

Target Audience

This program is intended for: Parents, clinicians, educators, allied mental health professionals, and direct care staff.

Learning Objectives

At the end of this program, participants will be able to:

• Shift thinking and approach to foster positive relationships with children
• Reduce challenging behavior
• Foster proactive, rather than reactive interventions
• Teach skills related to self-regulation, communication and problem solving

MaMHCA, and its agent, MMCEP has been designated by the Board of Allied Mental Health and Human Service Professions to approve sponsors of continuing education for licensed mental health counselors in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for licensure renewal, in accordance with the requirements of 262 CMR 3.00.

This program has been approved for 3.00 CE credit for Licensed Mental Health Counselors MaMHCA.

Authorization number: 17-0490

The Collaborative of NASW, Boston College, and Simmons College Schools of Social Work authorizes social work continuing education credits for courses, workshops, and educational programs that meet the criteria outlined in 258 CMR of the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Social Workers

This program has been approved for 3.00 Social Work Continuing Education hours for relicensure, in accordance with 258 CMR. Collaborative of NASW and the Boston College and Simmons Schools of Social Work Authorization Number D 61675-E

This course allows other providers to claim a Participation Certificate upon successful completion of this course.

Participation Certificates will specify the title, location, type of activity, date of activity, and number of AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ associated with the activity. Providers should check with their regulatory agencies to determine ways in which AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ may or may not fulfill continuing education requirements. Providers should also consider saving copies of brochures, agenda, and other supporting documents.

The Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. The Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

This offering meets the criteria for 3.00 Continuing Education (CE) credits per presentation for psychologists.

Stuart Ablon, PhD

Available credit.

How to ace collaborative problem solving

April 30, 2023 They say two heads are better than one, but is that true when it comes to solving problems in the workplace? To solve any problem—whether personal (eg, deciding where to live), business-related (eg, raising product prices), or societal (eg, reversing the obesity epidemic)—it’s crucial to first define the problem. In a team setting, that translates to establishing a collective understanding of the problem, awareness of context, and alignment of stakeholders. “Both good strategy and good problem solving involve getting clarity about the problem at hand, being able to disaggregate it in some way, and setting priorities,” Rob McLean, McKinsey director emeritus, told McKinsey senior partner Chris Bradley  in an Inside the Strategy Room podcast episode . Check out these insights to uncover how your team can come up with the best solutions for the most complex challenges by adopting a methodical and collaborative approach. 

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

Countering otherness: Fostering integration within teams

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

If we’re all so busy, why isn’t anything getting done?

To weather a crisis, build a network of teams

Unleash your team’s full potential

Modern marketing: Six capabilities for multidisciplinary teams

Beyond collaboration overload

MORE FROM MCKINSEY

Take a step Forward

Learn Collaborative Problem-Solving Strategies and Tools for the Workplace

Free webinar.

Finding durable and equitable solutions to the many issues caused by the rapid pace of change in the workplace requires labor and management to work together to fully understand and address the source of conflicts.

On December 6 at 12:30 PM the Scheinman Institute will present a free 75-minute interactive webinar focused on collaborative problem-solving strategies and tools to identify mutual interests, create options for solutions based on data, and engage constituents in the implementation of new practices.

Learn more and register today.

Scheinman Institute Newsletter Signup

Keep up with the latest information and news about the Institute's research, education, student engagement, and outreach.

An Introduction to Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

Tuesday, july 13, 2021 – 6:00pm, 6:00pm - 7:00pm.

Please join Swindells Resource Center and certified trainers Marcus Saraceno and Paul Kammerzelt from Watershed Problem Solving LLC, for an introduction to Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS).

• The Collaborative Problem Solving® approach
• Skills used for solving problems
• Interventions used in the Collaborative Problem Solving® model
• What to do next?

Download Flyer here

Swindells Online Webinar

The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

• Contact the CEBC
• Sign up for The CEBC Connection
• Topic Areas
• Rating Scales
• Implementation-Specific Tools & Resources
• Implementation Guide
• Implementation Examples

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

About this program.

