collaborative problem solving interventions

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

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

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

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

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

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

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

New Designs for School Connections over Consequences: Effective Strategies for Collaborative Problem-Solving with Students

Sanchel Hall K-8 Educator Sumner County Schools in Sumner County, Tennessee

We’ve all had the experience of truly purposeful, authentic learning and know how valuable it is. Educators are taking the best of what we know about learning, student support, effective instruction, and interpersonal skill-building to completely reimagine schools so that students experience that kind of purposeful learning all day, every day.

Classroom behavior management? Find out why empathetic listening and collaborative problem-solving can change outcomes and lead to better learning.

Consequences are the key to helping students learn from their mistakes! At least that’s what I used to believe. When behavior fell short of school expectations, I would enforce penalties, thinking it was in the student’s best interest. To the students, these consequences often felt more like punishment than a chance to learn and grow. Instead of improving classroom behavior, my approach seemed to make things worse. The more I tried to enforce these rules, the more ineffective the results became.

I continued that frustrating cycle until my principal suggested the book Lost at School by Ross W. Greene. In the book, Greene suggests students do well if they can. Greene provides strategies and resources for collaborating with students to co-create solutions. At that time, I strongly disagreed. It seemed to me that the kids just didn’t care. Nevertheless, I decided to put Greene’s suggestions to the test. At my wit’s end, I had nothing to lose.

The first step was to understand the student’s concerns. To my surprise, most students were eager to share their perspectives. All I had to do was listen! As students began sharing their lives with me, a solution would often present itself. More often than not, there was an unmet need or lagging skill. Though this was simple, it was not easy! I had to learn how to ask open-ended questions and even to remain silent, as the students reflectively considered their situation. As caring educators, we often compassionately offer solutions. To support students in advocating for themselves, I focused on helping them connect how their behavior impacts their outcomes. By facilitating their reflection and problem-solving processes, I encouraged them to explore and identify their own solutions.

While some students were open to communication, others faced challenges such as outbursts or withdrawal. I recognized that I required different strategies to better support my students. In my search, I discovered innovative teaching methods, including the blended learning techniques encouraged by The Modern Classrooms Project , which offers a free course for differentiated instruction and multi-modal learning within the lessons. I also discovered science-backed programs such as Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI) and Therapeutic Crisis Intervention for Schools (TCIS) , that help educators create a safe, caring, and supportive environment. These resources helped me better support my students and proactively manage challenges without escalating conflicts.

This approach supported students in developing responsible habits, and reinforced the collaborative partnership between the school and families

Let me share a real example from my time as a middle school coordinator. We had a recurring issue with new middle school students forgetting to charge their devices. Our initial solution was to impose “unprepared write-ups” and require students to make up missed assignments on their own time. This approach only led to more frustration among students, families, and teachers. Grades suffered, relationships were strained, and teachers spent valuable time on write-ups. It was clear we needed a new plan.

After talking with a group of students who had received multiple write-ups, we learned that many had busy after-school schedules and simply forgot to charge their devices amid the afternoon hustle and bustle. Through empathetic listening, we were able to understand their situation better. The students themselves suggested the need to charge their devices during the school day, without facing punishment.

With this insight, we developed a support plan that included a charging dock and scheduled times for students to charge their devices during morning arrival, lunch, and recess. This approach supported students in developing responsible habits, and reinforced the collaborative partnership between the school and families, aiming to ensure a smooth transition to middle school for the students.

While my ongoing journey with empathetic listening and collaborative problem-solving has been incredibly rewarding, I recognize that every aspect of teaching offers its own unique challenges and rewards. Believing that every child wants to succeed has helped me build deeper, more meaningful connections with my students. This approach supports students in connecting their actions to their outcomes, rather than simply avoiding punishment. Collaborative problem-solving encourages self-awareness, relationship-building, and critical thinking. Through this process, I’ve grown both as a teacher and as an individual, finding greater happiness and fulfillment in my work. Additionally, I’ve developed a stronger sense of mindfulness and self-compassion. Here are some strategies I learned along the way:

1. Provide a safe, supportive, and inclusive environment.

• Include a quiet area of the classroom for students who need to self-regulate without leaving the classroom.
• Consider teaching methods such as the blended learning techniques taught by The Modern Classrooms Project and cultural and trauma-sensitive approaches to include all students.

2. Encourage self-awareness and critical thinking.

• Offer students opportunities to explore and express their emotions concerning classroom challenges.
• Help students see how their actions affect their results by connecting behavior with outcomes.
• Determine if students lack specific skills or have needs that contribute to the undesirable behavior.

Allow students to role-play and practice alternative solutions.

3. Use empathetic communication to collaborate with students and their caregivers.

• Collaborate with students and their families using active listening and open-ended questions.
• Strategize with the students and caregivers to find solutions that address everyone’s concerns, including those of the teacher. By working together, we can ensure solutions meet the student’s needs, while also aligning with the teacher’s goals and classroom dynamics.

Photo at top by Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages , CC BY-NC 4.0.

Sanchel Hall

K-8 educator, sumner county schools.

Sanchel Hall is a dedicated Sumner County K-8 educator passionate about collaborating with educators and students to support equitable and inclusive learning environments where everyone has opportunities for success.

Read More About New Designs for School

The Boundless Potential of Curiosity, Caring & Doing: More Dispatches from Agastya

David Penberg

August 27, 2024

Join the Collective Shift: Human-Centered AI for Learner-Centered Learning

The Partners of Collective Shift

August 14, 2024

Moving Mountains with Wonder, Joy, and Curiosity: Dispatches from Agastya

July 18, 2024

PROVIDER MENU

The CPS Model

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions  (CPS) is recognized as an empirically-supported, evidence-based treatment by the  California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare  (CEBC). Here’s an overview of its basic tenets:

When kids have difficulty meeting certain expectations, they become frustrated. Some kids are lacking the skills — flexibility, frustration tolerance, emotion regulation, and problem solving — to handle that frustration adaptively. And that’s when they exhibit concerning behaviors. In other words, concerning behavior is simply the way in which some kids communicate that there are expectations they are having difficulty meeting. In the CPS model, those “unmet” expectations are called “unsolved problems.” The emphasis of the CPS model isn’t on modifying the concerning behavior by imposing consequences. Rather the model focuses on identifying unsolved problems and then engaging kids in solving them. Solved problems don’t cause concerning behavior; only unsolved problems do. Consequences don’t solve problems.

In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the  collaborative  and  proactive  variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. As such, the CPS model is non-punitive and non-adversarial, decreases the likelihood of conflict, enhances relationships, improves communication, and helps kids and adults learn and display skills on the more positive side of human nature:  empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in ways that do not involve conflict, taking another’s perspective, and honesty.

How do you identify a kid’s lagging skills and unsolved problems? By completing the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP). And how do you solve those problems? By doing Plan B, which involves three basic ingredients. The first ingredient – called the Empathy step – involves gathering information so as to achieve the clearest understanding of what’s making it hard for a kid to meet a particular expectation. The second ingredient (called the Define the Problem step) involves entering the adult’s concern or perspective into consideration (i.e., why it’s important that the expectation be met). The third ingredient (called the Invitation step) involves having adults and kids brainstorm solutions so as to arrive at a plan of action that is both realistic and mutually satisfactory…in other words, a solution that addresses both concerns and that both parties can actually do.

In countless families, schools, inpatient psychiatry units, group homes, residential facilities, and juvenile detention facilities, the CPS model has been shown to be an effective way to solve problems, reduce conflict, improve behavior, and enhance the skills kids need to function adaptively in the real world.