Target Population: Children and adolescents (ages 3-21) with a variety of behavioral challenges, including both externalizing (e.g., aggression, defiance, tantrums) and internalizing (e.g., implosions, shutdowns, withdrawal) who may carry a variety of related psychiatric diagnoses, and their parents/caregivers, unless not age appropriate (e.g. young adult or transition age youth)

For children/adolescents ages: 3 – 21

For parents/caregivers of children ages: 3 – 21

Program Overview

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) is an approach to understanding and helping children with behavioral challenges who may carry a variety of psychiatric diagnoses, including oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, mood disorders, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, etc. CPS uses a structured problem solving process to help adults pursue their expectations while reducing challenging behavior and building helping relationships and thinking skills. Specifically, the CPS approach focuses on teaching the neurocognitive skills that challenging kids lack related to problem solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance. Unlike traditional models of discipline, this approach avoids the use of power, control, and motivational procedures and instead focuses on teaching at-risk kids the skills they need to succeed. CPS provides a common philosophy, language and process with clear guideposts that can be used across settings. In addition, CPS operationalizes principles of trauma-informed care.

Program Goals

The goals of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) are:

• Reduction in externalizing and internalizing behaviors
• Reduction in use of restrictive interventions (restraint, seclusion)
• Reduction in caregiver/teacher stress
• Increase in neurocognitive skills in youth and caregivers
• Increase in family involvement
• Increase in parent-child relationships
• Increase in program cost savings

Logic Model

The program representative did not provide information about a Logic Model for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) .

Essential Components

The essential components of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) include:

• Three different types of intervention delivery to parents and/or children/adolescents depending on the personal situation:
• Family therapy sessions (conducted both with and without the youth) which typically take place weekly for approximately 10-12 weeks
• 4- and 8-week parent training curricula that teach the basics of the model to parents in a group format (maximum group size = 12 participants)
• Direct delivery to youth in treatment or educational settings in planned sessions or in a milieu
• In the family sessions or parent training sessions, parents receive:
• An overarching philosophy to guide the practice of the approach ("kids do well if they can")
• A specific assessment process and measures to identify challenging behaviors, predictable precipitants, and specific thinking skill deficits. Lagging thinking skills are identified in five primary domains:
• Language and Communication Skills
• Attention and Working Memory Skills
• Emotion and Self-Regulation Skills
• Cognitive Flexibility Skills
• Social Thinking Skills
• A specific planning process that helps adults prioritize behavioral goals and decide how to respond to predictable difficulties using 3 simple options based upon the goals they are trying to pursue:
• Plan A – Imposition of adult will
• Plan B – Solve the problem collaboratively
• Plan C – Drop the expectation (for now, at least)
• A specific problem solving process (operationalizing "Plan B") with three core ingredients that is used to collaborate with the youth to solve problems durably, pursue adult expectations, reduce challenging behaviors, teach skills, and create or restore a helping relationship.
• When directly working with the youth in treatment or education settings, providers engage youth with:

Program Delivery

Child/adolescent services.

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) directly provides services to children/adolescents and addresses the following:

• A range of internalizing and externalizing behaviors, including (but not limited to) physical and verbal aggression, destruction of property, self-harm, substance abuse, tantrums, meltdowns, explosions, implosive behaviors (shutting down), crying, pouting, whining, withdrawal, defiance, and oppositionality

Parent/Caregiver Services

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) directly provides services to parents/caregivers and addresses the following:

• Child with internalizing and/or externalizing behaviors, difficulty effectively problem solving with their child

Services Involve Family/Support Structures:

This program involves the family or other support systems in the individual's treatment: Any caregivers, educators, and other supports are essential to the success of the approach. Caregivers, teachers and other adult supporters are taught to use the approach with the child outside the context of the clinical setting. School and clinical staff typically learn the model via single or multi-day workshops and through follow-up training and coaching.

Recommended Intensity:

Typically family therapy (in which the youth is the identified patient, but the parents are heavily involved in the sessions so that they can get better at using the approach with their child on their own) occurs once per week for approximately 1 hour. The approach can also be delivered in the home with greater frequency/intensity, such as twice a week for 90 minutes. Parent training group sessions occur once a week for 90 minutes over the course of 4 or 8 weeks. The approach can also be delivered by direct care staff in a treatment setting and/or educators in a school system, in which case delivery is not limited to scheduled sessions, but occurs in the context of regular contact in a residence or classroom.