You can learn more about the CPS model on the website of the non-profit  Lives in the Balance , where you’ll find vast free resources to help you use the model, including streaming video, a listening library, and lots more.  Various books, CDs, and DVDs describing the model are available in the  CPS Store  on this website, and training options can be found on the Workshops/Training  page.

Is there a one-page description of the model that I can download?

Sure thing! Just  click here to view and print it.  

Didn’t Dr. Greene originally refer to his model by the name Collaborative Problem Solving?

Yes, you can read more about the name change  here . It’s not a pretty tale…

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions™

Jump to content

MGH Academy

Bookmark/search this post.

You are here

Collaborative problem solving.

• Register/Take course

At Think:Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital (https://thinkkids.org/) we transform the lives of kids and families by spreading a more accurate and empathic view of children with challenging behavior. We do this by teaching adults our revolutionary, evidence-based Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) approach. CPS is an approach to responding to challenging behavior that promotes the understanding that kids with behavioral challenges lack the skill—not the will—to behave ; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance.

Research has shown that CPS reduces challenging behavior, stress levels, and punitive responses and teaches kids the skills they lack while building helping relationships with adults in their lives. Unlike traditional discipline models, the CPS approach avoids using power, control, and motivational procedures. Instead, it focuses on collaborating with kids to solve the problems leading to their challenging behavior and build the skills they need to succeed.

*PLEASE NOTE* Collaborative Problem Solving is not for CME credit.

Collaborative Problem Solving® Tier 1 Training: Essential Foundation 

Tier 1 training covers all aspects of the evidence-based CPS approach, including assessment, planning, and intervention, as well as the neurobiology behind the approach.

Collaborative Problem Solving® Tier 2 Training: Advanced Concepts

Tier 2 training deepens skills at all phases of the approach, enhances implementation in the real world, including in group and emergency situations, and discusses how to use CPS to enhance cultural responsiveness. A focus on deepening skills at all phases of the approach and enhancing implementation in the real world.

Target Audience

This program is intended for professionals from different disciplines related to child mental health. This includes physicians, psychologists, social workers, licensed mental health counselors and nurses.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this training, participants will be able to:

• Understand why traditional approaches may not be well suited to the needs of children with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges.
• Learn the philosophy of the CPS approach.
• Identify the five cognitive skills that are frequently lacking in kids with challenging behaviors.
• Develop expectations for youth that are realistic and age appropriate.
• Know when to use the three primary interventions based on the goal at hand.
• Learn how CPS operationalizes the latest research on trauma-informed care.

By the end of this training, participants will be able to: 

• Troubleshoot all aspects of CPS, even in the most challenging situations.
• Utilize CPS in group settings, emergency, and spontaneous situations.
• Apply CPS in a neuro-biologically informed manner.
• Work with other adults who are rooted in conventional wisdom.
• Use CPS to enhance cultural responsiveness.
• Identify strategies for ongoing learning and application at home, work, and in larger systems.

Collaborative Problem Solving® Tier 1 Training: Essential Foundation

Tier 1 In-Person Schedule:

Coaching Schedule Group 1 (Virtual)

Zoom Room:   https://partners.zoom.us/j/83621462450?pwd=M3pPVVZkb00rUkFIQjV4dkEvajdxdz09 

Password: CPS

Coaching Schedule Group 2 (Virtual)

Zoom Room: https://partners.zoom.us/j/85600268527?pwd=aGZxa1ZFdGhVa2wzdzNOZTF2dW1oQT09

Tier 2 In- Person Schedule

Stuart Ablon, PhD

Heather johnson, phd.

• Log In
• Join CLN
• RSS Feed

Please log in below to comment and contribute to the Collaborative Leaders Network.

Not a Member? Join CLN .

Join the Collaborative Leaders Network

Members of the Collaborative Leaders Network (CLN) come from all walks of life. We are leaders of businesses and organizations, we are practitioners, and we are community members. What connects us is our belief that collaborative leadership and practices are necessary for solving the complex problems we face in Hawaii. There is no cost to joining CLN, nor any obligation to participate. Membership entitles you to contribute your own ideas and experiences to the site, receive updates, and engage with other collaborative leaders who are finding ways to shape Hawaii for the better.

Already a Member? Log in Now .

Forgot Your Password?

Simply enter your email address below, and a new password will be generated and emailed to you.

Collaborative Problem Solving

Strategy overview.

• 1 – Clarify Intentions
• 2 – Background Inquiry
• 3 – Process Design
• 4 – Group Launch
• 5 – Issue Analysis
• 6 – Generate Options
• 7 – Evaluate Options
• 8 – Produce Documents
• 9 – Executive Review
• Download PDF of Strategy
• Download PDF of Tools
• About Kem Lowry

It is increasingly difficult to craft plans, policies, and programs that are regarded as legitimate and sustainable without the direct engagement of representatives from multiple agencies, corporations, and non-governmental organizations.  Cross-sector collaborations of this type are designed to engage well-informed stakeholders in a process of sustained problem solving; the end product is often a policy document that can help to establish legislation, regulations, and standards.

This strategy requires that participants understand the logic of each stage of the process in order to build commitment toward a consensus perspective. Group members engage in clarifying the problem, analyzing potential strategies, crafting recommendations, evaluating draft documents, and delivering a report for which there is a high level of consensus and commitment.

An issue that is of sufficient importance and a convener who is of sufficient stature are among the critical success factors that will mobilize the necessary resources and participants for a  cross-sector collaboration of this type.

Cross-sector collaboration provides both the forum and the strategy for engaging the most knowledgeable stakeholders in sustained problem solving.

Stage 1: Clarify Intentions Identify the expectations of conveners to help them envision how the process might be organized, who might be participating, what time and resources will likely be required, and what the outcomes might be.

Stage 2: Background Inquiry Gather first- and second-hand background information to determine which issues should figure into the tailored design of a collaborative process.

Stage 3: Process Design Develop a provisional process design explaining the logic and outputs of each phase in order to garner participants’ early commitment to the process and the products.

Stage 4: Group Launch Introduce the participants and process, and start building trust and confidence by collaborating on a group charter and amending the process plan to reflect group concerns.

Stage 5: Issue Analysis Develop a shared understanding of the issue and identify those aspects that are most amenable to intervention.

Stage 6: Generate Options Identify and analyze a range of alternative strategies for addressing a problem or taking advantage of an opportunity.

Stage 7: Evaluate Options Evaluate strategies and choose between them using criteria the group selects.

Stage 8: Produce Documents Develop a plan, set of recommendations, or policy document that describes the strategy the group has developed, the rationale for the strategy, and the process by which it was developed.

Stage 9: Executive Review Present and explain the report to the executive or convener in a way that it is understood, accepted, and supported.

Related Examples

Designing the future of kakaako makai, related tools/resources.

• Critical success factors for Collaborative Problem Solving

• TEA Website
• Contact TEA
• Sign Up For Updates

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions

• Building Relationships, Managing Emotions, and Decision-Making Skills
• Positive Youth Development
• Intervention

How to access this practice/program?

Visit https://cpsconnection.com/workshops-and-training/ to review training options.

What is the practice/program?  

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) is an evidence-based, trauma-responsive approach to working with children who are experiencing social, emotional, and behavioral challenges in families, schools, and treatment facilities. CPS helps children and caregivers solve the problems that are causing the concerning behaviors. The problem solving is collaborative, not unilateral, and proactive, not reactive. The model has been shown to be effective at not only solving problems and improving behavior, but also at enhancing skills.  