Recommended Duration:

Family therapy: 8-12 weeks; In-home therapy: 8-12 weeks; Parent training groups: 4-8 weeks

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

• Adoptive Home
• Birth Family Home
• Foster / Kinship Care
• Outpatient Clinic
• Community-based Agency / Organization / Provider
• Group or Residential Care
• Justice Setting (Juvenile Detention, Jail, Prison, Courtroom, etc.)
• School Setting (Including: Day Care, Day Treatment Programs, etc.)

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) includes a homework component:

Identifying specific precipitants, prioritizing behavioral goals, and practicing the problem solving process are expected to be completed by the caregiver and youth between sessions.

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) has materials available in languages other than English :

Chinese, French, Spanish

For information on which materials are available in these languages, please check on the program's website or contact the program representative ( contact information is listed at the bottom of this page).

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

Trained personnel. If being delivered as parent group training, it requires a room big enough to hold the number of families (anywhere from a couple of parents up to 12 participants), as well as A/V equipment or printed materials for delivery of material in training curriculum.

Manuals and Training

Prerequisite/minimum provider qualifications.

Service providers and supervisors must be certified in CPS . There is no minimum educational level required before certification process can begin.

Manual Information

There is a manual that describes how to deliver this program.

Program Manual(s)

Treatment Manual: Greene, R. W., & Ablon, J. S. (2005). Treating explosive kids: The Collaborative Problem Solving approach . Guilford Press.

Training Information

There is training available for this program.

Training Contact:

• Think: Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital [email protected] phone: (617) 643-6300

Training Type/Location:

Training can be obtained onsite, at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, at trainings hosted in other locations, online (introductory training only), or via video/phone training and coaching.

Number of days/hours:

Ranges from a 2-hour exposure training to more intensive (2.5 day) advanced sessions as well as hourly coaching:

• Exposure/Introductory training: These in-person and online trainings typically last from 2–6 hours and provide a general overview exposure of the model including the overarching philosophy, the assessment , planning and intervention process. Training can accommodate an unlimited number of participants.
• Two-and-a-half day intensive trainings that provide participants in-depth exposure to all aspects of the model using didactic training, video demonstration, role play and breakout group practice. Tier 1 training is limited to 150 participants. Tier 2 training is limited to 75 participants.
• Coaching sessions for up to 12 participants that provide ongoing support and troubleshooting in the model

Additional Resources:

There currently are additional qualified resources for training:

There are many certified trainers throughout North America who teach the model as well as well as systems that use the approach. The list is available at https://thinkkids.org/our-communities

Implementation Information

Pre-implementation materials.

There are pre-implementation materials to measure organizational or provider readiness for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

A CPS Organizational Readiness Assessment measure has been developed that is available for systems interested in implementing the model. It can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected].

Formal Support for Implementation

There is formal support available for implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Think:Kids provides implementation support in the form of ongoing coaching and fidelity and outcome monitoring. There is a Director of Implementation who oversees these activities.

Fidelity Measures

There are fidelity measures for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Self Study of CPS Sustainability, Updated 06/2019 : A guide for systems to assess the degree to which they are have put the structures in place to implement CPS with fidelity . Can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected].

CPS Manualized Expert-Rated Integrity Coding System (CPS-MEtRICS) and Treatment Integrity Rating Form-Short (CPS-TIRFS) : Fidelity tools to help measure the degree to which CPS is being practiced with fidelity in a specific encounter. Can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected].

Implementation Guides or Manuals

There are implementation guides or manuals for Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Clinician Session Guide : Guides the clinician in all aspects of the treatment, from initial assessment to ongoing work. Can be obtained by contacting the Director of Research and Evaluation, Dr. Alisha Pollastri, at [email protected].

CPS Coaching Guide : A guide specifically geared towards trainer individuals who are helping caregivers to implement the model over time. Available to certified trainers.