Who is the practice/program for?  

This approach works with children and adolescents and is most effective with ages 4-14.   

What outcomes does the practice/program produce?  

• Improve relationships  
• Improve communication  
• Improve skills of empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in collaborative ways, taking another’s perspective, and honesty  
• Decrease the likelihood of conflict  

What is the evidence?  

Tshida, J.E., Maddox, B.B., Bertollo, J.R., Kuschner, J.S., Miller, J.S., Ollendick, T.H., Greene, R.W., & Yerys, B.E. (2021). Caregiver perspectives on interventions for behavior challenges in autistic children. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 81. https://livesinthebalance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Autism-Spectrum-Disorders_0.pdf  

Results of this study indicate that caregivers of school-age children with a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, a reported IQ equal or greater than 70, and behavioral challenges rated medications and CPS as significantly more helpful at improving behavior challenges. Additionally, medications, CPS, ABA, and “other interventions” were rated as leading to significantly greater maintained improvements.  

Greene, R.W., & Winkler, J. (2019), Collaborative & Proactive Solutions: A review of research findings in families, schools, and treatment facilities. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 22(4), 549-561. https://rdcu.be/bHMLV   

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is a psychosocial treatment model for behaviorally challenging youth, which has been applied in a diverse array of settings, including families, schools, and therapeutic facilities. Numerous studies have documented its effectiveness and examined factors that mediate and moderate the effectiveness of the model. Data have thus far shown that, with regard to behavioral improvements, CPS is at least the equivalent of the standard of care for externalizing youth, Parent Management Training, and that CPS may hold additional benefits as regards parent-child interactions and children’s skill enhancement.   

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  

This study compared the effectiveness of the CPS program to that of the parent training (PT) program. 50 children with oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD) between the ages of 4-12 were randomly assigned to either the CPS treatment group or PT group. The students were assessed both pre and post treatment based on parent stress and clinical evaluations. Students in the CPS treatment group saw significant improvement across multiple domains (i.e., ODD related behaviors, mood, communication) at the post assessment and 4-month mark. At the 4-month mark 60% students in the CPS treatment group saw clinically significant improvement compared to 37% in the PT group.  

How is the practice/program implemented?  

In the CPS model, a student’s concerning behaviors are simply the way in which they communicate that there are expectations they are having difficulty meeting. Those “unmet” expectations are called “unsolved problems.” The CPS model focuses on identifying the unsolved problems and then engaging the student in solving them. CPS utilizes the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP) to identify the student’s lagging skills and “Plan B” to solve the problems. Plan B involves three basic steps: 1) the Empathy step which involves gathering information in order to achieve the clearest understanding of what’s making it difficult for a student to meet a particular expectation; 2) the Define the Problem step which involves figuring out why it is important to the adult that the expectation be met; and 3) the Invitation step which involves having adults and students brainstorm solutions in order to arrive at an action plan that is both realistic and mutually satisfactory.  

Who can implement the practice/program?  

Clinicians, educators, and parents can implement CPS.  

What are the costs and commitments associated with becoming trained in this practice/program?  

Cost and commitment associated with training differs depending on the individual and/or the group. For more information, please click on this link – https://www.cpsconnection.com/workshops-and-training    

What resources are useful for understanding or implementing the practice/program?  

• More information on CPS can be found here: https://www.cpsconnection.com/about
• More information on CPS tools can be found here: https://www.cpsconnection.com/paperwork  
• To find mental health providers and resources in your area visit the Texas School Mental Health Resource Database here: https://schoolmentalhealthtxdatabase.org/  

Rating: Promising  

Secondary components: Grief Informed and Trauma Informed Practices; Positive, Safe, and Supportive School Climate; Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports

Site by Encore Multimedia .

Dr. Ross Greene

Originator of the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Approach

Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is the model of care Dr. Greene originated and describes in his various books.

The CPS model is based on the premise that challenging behavior occurs when the demands and expectations being placed on a kid exceed the kid’s capacity to respond adaptively…and that some kids are better equipped (i.e., have the skills) to handle certain demands and expectations. So the emphasis of the model isn’t on kids' challenging behavior, which is – whether it’s whining, pouting, sulking, withdrawing, crying, screaming, swearing, hitting, spitting, biting, or worse – just the manner in which they’re expressing the fact that there are expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. Nor does the model focus on psychiatric diagnoses, which are simply categories of challenging behaviors. Rather the model focuses on identifying the skills a person is lacking and the expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. (In the CPS model, those unmet expectations are referred to as unsolved problems.) Then the goal is to help them solve those problems, rather than trying to modify their behavior through application of rewards and punishments.

In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the collaborative and proactive variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. The goal is to foster a problem-solving, collaborative partnership between adults and kids and to engage kids in solving the problems that affect their lives. As such, the CPS model is non-punitive and non-adversarial, decreases the likelihood of conflict, enhances relationships, improves communication, and helps kids and adults learn and display the skills on the more positive side of human nature: empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in ways that do not involve conflict, taking another’s perspective, and honesty.

All content © Dr. Ross Greene

• Books & Resources »

Books & Resources

Collaborative Problem Solving Assessment & Planning Tool (CPS-APT)

The CPS-APT walks you through the steps of assessing unmet expectations/triggers, skills, and challenging behaviors, as well as planning your intervention.

© Mass General Brigham Incorporated c/o Think:Kids. All rights reserved. By downloading this document you acknowledge that you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, teach, display, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way use this content beyond personal use without prior written permission from Think:Kids.

Optional Likert Version >>

Completed Samples:

• Sample Collaborative Problem Solving-APT in an Education Setting >>
• Sample Collaborative Problem Solving-APT in a Home Setting >>
• Collaborative Problem Solving-APT in a Residential/Clinical Setting >> 

Thinking Skills Assessment

Take this 22-question assessment to better understand your own or someone else's thinking skills. You will be asked to reflect on how easy or hard a particular skill is for you or someone you know. Once you finish, you'll get your results and more information about each thinking skill. The assessment is based on the Thinking Skills Inventory (TSI; Wang et al, 2018) , which was created and tested by our team of researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School to ensure it is reliable and valid.

Take the Assessment

Thinking Skills Reference Sheet

The Thinking Skills Reference Sheet is a user-friendly derivative of a validated measure called the Thinking Skills Inventory (TSI; Wang et al, 2018) . See the TSI User's Guide for more information.

Thinking Skills Checklist

The Thinking Skills Checklist is a user-friendly derivative of a validated measure called the Thinking Skills Inventory (TSI; Wang et al, 2018) . See the TSI User's Guide for more information.

Plan-B Organizer

The Plan-B Organizer helps you, or your team, prepare to conduct a Plan B conversation, stay on track, and offers some helpful tips and reminders.

Collaborative Problem Solving with Students: A Quick Reference Guide

From the authors of  The School Discipline Fix : a three-step guide to using Collaborative Problem Solving. The most effective way to address students’ challenging behaviors is with skill development, not motivational incentives or disciplinary measures.

The easy-to-follow guide is an essential tool for tackling challenging student behavior effectively, collaboratively, and compassionately. This 8.5″ x 11″ multi-panel guide is laminated for extra durability and 3-hole-punched for binder storage.

Order on Amazon

Collaborative Problem Solving for Mental Health Professionals and Parents: A Quick Reference Guide

An essential guide to the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach for anyone working with children outside of a school setting.

In this guide, clinical staff, parents, guardians, and other CPS trainees will find crucial information about the guiding philosophy of the approach; the cognitive skills that contribute to children’s behavior; the key aspects of a CPS assessment; information on planning and prioritizing the treatment; and step-by-step instructions for completing CPS itself.