Research on How to Implement the Program

Research has been conducted on how to implement Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) as listed below:

Ercole-Fricke, E., Fritz, P., Hill, L. E., & Snelders, J. (2016). Effects of a Collaborative Problem Solving approach on an inpatient adolescent psychiatric unit. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 29 (3), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12149

Pollastri, A. R., Boldt, S., Lieberman, R., & Ablon, J. S. (2016). Minimizing seclusion and restraint in youth residential and day treatment through site-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 33 (3-4), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2016.1188340

Pollastri, A. R., Ablon, J. S., & Hone, M. J. (Eds.). (2019). Collaborative Problem Solving: An evidence-based approach to implementation and practice. Springer.

Pollastri, A. R., Wang, L., Youn, S. J., Ablon, J. S., & Marques, L. (2020). The value of implementation frameworks: Using the active implementation frameworks to guide system-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Community Psychology , 48 (4), 1114–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22325

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

Greene, R. W., Ablon J. S., Goring, J. C., Raezer-Blakely, L., Markey, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Henin, A, Edwards, G., & Rabbitt, S. (2004). Effectiveness of Collaborative Problem Solving in affectively dysregulated children with oppositional defiant disorder: Initial findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (6), 1157–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1157

Type of Study: Randomized controlled trial Number of Participants: 47

Population:

• Age — 4–12 years
• Race/Ethnicity — Not specified
• Gender — 32 Male and 15 Female
• Status — Participants were parents and their children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).

Location/Institution: Massachusetts

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations) The purpose of the study was to examine the efficacy of Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) in affectively dysregulated children with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Participants were randomized to either the parent training version of CPS or parent training (PT). Measures utilized include the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children—Epidemiologic version (K-SADS–E), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised, the Parent–Child Relationship Inventory (PCRI), the Parenting Stress Index (PSI), the Oppositional Defiant Disorder Rating Scale (ODDRS), and the Clinical Global Impression–Improvement (CGI-I) . Results indicate that CPS produced significant improvements across multiple domains of functioning at posttreatment and at 4-month follow-up. Limitations include small sample size and length of follow-up.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 4 months.

Pollastri, A. R., Boldt, S., Lieberman, R., & Ablon, J. S. (2016). Pollastri, A. R., Boldt, S., Lieberman, R., & Ablon, J. S. (2016). Minimizing seclusion and restraint in youth residential and day treatment through site-wide implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. 33 (3–4), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2016.1188340

Type of Study: Pretest–posttest study with a nonequivalent control group (Quasi-experimental) Number of Participants: Not specified

• Age — Not specified
• Gender — Not specified
• Status — Participants were in residential and day treatment and included youth in foster care and child welfare.

Location/Institution: Oregon

Summary: (To include basic study design, measures, results, and notable limitations) The purpose of the study was to describe the results of one agency’s experience implementing the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach organization-wide and its effect on reducing seclusion and restraint (S/R) rates. Participants were grouped into the CPS intervention at a residential or day treatment facility. Measures utilized include the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) and the Child and Adolescent Needs Assessment (CANS) . Results indicate that during the time studied, frequency of restrictive events in the residential facility decreased from an average of 25.5 per week to 2.5 per week, and restrictive events in the day treatment facility decreased from an average of 2.8 per week to 7 per year. Limitations include lack of randomization of participants, and lack of follow-up.

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: None.

Additional References

Greene, R. W., & Ablon, J. S. (2005). Treating explosive kids: The Collaborative Problem Solving approach . Guilford Press.

Greene, R. W., Ablon, J. S., Goring, J. C., Fazio, V., & Morse, L. R. (2003). Treatment of oppositional defiant disorder in children and adolescents. In P. Barrett & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Handbook of Interventions that work with children and adolescents: Prevention and treatment. John Wiley & Sons.

Pollastri, A. R., Epstein, L. D., Heath, G. H., & Ablon, J. S. (2013). The Collaborative Problem Solving approach: Outcomes across settings. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 21 (4), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0b013e3182961017

Contact Information

Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed by CEBC: July 2023

Date Program Content Last Reviewed by Program Staff: March 2020

Date Program Originally Loaded onto CEBC: May 2017

Glossary | Sitemap | Limitations & Disclosures

The CEBC is funded by the California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS’) Office of Child Abuse Prevention and is one of their targeted efforts to improve the lives of children and families served within child welfare system.

© copyright 2006-2024 The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare www.cebc4cw.org

Collaboration training for more productive teams: A guide for leaders and people managers

Want to teach your team how to work together better? Learn about five collaboration training techniques for a more productive and cohesive team.

Table of Contents

If you’ve ever been to an improv show, it can be hard to believe the skits aren’t rehearsed. The scenes change in an instant and the actors never seem to miss a beat—it’s hard to believe they’re coming up with everything on the fly. 

Well, yes and no. 

They may not rehearse lines, but improv actors get plenty of practice with exercises that help them become better listeners and communicators—and work as a team. They know that collaboration is a skill that can be taught. And if you want your team to work together more effectively and productively, you need to be running collaboration training for your people too.

While you probably already invest in ongoing learning and development, you may be overlooking the training that most directly impacts day-to-day work: the ability to work together. Here are five collaboration skills training techniques for a team that works better together and keeps hitting goals.

Want your team to collaborate? Give them the right platform.  Switchboard provides an interactive, multiplayer experience that lets your whole team get involved and get more done together.   Learn more

Training activity comparison table 

Before we dive in, here’s a quick overview of the collaboration skills training activities we recommend, as well as how much time you need to plan and run them.

5 collaboration skills training techniques   

Just like improv performers practice with focused exercises, collaboration is a skill you can train your employees on. Here are five collaboration skills training techniques to get your team working and communicating together better. 

1. Group problem-solving activities 

Problem-solving on your own is like a stand-up monologue that doesn’t require any interactions. But problem-solving in a group requires you to communicate really well with your team members, just like improv theater. 

Group problem-solving training helps co-workers build the skills they need to tackle issues in the workplace together. However, running group problem-solving activities shouldn’t feel like a chore. Here are a couple of fun problem-solving activities that can help your team collaborate with the ease an improv group would have.

Virtual Code Break 

Type: Real-time 

Time: 30 minutes to two hours

Prep: <10 minutes

Participants: 4+

Virtual Code Break is an online team-building event that runs groups through a series of activities that require participants to use problem-solving skills. Teams are split into smaller groups that race against each other to complete challenges packed with puzzles, riddles, and trivia. 

By motivating your team to draw on each other’s strengths to solve these tasks, you help them build mutual trust and improve the communication skills that are so important for working together. 

You can choose between a self-hosted format, which costs between $12 and $33 per person depending on group size, or choose to hire a designated virtual event host and dedicated event manager. This brings the cost up to $13 to $55 per person depending on group size. 

Time: 30-60 minutes

Participants: 3-600

Loumee offers a bunch of online team-building activities that can help your employees better communicate, negotiate, and solve problems. The activities are fit for remote, hybrid, and in-person teams, meaning just about any group can use them. 

Some of their activities include: 

• The Chat : Team members solve a series of problems and try to detect which answers were most likely generated by AI. 
• The Hunt : Your team works together to solve puzzles, riddles, and image and word problems, all under a pressing time crunch. 
• The Riddle : Players must solve a series of ten individual puzzles, including word games, visual problems, number games, and reasoning. Then, they put them all together to unlock the master riddle. 

Loumee lets you pick from a hosted or on-demand option, so you can be completely hands-off in planning these team-building activities if you want. Hosted-event pricing depends on the size of your group, and there are pricing plans available for on-demand game packages. 

2. Think-Pair-Share (TPS)

Time: 10-20 minutes

Participants: 8+

Sometimes, getting started is the hardest part. Improv teaches you how important it is to make a choice and get the ball rolling—if you don’t, the scene will never get started. The same goes for collaboration in the workplace. 

Think-pair-share (TPS) is a great strategy for helping employees get past a decision-making block. But for team members to have this exercise in their toolkit for meetings, first let them practice it in a relaxed setting. 

You can organize TPS in person or as an online training, and it’s incredibly easy to set up. Just choose a prompt and select the teams you’ll divide your employees into. Present an open-ended question or challenge to your group, like “What should we do for our holiday party this year?” Instead of holding this discussion in a large group, follow these steps: 

• Think: Give each team member a few minutes to write down their own ideas. 
• Pair: Combine employees into pairs or small groups and give them 5 to 10 minutes to discuss their ideas. 
• Share: After they’ve discussed their ideas in their small groups, employees discuss what ideas they thought of with the rest of the team. 