The easy-to-follow guide is an essential tool for tackling challenging behavior effectively, collaboratively, and compassionately. This 8.5″ x 11″ multi-panel guide is laminated for extra durability and 3-hole-punched for binder storage.

Plan B Cards

Our Plan B Cards are a wonderful visual reminder tool! The Plan B Cards have been a huge hit among parents and professionals who find them helpful for both maintaining the mindset that “kids do well if they can,” and for keeping Plan B discussions on track. Each card lists the three steps to a Plan B conversation with a sample script and prompts. $1.00/card

Changeable: How Collaborative Problem Solving Changes Lives at Home, at School, and at Work

Why is it so hard to change problem behavior—in our kids, our colleagues, and even ourselves? Conventional methods often backfire, creating a downward spiral of resentment and frustration, and a missed opportunity for growth. What if the thinking behind these old methods is wrong? What if people don’t misbehave because they want to, but because they lack the skills to do better? Or as renowned psychologist Dr. J. Stuart Ablon asks, what if changing problem behavior is a matter of  skill, not will ?

With illuminating scientific evidence, remarkable success stories, and actionable insights,  Changeable  gives parents, teachers, CEOs and anyone interested in learning about why we behave the way we do a roadmap for helping people grow.

The School Discipline Fix: Changing Behavior Using the Collaborative Problem Solving Approach

Traditional school discipline is ineffective and often damaging, relying heavily on punishments and motivational procedures aimed at giving students the incentive to behave better. There is a better way.

Whether you are a teacher, counselor, coach, or administrator, the CPS approach to school discipline will provide you with a new mindset, an assessment process, and an effective intervention plan for each of your challenging students. You will walk away with strategies that are immediately actionable with the students in your life.

Collaborative Problem Solving: An Evidence-Based Approach to Implementation and Practice

This book is the first to systematically describe the key components necessary to ensure successful implementation of Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) across mental health settings and non-mental health settings that require behavioral management.

Collaborative Problem Solving is an excellent resource for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and all medical professionals working to manage troubling behaviors. The text is also valuable for readers interested in public health, education, improved law enforcement strategies, and all stakeholders seeking to implement this approach within their program, organization, and/or system of care.

Treating Explosive Kids: The Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach

The first comprehensive, clinical guide for the groundbreaking Collaborative Problem Solving approach, this book provides a detailed framework for effective, individualized intervention with highly oppositional children and their families. Many vivid examples and Q&A sections show how to identify the specific cognitive factors that contribute to explosive and noncompliant behavior, remediate these factors, and teach children and their adult caregivers how to solve problems collaboratively.

Privacy Overview

Designing a Context-Driven Problem-Solving Method with Metacognitive Scaffolding Experience Intervention for Biology Instruction

• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Merga Dinssa Eticha   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-9263-3273 1 , 2 ,
• Adula Bekele Hunde 3 &
• Tsige Ketema 1  

Learner-centered instructional practices, such as the metacognitive strategies scaffolding the problem-solving method for Biology instruction, have been shown to promote students’ autonomy and self-direction, significantly enhancing their understanding of scientific concepts. Thus, this study aimed to elucidate the importance and procedures of context analysis in the development of a context-driven problem-solving method with a metacognitive scaffolding instructional approach, which enhances students’ learning effectiveness in Biology. Therefore, the study was conducted in the Biology departments of secondary schools in Shambu Town, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. The study employed mixed-methods research to collect and analyze data, involving 12 teachers and 80 students. The data collection tools used were interviews, observations, and a questionnaire. The study revealed that conducting a context analysis that involves teachers, students, and learning contexts is essential in designing a context-driven problem-solving method with metacognitive scaffolding for Biology instruction, which provides authentic examples, instructional content, and engaging scenarios for teachers and students. As a result, the findings of this study provide a practical instructional strategy that can be applied to studies aimed at designing a context-driven problem-solving method with metacognitive scaffolding with the potential to influence instructional practices.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Biology is a vital subject in the Natural Sciences and enables learners to understand the mechanisms of living organisms and their practical applications for humans (Agaba, 2013 ). Therefore, Biology instruction requires interactive, learner-centered instructional methods like the problem-solving method with metacognitive scaffolding (PSMMS), which foster students to develop critical thinking, problem-solving, metacognitive, and scientific process skills (Al Azmy & Alebous, 2020 ; Inel & Balim, 2010 ) and help them make informed decisions regarding health and the environment, thereby advancing scientific knowledge (Aurah et al., 2011 ).

Although the focus is on students acquiring scientific knowledge and higher-order thinking skills (Senyigit, 2021 ), research revealed gaps in implementing the PSMMS in Biology, mainly due to the teachers’ limited experience in learner-centered methods (Agena, 2010 ; Beyessa, 2014 ), poor enhancement practices (MoE, 2019 ), tendency to use conventional problem-solving approaches (Aurah et al., 2011 ), and limited understanding of the roles of metacognition in instructional processes (Cimer, 2012 ). On the other hand, there is limited study on the importance of metacognitive instruction in scaffolding the problem-solving method in Biology, although it has a significant impact on students’ performance in mathematics and logical reasoning (Guner & Erbay, 2021 ).

In addition, metacognitive instructional strategies in primary school sciences and the contributions of metacognitive instructional intervention in developing countries are other areas where limited research has been done (Sbhatu, 2006). These challenges offer a study ground for investigating the intervention of metacognitive instructional methods in secondary schools, focusing on the problem-solving method in Biology. This study, therefore, aims to answer the research question, “How can context analysis be used to design a context-driven PSMMS and suggest PSMMS instructional guidelines to enhance students’ effective Biology learning?”

Theoretical Background

The problem-solving method.

The problem-solving method is a learner-centered approach that focuses on identifying, investigating, and solving problems (Ahmady & Nakhostin-Ruhi, 2014 ). The problem-solving method in Biology promotes advanced and critical thinking skills, enhancing students’ attitudes, academic performance, and subject understanding (Albay, 2019 ; Khaparde, 2019 ). Research has shown that students who learn using the problem-solving method outperform those who are taught conventionally (Nnorom, 2019 ). Studies have discussed that the problem-solving method encourages experimentation or learning through trial-and-error and also facilitates a constructivist learning environment by encouraging brainstorming and inquiry (e.g., Ishaku, 2015).

Metacognition

Metacognition, introduced by John Flavell in 1976, refers to an individual’s awareness, critical thinking, reflective judgment, and control of cognitive processes and strategies (Tachie, 2019 ). It consists of two main components, namely metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation (Lai, 2011 ). Metacognitive knowledge involves understanding one’s own thinking, influencing performance, and effective use of methods through declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge (Schraw et al., 2006 ; Sperling et al., 2004 ), while metacognitive regulation is about controlling thought processes and monitoring cognition, which involves planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating strategies (Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002 ; Zumbrunn et al., 2011 ).

Metacognitive instructional strategies are used to enhance learners’ effectiveness and support their learning process during the stages of forethought, performance, and self-reflection (Okoro & Chukwudi, 2011 ; Zimmerman, 2008 ). Therefore, metacognitive scaffolding, as described by Zimmerman ( 2008 ), is important in classroom interventions because it promotes problem-solving processes and supports metacognitive activities. According to Sbhatu (2006), understanding metacognitive processes and methods is fundamental for complex problem-solving tasks. Metacognitive functions are categorized based on the phases of the problem-solving method, including problem recognition, presentation, planning, execution, and evaluation (Kapa, 2001 ).