You’ll find that when people have time to discuss ideas in a smaller group and bring these insights back to the larger group, the dialogue is much more collaborative. Rather than two or three of the usual suspects dominating the conversation, less outspoken team members feel more comfortable piping up, meaning everyone’s opinions are heard and considered. 

This exercise reinforces the value of collaborating in small groups before meeting to discuss things as a team. To help everyone feel comfortable sharing their opinions, encourage your employees (and especially team leads) to implement this method in real-life meetings, whether they’re completing a design review or brainstorming a new product layout. 

Pro tip: Use an online collaboration platform like Switchboard to set up persistent breakout rooms that you can send your employees into in small groups. Then bring them all back to the permanent main room so they can discuss what they talked about in their breakout sessions. 

 3. Jigsaw technique 

Type: Real-time

Time: Depends on the complexity of the topic

Participants: 3-5 people per group

In improv, you depend on the rest of your group for a successful show — your performance as a “dentist” won’t make any sense if your fellow actor doesn’t have a convincing toothache. 

For successful collaboration, team members also depend on each other in the workplace. The jigsaw technique demonstrates this idea by showing employees how each person’s knowledge and hard and soft skills contribute to a larger project or whole.  

With this method, you split your team into groups and assign each of them a sub-topic to become an expert on. Then, members of each group get together to produce an in-depth overview of the whole subject matter. 

Here’s a practical example of the jigsaw technique in use: Imagine you’re a software development agency taking on a new client and you want to learn all about their product and market. Break this task down into sub-topics for each of your team members to research, such as: 

• The client’s industry
• The client’s target audience
• The client’s unique selling point 
• The client’s main competitors

Let’s say you have 12 people on your team. Since there are four sub-topics, you would break your team up into groups of three. On their own, each team member would research the sub-topic assigned to them. Then, they would meet in their sub-topic small group to discuss and consolidate their findings. 

Finally, create three new groups consisting of one expert from each group. In these groups, each team member presents their research and explains their sub-topic, helping everyone on the team get a clear understanding of every aspect of the client, from the nuances of their industry to their main competitors. 

The jigsaw technique is easy to set up and helps you create a more collaborative learning experience in which employees rely on each other to get every piece of the puzzle. 

4. Peer training  

Type: Real-time or async 

Prep: Depends on the complexity of the topic

Participants: 2+

The jigsaw technique isn’t the only way employees can share their expertise on topics. Organizing peer training sessions is another effective way to reinforce the importance of teamwork, especially when it comes to learning new skills and running employee training. 

Peer training is great for onboarding new employees, but it doesn’t have to be reserved for the most recent hires on your team. Your employees all have unique strengths and areas of expertise, so give each member of your team the opportunity to train their peers. 

Say one of your employees did extensive work on user experience (UX) research at their old company. They can give a training session to their team outlining UX research best practices and industry trends to get everyone up to speed on the topic. 

You can even have them use visual collaboration tools to present their expertise in a way that’s more accessible for visual learners. 

Peer training helps collaboration because when your employees see each other not only as peers but also as sources of knowledge and expertise, you can build a more collaborative culture where they aren’t afraid to ask each other for help. This then enables them to feel more supported and like they have each other’s backs, which leads to better teamwork. 

You obviously want to make sure your employees feel comfortable with leading a peer training session before giving them this task, so you may want to make it voluntary. For those who want to get involved, be sure to help them carve out time in their schedule to prepare the materials and presentation. 

5. Communication exercises 

Improv doesn’t work if actors lack communication skills. Similarly, successful collaboration relies on employees knowing how to effectively talk to each other and convey their ideas. That’s where communication exercises can help. 

You can run exercises with your team to help foster skills like active listening, negotiation, and open-mindedness. Here are some exercises you can run to help your team thrive at one of the key principles of collaboration : communication. 

• Labeling: Split your employees into pairs and have them take turns talking about an issue. For example, Maria wants to spend the training budget on an in-person seminar, while Lashan wants to buy online course materials. First, Lashan lays out his case. To encourage participants to actively listen and try to imagine how the speaker feels, Maria responds by starting all her sentences with “It seems like” or “It sounds like” as she summarizes what she’s hearing from Lashan. Then, the employees swap roles. This helps practice a critical active listening technique that helps participants empathize with and better understand colleagues and clients. 
• Mirroring: Split your employees into pairs and have one of them be the speaker and the other the listener. For example, Lashan (the listener) would be tasked with mirroring everything Maria (the speaker) says. If Lashan asks Maria why she likes in-person training courses, Maria may respond, “I like them because I can focus better.” Lashan could then repeat the last few words with a questioning intonation: “You can focus better?” This makes Maria feel listened to and encourages her to keep talking and expand on her points. Mirroring helps build empathy and active listening among team members and clients as it centers around emphasizing the last part of what a speaker said.
• Mind melt: This one comes right from the world of improv. The goal of mind melt is for two people to simultaneously say a word until they eventually say the same word. To begin, Lashan and Maria each say a word on the count of three. Suppose they say “cherry” and “flower.” Again, they both say another word that those two words have in common, perhaps “red” and “plant.” This exercise continues until Lashan and Maria simultaneously say the same word, which in this case could be “poppy.” This exercise helps participants learn open-mindedness, active listening, and alignment. 
• Yes, and: Improv centers around the “yes, and'' approach to communication. Participants must respond to each other with “yes, and” (no buts allowed). So if Lashan says an in-person seminar is the best way to spend the training budget, Maria can respond with “Yes, and we could organize a series of these for ongoing learning,” and so on. This exercise helps participants learn to negotiate and stay open-minded to other opinions. 

These communication exercises take no time to set up, and they can be run with just about any number of participants, though you’ll want to split your team members up into pairs.

How the right environment helps collaboration 

No matter how well your team understands teamwork, the theory won’t do them much good if they’re stuck in an environment that keeps them siloed. That’s why finding the right online platform is essential to creating a team that works together effectively. 

Switchboard is a collaborative digital workspace that lets you and your team work together on documents and browser-based apps inside a virtual room—without having to share your screen . It’s designed to foster team connection, collaboration, and productivity through intuitive meeting rooms. 

Switchboard lets you communicate in real time with video, audio, and chat. You can also work side-by-side allowing everyone to scroll, type, and browse the same document at the same time. 

That way, your team can put the collaboration skills they learn to good use in meetings and project work sessions. Because when they use a platform that makes everyone an active participant and not just a passive listener, your employees always have the chance to be a part of the discussion and contribute their ideas.

Collaboration training: Set your people up for better teamwork 

Improv actors may not memorize their lines but, contrary to how it might look, they don’t pull a great show out of thin air. These actors are trained in communication and collaboration techniques that allow them to adapt to any situation, overcome any obstacle, and even make it funny. The same is true for your people: You can’t expect them to work well together if you never give them training on how to do so. 

Use the collaboration training activities we discussed in this post to foster teamwork and communication among employees and create a positive work culture . For example, group problem-solving, think-pair-share, peer training, the jigsaw technique, and communication exercises. 

Most important of all, give your people a digital workspace like Switchboard where they can put their training to good use and get more done together. With Switchboard, everyone can work side-by-side as if they’re in the same room, making them active, productive participants in meetings and project work sessions.  

Want your team to collaborate? Give them the right platform.  Switchboard provides an interactive, multiplayer experience that lets your whole team get involved and get more done together.   ‍ Learn more

Frequently asked questions about collaboration training 

What is collaboration training.

Collaboration training helps employees learn the skills they need to better work together, communicate, and negotiate. To teach collaboration, you can use various problem-solving activities, peer training methods, and communication exercises. 

What are the benefits of collaboration training?

The biggest benefit of collaboration training is clear: a more collaborative team. But, on top of that, collaboration training also helps you achieve:

• Improved communication among team members
• More cooperative decision making
• More effective and efficient meetings
• Greater trust among employees
• Better innovation and problem solving 

Why is collaboration important?

Effective collaboration is important for businesses that rely on teamwork, group problem solving, and effective communication. That’s because it helps teams better work together and solve problems, which leads to improved productivity, innovation, and decision making.