PSMMS in the Face of Globalization and Twenty-First Century Advancements

In the twenty-first century, societies rely on scientific and technological advances, and promoting scientific literacy is crucial for their integration into interactive learning environments (Chu et al., 2017 ). Studies suggest that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education promotes critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills (Widya et al., 2019 ). Therefore, teachers should adopt a learning science and learner-centered approach and focus on higher-order thinking skills and problem-based tasks (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020 ; Nariman, 2014).

The implementation of metacognitive strategies as a scaffold system for the problem-solving method, which simultaneously fosters the development of higher-order skills in their Biology learning, helps students advance in the age of globalization and the twenty-first century. According to Chu et al. ( 2017 ), twenty-first century skills are classified into four categories, such as ways of thinking, ways of working, tools for working, and ways of living in an advanced world. Therefore, studies suggest that teachers can help students develop twenty-first century skills and influence learning through metacognition, thereby promoting self-directed learning (Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019 ; Tosun & Senocak, 2013 ).

The Problem-Solving Method and Metacognition in Biology Instruction in Ethiopia

The National Education and Training Policy emphasizes the importance of education, particularly in science and technology, in improving problem-solving skills, cultural development, and environmental conservation for holistic development (ETP, 1994 ). Similarly, the 2009 Ethiopian Education Curriculum Framework Document highlights higher-order skills as key competencies and promotes the application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and innovation of knowledge for the twenty-first century (MoE, 2009 ). Whereas, a third revision of the curriculum is needed to promote science and technology studies with an emphasis on advanced cognitive skills and a shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered instructional methods (MoE, 2020 ).

The 2009 curriculum framework also places a strong emphasis on Biology as a life science, promoting understanding of self and living things while encouraging critical thinking and problem-solving. Biology lessons that integrate the problem-solving method can enhance students’ academic performance and understanding of the subject (Agaba, 2013 ). However, the Ethiopian education system faces challenges due to limited instructional resources, poor instructional methods, and a lack of experience in practical (hands-on) activities (Eshete, 2001; ETP, 1994 ; MoE, 2005 ; Negash, 2006 ). On the other hand, teachers’ inability to demonstrate effective instructional practices may contribute to low academic performance (Ganyaupfu, 2013 ; Umar, 2011 ).

Challenges in Implementing the PSMMS in Biology Instruction

Metacognitive processes are crucial for guiding learners in problem-solving activities (Sbhatu, 2006), but assessing them can be challenging due to their covert nature (Georghiades, 2000 ). Just like other areas of study, implementing metacognitive scaffolding of the problem-solving method in Biology instruction faces challenges such as complex learning, outdated skills, self-study, overloaded curricula, and limited resources, as shown in Table  1 .

Context Analysis in the Design of the PSMMS for Biology Instruction

Biology lessons are designed for different contexts and consider factors such as the learning environment, prior knowledge, background information, and cultural orientation (Reich et al., 2006 ). For this study, the three domains of context analysis (learners, learning, and learning task contexts) of Smith and Ragan’s (2005) instructional design model (as cited in Getenet, 2020 ) are adapted to design a context-based PSMMS method to generate authentic examples, strong scenarios, and instructional content, as shown in Table  2 .

Research Design

The study analyzed the learning context, including the available instructional resources and facilities in selected schools in Shambu Town, considering teachers’ and students’ perspectives using a mixed-methods research design (Creswell, 2009 ; Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ).

Study Participants

The study was conducted in public secondary schools in Shambu Town. Two schools, namely Shambu Secondary and Preparatory School (ShSPS) and Shambu Secondary School (ShSS), were selected using purposive sampling. Additionally, two Natural Sciences grade 11 sections, one from each school, were selected for instructional intervention based on feedback from context analysis to design an instructional approach, specifically the PSMMS in this study. Thus, all 12 Biology teachers and 80 eleventh-grade students participated in this study (see Table  4 ).

Data Collection Instruments and Procedure

To analyze the contexts to design a context-driven PSMMS for Biology instruction, data were collected using interviews, observations, and a questionnaire. Interviews were conducted to get insights from teachers, while observations were used to assess classroom instructions and instructional resources. Likewise, a questionnaire was administered to students to collect quantitative data on their opinions about the use of PSMMS in Biology instruction. The questionnaire, which was adapted from existing literature (Kallio et al., 2017 ; Rahmawati et al., 2018 ), was initially produced in English and subsequently translated into local language (Afan Oromo) with the help of both software (English to Oromo translator software) and experts. The questionnaire was pilot-tested on a sample of 40 students (22 males and 18 females) to identify any deficiencies in the measuring instrument, and responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree ( N  = 5) to strongly disagree ( N  = 1). The reliability score of the questionnaire was determined to be 0.895, which is at a good level of acceptability.

In this design-based research (DBR) to design an instructional approach for context-driven PSMMS, the data collection process follows a context analysis procedure. Subsequently, the quantitative data collection method is based on the qualitative approach. Accordingly, assessing the context and literature was the first step in the research process. The qualitative approach used interviews and observations for data collection and was also used to identify instructional deficiencies and formulate questions for quantitative data collection.

Data Analysis

This context-based study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the data collected. In this context-based study, data analysis was conducted on the complex networks of contextual components (Wang & Hannafin, 2005 ). According to Table  2 , the domains of context analysis and key themes that emerged and were applied in this study are listed in Table  3 .

Qualitative data included interviews and notes recorded on the observation checklist. These were analyzed through thematic categorization. Each record was first transcribed, imported into Excel for filtering, and then sent back to Microsoft Word for highlighting. The transcripts were read several times to get a feel for the whole thing. The observation checklist was assessed by watching video recordings and taking notes. However, SPSS software version 24.0 was used to analyze quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics, including frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and one-sample t-test.

Results and Discussions

In the study, a total of 12 Biology teachers participated, with 11 males and one female. As displayed in Table  4 , 41.67% of the teacher participants were from ShSPS, while 58.33% were from ShSS. The majority of these teachers had master’s degrees and had over ten years of teaching experience. As for the students involved, 52.5% were from ShSS and 47.5% were from ShSPS. The sex ratio among the students was 51.25% males and 48.75% females (Table  4 ).

Teachers’ Context Analysis

Beliefs about the practices of using the psmms in biology instruction.

The study analyzed teachers’ beliefs about the importance of the PSMMS in Biology instruction. Accordingly, most teachers interviewed (10 out of 12) stated that PSMMS improves students’ learning by enhancing their thinking skills, subject understanding, self-directed learning techniques, and behavior change, suggesting that it has a significant impact on students’ learning. About this, the study participant gave the following illustrative response:

In my opinion, using PSMMS in Biology classes improves students’ higher-order thinking skills by allowing them to understand and articulate problems in their context, stimulate reflection, and promote practical application knowledge (Teacher 4, ShSPS).

Concerning supportive learning, most of the teachers (nine out of 12) believed that it could enhance students’ engagement despite challenges in understanding and learning. About this, research participants said the following:

The PSMMS provides an engaging approach to Biology learning that promotes students’ active engagement and strengthens their awareness and understanding of the objectives and concepts they are expected to understand (Teacher 1, ShSS). Despite the challenge, I believe that using metacognitive scaffolding in the problem-solving method will help students develop their critical thinking skills. In addition, both teachers and students enjoy participating in the teaching-learning process in a classroom environment that is conducive to learning (Teacher 4, ShSPS).