Keep reading

Musings on remote work and the future of collaboration

How to engage introverts in group brainstorming sessions

9 engaging activities for impactful group brainstorming

Stop, collaborate, and listen.

Get product updates and Switchboard tips and tricks delivered right to your inbox.

You can unsubscribe at any time using the links at the bottom of the newsletter emails. More information is in our privacy policy.

Want your team to collaborate? Give them the right platform.

Switchboard provides an interactive, multiplayer experience that lets your whole team get involved and get more done together.

The Child Center is now Riverview Center for Growth!

Collaborative Problem Solving ®

Parent education classes, sign up on this page for classes offered through riverview center for growth for oregon parents, grandparents, foster parents, and caregivers.

  Classes are 8-Weeks long and offered at no charge to 

parents and caregivers who reside in Oregon. 

  Register for a parenting class in 2 easy steps!

Each participant must complete the 2 -step process using their personal email address. 

After you complete your registration: Log in information will be sent via email 1-2 weeks before class. 

Find A Class!

Finish Your Registration!

New Class Alerts

Riverview Center for Growth

Class Flyer

Classes are generously funded by the Oregon Health Authority to help bring services to underserved areas of Oregon, to promote positive mental health, and to prevent future mental health difficulties. Our program is also supported by the Early Childhood Learning Hub of Lane County .

The goal of this project is to help Oregon families, especially those in rural and underserved areas, strengthen positive relationships and build the skills needed for success at home, at school, in the community, and in life.

Areas served.

We are focused on providing services to seven regions in Oregon in areas that have limited Mental Health Provider resources. This is defined as fewer than 1.25 providers per 1000 residents by the Oregon Office of Rural Health. As shown by the shaded areas on the map, most of the State is underserved. Click to view ORH's full 2021 report documenting Oregon's Unmet Health Care Needs .

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
• My Account Login
• 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

12k Accesses

9 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

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

Nadia Rehman, Wenlan Zhang, … Samia Batool

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Malavika E. Santhosh, Jolly Bhadra, … Noora Al-Thani

A guide to critical thinking: implications for dental education

Deborah Martin

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

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis.

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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 (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Learn Collaborative Problem Solving »
• Trainer Certification in Collaborative Problem Solving »

Trainer Certification in Collaborative Problem Solving

Become an expert in teaching others Collaborative Problem Solving!

Our Collaborative Problem Solving Certified Trainers teach people the Collaborative Problem Solving ® (CPS) approach all around the world.

Using distance learning, the Trainer Certification Course supports learners by providing instruction in the use of training materials and activities.

Using online learning and virtual meetings over three months, learners:

• Participate in small group learning and discussion sessions to practice presenting Essential Foundation in Collaborative Problem Solving (Level 1) curriculum for feedback.
• Complete assignments, including presenting training content, creating a personal training toolkit, and observing training.
• Receive individual coaching to support effective facilitation of an Essential Foundation training.

After completing the Trainer course, you will be able to:

• Competently prepare and facilitate all components of an Essential Foundation (Level 1) training.
• Effectively train others in Collaborative Problem Solving by co-teaching Essential Foundation (Level 1) using the Think:Kids official curriculum.
• Teach the approach in an equitable and inclusive manner.
• Display the Certified Trainer in Collaborative Problem Solving seal as part of your personal credentials

Graduates of the course become  Certified Trainers  and are considered experts in teaching Collaborative Problem Solving.

Once you are a Certified Trainer, you will join our passionate and talented community and receive ongoing support and professional development from Think:Kids. For organizations, Trainer Certification is the best way to instill CPS into your program’s culture in a sustainable way.

• $1,545; $50 non-refundable registration fee (Tuition quoted as part of a Think:Kids contract engagement may vary.)
• If you would like to request financial support, please submit a request form . Request forms must be submitted one month before the application deadline .
• Registration Deadline: January 1
• Registration Deadline: April 1
• Registration Deadline: July 1
• Registration Deadline: October 1

Learn More & Register

Additional Information

Meet the instructors, our  experienced trainers teach our trainer certification in collaborative problem solving course., important information, prerequisite: to register, you must have already completed our certification course . , questions about trainer certification email [email protected]., what our participants say, privacy overview.