The majority of teachers (eight out of 12) interviewed about PSMMS in Biology instruction argued that it is not commonly used in classrooms and instead relies on established methods like group discussions, pre-learning questions, projects, and quizzes. Some sample responses from teachers are:

The problem-solving method augmented by metacognition is crucial to learning Biology, although students and teachers have limited experience. However, motivated students using this strategy can make the Biology learning experience attractive (Teacher 2, ShSPS). Most students find learning Biology through the PSMMS a tiresome activity and believe that it is too challenging to achieve their learning goals (Teacher 1, ShSPS). The inability to implement the PSMMS in Biology learning experiences is attributed to inadequate laboratory equipment, teaching aids, and school facilities (Teacher 7, ShSS). On some occasions, I provide students with classwork, plans for implementing teaching strategies, arrange group discussions, and assist them in practicing subject-related skills. I then provide background information, promote class engagement, guide responses to questions, assess students’ existing knowledge and goals, provide relevant comments, and guide their thinking (Teacher 4, ShSPS).

Based on the results of the data analysis, it was found that teachers’ perceptions of the importance of the PSMMS to students’ Biology learning contributed significantly to the analysis of the learning context. Accordingly, the contribution of the PSMMS was to enhance students’ Biology learning by improving their critical thinking and learning experiences. Consistent with these findings, teachers’ positive beliefs about classroom problem-solving processes influence their approach to effective Biology teaching (Ishaku, 2015), and integrating metacognitive classroom interventions improves student learning, as evidenced by changes in conceptual learning and problem-solving skills (Guterman, 2002 ; Howard et al., 2001 ).

Observation of Teachers’ Classroom Instruction

The classroom instructional situation was observed to examine the effectiveness of PSMMS for Biology instruction. Consequently, teachers’ use of the PSMMS in Biology lessons was observed. According to the observation checklist, a total of 12 lessons, each lasting 40 minutes, were audited. The first step was to examine teachers’ daily lesson plans. Objectives were found to center predominantly on cognitive domains, neglecting higher-order problem-solving and metacognitive skills. This was evident from the use of terms such as “understand,” “know,” “write,” “explain,” and “describe” in the lesson plan objectives, which hold little significance for teaching Biology using the PSMMS. This finding is consistent with previous research (Chandio et al., 2016 ; Hyder & Bhamani, 2016 ) showing that the objectives of classroom lesson plans often focus on the lower cognitive domain, indicating lower-level knowledge acquisition.

Observing how teachers deliver lessons in the classroom revealed that they often require students to participate in group discussions, which they believe is a learner-centered approach. However, student engagement was limited, and the details of the tasks that students were expected to discuss were not outlined. Additionally, in the lessons observed, teachers failed to engage students, connect theory with practical applications, or support activity-based learning. On the other hand, teachers still have limited opportunities to assess understanding through targeted questions and encourage the use of critical thinking skills. Only oral questions, tests, or quizzes are used as an assessment method. These results were contradictory to the findings of other researchers’ studies, such as Ahmady and Nakhostin-Ruhi ( 2014 ) and Ishaku (2015), where teachers’ classroom lesson delivery is based on students’ constructivist and learner-centered environment acquiring advanced and critical thinking skills from Biology lessons.

The observation raised further questions regarding multimodal lesson delivery, revealing the use of visual representations of figures and diagrams in addition to the usual lecture style (auditory), raising additional concerns about multimodal instructional delivery. Therefore, there was no way to verify whether students had acquired the required higher-order skills, such as problem-solving and metacognitive skills, during their Biology learning. This finding contradicts the findings of Syofyan and Siwi’s ( 2018 ) research, which claims that students’ learning approaches are influenced by their sensory experiences. Consequently, students employ all their senses to capture information when teachers employ visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles.

Students’ Context Analysis

The section presents the results of students’ responses collected using survey questions. Using a questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree), the impact of using PSMMS in Biology learning practices on students’ problem-solving and metacognitive skills was examined. The questionnaire had a response rate of 80 out of 98 (81.63%), indicating satisfactory status and acceptable use of the instrument. Therefore, in students’ responses to the survey questions on Biology learning practices using the PSMMS, there is significant ( p  < 0.05) variation across all dimensions of the items (M = 4.32, SD = 1.30), with mean scores above 4 indicating general students’ agreement with most items listed in Table  5 .

Regarding the problem-solving skills (Items 1–5) that students would acquire in their Biology learning practices using the PSMMS in Biology lessons, the strongest agreement was to investigate and identify the most effective problem-solving strategies (Item 4, M = 4.25, SD = 1.11), followed by creating the framework and design of the problem-solving activities (Item 2, M = 4.05, SD = 1.16), appropriately evaluating the results and providing alternative solutions to the problems (Item 5, M = 3.91, SD = 1.21), and identifying the problem in the problem sketch and interpreting the final result (Item 1, M = 3.90, SD = 1.28). On the other hand, students typically expressed less positive views about the PSMMS’s use of Biology instruction to enhance laboratory knowledge and problem-solving skills (Item 3, M = 3.25, SD = 1.57), despite significant differences in response patterns (Table  5 ).

Concerning students’ responses to the questionnaire items on metacognitive skills (Items 6–15) acquired in their Biology learning practices using the PSMMS, Table  5 shows that the most positive item states that the use of the PSMMS helps set clear learning objectives (Item 7, M = 4.36, SD = 1.09) and evaluates success by asking how well they did (Item 15, M = 4.29, SD = 1.10). Students tended to be less positive about learning Biology using the PSMMS, which is used to create examples and diagrams to make information more meaningful (Item 9, M = 3.83, SD = 1.21), despite the wide range of response patterns (Table  5 ). As a result, using PSMMS in Biology instruction helps students learn essential planning (Items 6–8), implementing (Items 9 and 10), monitoring (Items 11 and 12), and evaluating (Items 13–15) strategies for practice and to learn real-world applications of Biology (Table  5 ).

After data analysis of students’ responses to the survey questions, it was found that the PSMMS instructional approach is effective in helping students acquire problem-solving and metacognitive skills in their Biology learning practices. However, teachers’ responses, classroom observations, and resource availability indicated that the PSMMS approach was not effectively used to improve students’ problem-solving skills and strategies in Biology learning. The study highlights the disadvantages of shortages of laboratory facilities and large class sizes when implementing learner-centered practices in schools. These issues are supported by Kawishe’s (2016) study. Additionally, the PSMMS was not effectively applied in Biology instruction, resulting in students’ inability to develop metacognitive strategies and skills. Therefore, as studies have shown, students face challenges in acquiring metacognitive knowledge and regulation, which are crucial for the development of higher-order thinking skills in Biology learning (Aaltonen & Ikavalko, 2002 ; Lai, 2011 ).

Learning Context Analysis

This section presents the learning context analysis of PSMMS-based Biology instruction for two aspects, namely the availability of instructional resources in laboratories and pedagogical centers and the challenges in implementing the PSMMS in Biology instruction at Shambu Secondary and Preparatory School (ShSPS) and Shambu Secondary School (ShSS). Each is described below.

Availability of Instructional Resources in the Laboratories and Pedagogical Centers

In this section, a physical observation was conducted to assess the availability of instructional resources in Biology laboratories and pedagogical centers. The observation checklists were used to examine the impacts of their availability on Biology instruction using PSMMS.

Concerning the observations of the laboratory resources, it was noted that the two schools have independent Biology laboratories, but their functioning is hindered by poor organization, display tables, and a lack of water supply and waste disposal systems, as shown in Table  6 . Some basic laboratory equipment and chemicals, including dissecting kits, centrifuges, measuring cylinders, protein foods, sodium hydroxide solution, 1% copper (II) sulfate solution, gas syringes, and hydrogen peroxide, are missing. One school, ShSS, has only seven resources out of 20 identified for observation, making it difficult to conduct laboratory activities (Table  6 ).

Regarding the observations of instructional or teaching resources in the pedagogical centers, the results are shown in Table  7 . The results showed that there were no independent or autonomous pedagogical centers in the two schools; instead, they used the Biology department offices as a pedagogical center and kept some teaching and learning aids there. On the other hand, only DNA and RNA models were accessible in ShSPS, while models of DNA and RNA as well as illustrations depicting the organization of animal cell structures were available in ShSS (Table  7 ).

Challenges of Using the PSMMS in Biology Instruction

In this case, the results of interviews with teachers and survey results from students about the challenges they encountered when using the PSMMS in Biology instruction were used. The results of teachers’ and students’ responses are described below.

Teachers’ interview responses regarding the challenges they encountered in implementing the PSMMS in Biology instruction served as the basis for teachers’ perspectives . With the exception of two teachers who gave insignificant responses, the other teachers’ responses were categorized thematically. Therefore, Table  8 contains the response categories by themes, the number of respondents (N), and examples of responses. According to most teachers ( N  = 10), there is a lack of the required up-to-date knowledge, skills, and experience, and for other teachers ( N  = 7), there are shortages of equipment and chemicals (in Biology laboratories) as well as instructional aids (in pedagogical centers), which are challenges of using the PSMMS in Biology instruction. They also mentioned that challenging factors, such as the high student-teacher ratio and time constraints ( N  = 4), students’ deficiency of knowledge and attitudes towards learning ( N  = 3), and problems with school administrative functions ( N  = 1), have an impact on how well students learn Biology while using the PSMMS instructional approach (Table  8 ).

Students’ perspectives , however, were based on their responses to survey questions concerning the challenges of using the PSMMS in Biology lessons, as shown in Table  9 below. The study found statistically significant ( p  < 0.05) differences across the five-item dimensions, with an average mean of 3.62 and a standard deviation of 1.36. Consequently, mean scores above 3 indicated that students agreed with the challenges of implementing the PSMMS in Biology instruction (Table  9 ).

As shown in Table  9 , the majority of students identified two key challenges to successfully implementing the PSMMS in their learning. These are shortages of instructional resources (Item 2, M = 3.56, SD = 1.39) and student difficulty in connecting their prior knowledge with Biological concepts (Item 1, M = 3.44, SD = 1.42). On the other hand, students responded that their teachers had the knowledge and awareness to conduct instructional processes using the PSMMS (Item 4, M = 3.95, SD = 1.22) and had the skills and competence to conduct instructional processes using the PSMMS (Item 5, M = 3.98, SD = 1.35). Table  9 also shows that, despite significant differences in response patterns, students generally had a negative opinion about the dominance of some students in collaborative work (Item 3, M = 3.16, SD = 1.43).

According to the analyzed data, one of the challenging factors was that teachers often lack the required knowledge and skills to facilitate learning, scaffold it, and successfully implement PSMMS in Biology instruction. In contrast, Belland et al. ( 2013 ) suggested that instructional scaffolds increase students’ autonomy, competence, and intimacy, which improves their motivation and enables them to identify appropriate challenges. The other challenging factor that influenced the use of the PSMMS in Biology instruction was the shortage of instructional resources and facilities. Consistent with the studies of Daganaso et al. ( 2020 ) and Kawishe (2016), the use of the PSMMS for Biology instruction faces challenges due to inadequate instructional resources, time constraints, and large class sizes. However, as Eshete (2001) describes, students lack the importance of instructional resources, as instructional resources are necessary for students to learn Biology effectively as they are essential for a deeper understanding of science.

Generally, the important findings from the analyses of the teachers, learners, and learning contexts and their implications for design principles are summarized in Table  10 .

Conclusions

In this study, contexts (teachers, students, and learning) were analyzed with the aim of designing a context-driven problem-solving method with metacognitive scaffolding (PSMMS) for Biology instruction. Despite the potential benefits of the PSMMS, the findings of the current study indicate that the use of the PSMMS instructional approach faces challenges. These challenges include teachers’ lack of the required up-to-date knowledge and skills, students’ lack of awareness and positive attitude towards learning, an overloaded curriculum, scarcity of resources, large class sizes, and problems with school administrative functions. The study emphasizes the significance of context analysis in the design of an effective PSMMS instructional method for enhancing students’ learning in Biology. This analysis provides useful information for providing pertinent examples, practical content, and context-driven instruction.

The context-driven instructional design approach, using the PSMMS, addresses problems in teachers’ effectiveness, students’ effective learning, and the establishment of supportive teaching and learning environments. This approach considers the performance of both teachers and students, as well as the learning environment, including the availability of instructional resources. Consequently, this study concludes that understanding the needs of teachers in relation to the PSMMS can help both teachers and educational policymakers design a system that is well-suited to their specific requirements. Additionally, it can help students use their practical skills as well as establish connections between their prior knowledge and the Biology concepts they are learning. This process has the potential to generate innovative systems for applying the PSMMS instructional approach, with teachers serving as facilitators and students actively engaging and taking responsibility for their own learning progress.

The study investigated the importance of incorporating target groups into the design of the PSMMS for Biology instruction. The study’s empirical findings support the notion that the PSMMS should provide regular learning opportunities and foster the active engagement of teachers. The study also emphasizes the need to consider learning contexts while designing the PSMMS for Biology instruction that is deeply rooted in its particular context, as effective principles applied in one context could not yield the same results in another context. The study suggests that this strategy is particularly useful in developing countries like Ethiopia, where there is limited experience with metacognitive strategies to scaffold the problem-solving method in Biology instruction. As a result, the authors recommend expanding the target audience, considering the national context, and incorporating metacognitive knowledge and regulation strategies in designing context-driven PSMMS for secondary school Biology instruction.

Data Availability

The authors confirm that the results of this study are available in the article and its supplementary material, and raw data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Aaltonen, P., & Ikavalko, H. (2002). Implementing strategies successfully. Integrated Manufacturing Systems , 13 (6), 415–418.

Article   Google Scholar  

Agaba, K. C. (2013). Effect of Concept Mapping Instructional Strategy on Students Retention in Biology. African Education Indices , 5 (1), 1–8.

Google Scholar  

Agena, D. (2010). Case Study: Ethiopia UNICEF .

Ahmady, G., & Nakhostin-Ruhi, N. (2014). The effect of problem-solving method on improving primary students’ mathematics achievement and creativity. Mathematics Education , 68 , 22708–22710.

Al Azmy, K. A., & Alebous, T. M. (2020). The degree of using metacognitive thinking strategies skills for problem-solving by a sample of biology female teachers at the secondary stage in the state of Kuwait. Educational Research and Reviews , 15 (12), 764–774. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4094 .

Albay, E. M. (2019). Analyzing the effects of the problem-solving approach to the performance and attitude of first-year university students. Social Sciences & Humanities Open , 1 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2019.100006 .

Aurah, C. M., Koloi-Keaikitse, S., Isaacs, C., & Finch, H. (2011). The role of metacognition in everyday problem-solving among primary students in Kenya. Problems of Education in the 21st Century , 30 (2011), 9–21.

Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist , 48 (4), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920 .

Beyessa, F. (2014). Major factors that affect grade 10 students’ academic achievement in science education at Ilu Ababora general secondary of Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences , 32 (21), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.32.118 .

Chandio, M. T., Pandhiani, S. M., & Iqbal, R. (2016). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Improving Assessment and Teaching-Learning Process. Journal of Education and Educational Development , 3 (2), 203–221.

Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice . Springer International Publishing.

Cimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews , 7 (3), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205 .

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Daganaso, R. O., Macasadogs, D. V. C., Tan, M. L. G., Pilande, C. J. A., Calipayan, N. J., & Santos, A. G. D. L (2020). Overcoming challenges in the use of teaching strategies: The case of grade eight biology teachers. Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary , 8 (1), 25–36.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for Educational Practice of the Science of Learning and Development. Applied Developmental Science , 24 (2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791 .

Dawal, B. S., & Mangut, M. (2021). Overloaded curriculum content: Factor responsible for students’ under achievement in basic science and technology in junior secondary schools in Plateau state, Nigeria. KIU Journal of Social Sciences , 7 (2), 123–128.

ETP. (1994). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Education and Training Policy . St. George Printing.

Ganyaupfu, E. M. (2013). Teaching methods and students’ academic performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention , 2 (9), 29–35.

Georghiades, P. (2000). Beyond conceptual change learning in science education: Focusing on transfer, durability, and Metacognition. Educational Research , 42 (2), 119–139.

Getenet, S. T. (2020). Designing a professional development program for mathematics teachers for effective use of technology in teaching. Education and Information Technologies , 25 (3), 1855–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10056-8 .

Guner, P., & Erbay, H. N. (2021). Metacognitive skills and problem-solving. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES) , 7 (3), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1594 .

Guterman, E. (2002). Toward Dynamic Assessment of Reading: Applying Metacognitive Awareness Guidance to Reading Assessment Tasks. Journal of Research in Reading , 25 (3), 283–298.

Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Shia, R., & Hong, N. S. (2001). The Influence of Metacognitive Self-Regulation and Ability Levels on Problem-Solving .

Hyder, I., & Bhamani, S. (2016). Bloom’s taxonomy (cognitive domain) in higher education settings: Reflection brief. Journal of Education and Educational Development , 3 (2), 288–300.

Inel, D., & Balim, A. G. (2010). The effects of using problem-based learning in science and technology teaching upon students’ academic achievement and levels of structuring concepts. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching , 11 (2), 1–23.

Kallio, H., Virta, K., Kallio, M., Virta, A., Hjardemaal, F. R., & Sandven, J. (2017). The utility of the metacognitive awareness inventory for teachers among in-service teachers. Journal of Education and Learning , 6 (4), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p78 .

Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem-solving in a computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 47 (3), 317–336.

Khaparde, R. (2019). Experimental problem-solving: A plausible approach for conventional laboratory courses. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 1286 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012031 .

Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Axelrod, D. (2019). Scaffolding for optimal challenge in K–12 problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning , 13 (1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1712 .

Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Pearson Research Report , 24 , 1–40. http://www.pearsonassessments.com/research .

MoE (2020). Ministry of Education Concept Note for Education Sector COVID 19-Preparedness and Response Plan .

MoE (2019). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education Curriculum for Doctor of Education in Biology .

MoE (2009). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education, Curriculum Framework for Ethiopian Education (KG – Grade 12) .

MoE (2005). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Education Sector Development Program III (ESDP-III) 2005/2006–2010/2011 (1998 EFY – 2002 EFY) Program Action Plan (PAP) .

Negash, T. (2006). Education in Ethiopia from Crisis to the Brink of Collapse . Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.

Nnorom, N. R. (2019). Effect of problem-based solving technique on secondary school students achievement in biology. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research , 10 (3), 1025–1029.

Okoro, C. O., & Chukwudi, E. K. (2011). Metacognitive strategies: A viable tool for self-directed learning. Journal of Educational and Social Research , 1 (4), 71–76.

Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 12 (3), 227–241.

Rahmawati, D., Sajidan, S., & Ashadi, A. (2018). Analysis of Problem-Solving Skill in Learning Biology at Senior High School of Surakarta. International Conference on Science Education (ICoSEd) , 1006 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1006/1/012014 .

Reich, Y., Kolberg, E., & Levin, I. (2006). Designing contexts for learning design. International Journal of Engineering Education , 22 (3), 489–495.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education , 36 , 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 .

Senyigit, C. (2021). The effect of problem-based learning on pre-service primary school teachers’ conceptual understanding and misconceptions. International Online Journal of Primary Education (IOJPE) , 10 (1), 50–72.

Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice , 10 (2), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.10.2.117.27905 .

Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education , 6 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1 .

Syofyan, R., & Siwi, M. K. (2018). The impact of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles on economics education teaching. Advances in Economics, Business, and Management Research , 57 , 642–649.

Tachie, S. A. (2019). Metacognitive skills and strategies application: How this helps learners in mathematics problem-solving. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education , 15 (5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/105364 .

Tosun, C., & Senocak, E. (2013). The effects of problem-based learning on metacognitive awareness and attitudes toward chemistry of prospective teachers with different academic backgrounds. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 38 (3), 61–73.

Umar, A. A. (2011). Effects of biology practical activities on students’ process skill acquisition in Minna, Nigeria state. Journal of Science Technology Mathematics and Education (JOSTMED) , 7 (2), 120–128.

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development , 53 (4), 5–23.

Widya, Rifandi, R., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2019). STEM education to fulfill the 21st century demand: A literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 1317 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208 .

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal , 45 (1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909 .

Zumbrunn, S., Tadlock, J., & Roberts, E. D. (2011). Encouraging self-regulated learning in the classroom: A review of the literature. Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium (MERC) , 1–28.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the teachers and students of Shambu Secondary Schools, Jimma University, and Shambu College of Teachers Education for their invaluable contributions in terms of information, resources, and financial support.

This editorial has not received financial support from any funding organizations.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Natural Sciences, Department of Biology, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia

Merga Dinssa Eticha & Tsige Ketema

Department of Biology, Shambu College of Teachers Education, Shambu, Ethiopia

Merga Dinssa Eticha

Department of Curriculum and Instructional Sciences, Kotebe University of Education, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Adula Bekele Hunde

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Merga Dinssa Eticha : Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing.

Adula Bekele Hunde : Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing-review and editing.

Tsige Ketema : Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing-review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merga Dinssa Eticha .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants followed the ethical standards of institutional and national research committees. Therefore, approval to conduct the research was accepted by the university’s institutional review board, and ethical guidelines were followed in conducting this study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflicting and competing interests.

Informed Consent

All individual participants involved in the study provided informed consent.

Statement Regarding Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

This study entailed the involvement of human subjects and was conducted in accordance with ethical standards, which encompassed the principles of informed consent and approval from an ethics committee.

Consent to Participate

Consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study after ensuring that they were fully informed. To protect their privacy, participants’ names will not be linked to any publication or presentation that uses the data and research collected. Instead, the authors used codes to identify participants. Disclosure of identifiable information will only occur if required by law or with the written consent of the participant. Participants participated in the study voluntarily and had the option to withdraw at any time.

Consent to Publish

The authors hereby affirm that the participants in the human research have given their consent for the publication of the details in the journal and article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Eticha, M.D., Hunde, A.B. & Ketema, T. Designing a Context-Driven Problem-Solving Method with Metacognitive Scaffolding Experience Intervention for Biology Instruction. J Sci Educ Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10107-x

Download citation

Accepted : 27 February 2024

Published : 27 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10107-x

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

• Biology learning
• Context analysis
• Metacognitive scaffolding
• Problem-solving method
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research