does collaborative problem solving work

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

22 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

Collaborative problem solvers are made not born – here’s what you need to know

Professor of Cognitive Sciences, University of Central Florida

Disclosure statement

Stephen M. Fiore has received funding from federal agencies such as NASA, ONR, DARPA, and the NSF to study collaborative problem solving and teamwork. He is past president of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research, currently a board member of the International Network for the Science of Team Science, and a member of DARPA's Information Science and Technology working group.

View all partners

Challenges are a fact of life. Whether it’s a high-tech company figuring out how to shrink its carbon footprint, or a local community trying to identify new revenue sources, people are continually dealing with problems that require input from others. In the modern world, we face problems that are broad in scope and great in scale of impact – think of trying to understand and identify potential solutions related to climate change, cybersecurity or authoritarian leaders.

But people usually aren’t born competent in collaborative problem-solving. In fact, a famous turn of phrase about teams is that a team of experts does not make an expert team . Just as troubling, the evidence suggests that, for the most part, people aren’t being taught this skill either. A 2012 survey by the American Management Association found that higher level managers believed recent college graduates lack collaboration abilities .

Maybe even worse, college grads seem to overestimate their own competence. One 2015 survey found nearly two-thirds of recent graduates believed they can effectively work in a team, but only one-third of managers agreed . The tragic irony is that the less competent you are, the less accurate is your self-assessment of your own competence. It seems that this infamous Dunning-Kruger effect can also occur for teamwork.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that in a 2015 international assessment of hundreds of thousands of students, less than 10% performed at the highest level of collaboration . For example, the vast majority of students could not overcome teamwork obstacles or resolve conflict. They were not able to monitor group dynamics or to engage in the kind of actions needed to make sure the team interacted according to their roles. Given that all these students have had group learning opportunities in and out of school over many years, this points to a global deficit in the acquisition of collaboration skills.

How can this deficiency be addressed? What makes one team effective while another fails? How can educators improve training and testing of collaborative problem-solving? Drawing from disciplines that study cognition, collaboration and learning, my colleagues and I have been studying teamwork processes. Based on this research, we have three key recommendations.

How it should work

At the most general level, collaborative problem-solving requires team members to establish and maintain a shared understanding of the situation they’re facing and any relevant problem elements they’ve identified. At the start, there’s typically an uneven distribution of knowledge on a team. Members must maintain communication to help each other know who knows what, as well as help each other interpret elements of the problem and which expertise should be applied.

Then the team can get to work, laying out subtasks based upon member roles, or creating mechanisms to coordinate member actions. They’ll critique possible solutions to identify the most appropriate path forward.

Finally, at a higher level, collaborative problem-solving requires keeping the team organized – for example, by monitoring interactions and providing feedback to each other. Team members need, at least, basic interpersonal competencies that help them manage relationships within the team (like encouraging participation) and communication (like listening to learn). Even better is the more sophisticated ability to take others’ perspectives, in order to consider alternative views of problem elements.

Whether it is a team of professionals in an organization or a team of scientists solving complex scientific problems , communicating clearly, managing conflict, understanding roles on a team, and knowing who knows what – all are collaboration skills related to effective teamwork.

What’s going wrong in the classroom?

When so many students are continually engaged in group projects, or collaborative learning, why are they not learning about teamwork? There are interrelated factors that may be creating graduates who collaborate poorly but who think they are quite good at teamwork.

I suggest students vastly overestimate their collaboration skills due to the dangerous combination of a lack of systematic instruction coupled with inadequate feedback. On the one hand, students engage in a great deal of group work in high school and college. On the other hand, students rarely receive meaningful instruction, modeling and feedback on collaboration . Decades of research on learning show that explicit instruction and feedback are crucial for mastery .

Although classes that implement collaborative problem-solving do provide some instruction and feedback, it’s not necessarily about their teamwork. Students are learning about concepts in classes; they are acquiring knowledge about a domain. What is missing is something that forces them to explicitly reflect on their ability to work with others.

When students process feedback on how well they learned something, or whether they solved a problem, they mistakenly think this is also indicative of effective teamwork. I hypothesize that students come to conflate learning course content material in any group context with collaboration competency.

A prescription for better collaborators

Now that we’ve defined the problem, what can be done? A century of research on team training , combined with decades of research on group learning in the classroom , points the way forward. My colleagues and I have distilled some core elements from this literature to suggest improvements for collaborative learning .

First, most pressing is to get training on teamwork into the world’s classrooms. At a minimum, this needs to happen during college undergraduate education, but even better would be starting in high school or earlier. Research has demonstrated it’s possible to teach collaboration competencies such as dealing with conflict and communicating to learn. Researchers and educators need, themselves, to collaborate to adapt these methods for the classroom.

Secondly, students need opportunities for practice. Although most already have experience working in groups, this needs to move beyond science and engineering classes. Students need to learn to work across disciplines so after graduation they can work across professions on solving complex societal problems.

Third, any systematic instruction and practice setting needs to include feedback. This is not simply feedback on whether they solved the problem or did well on learning course content. Rather, it needs to be feedback on interpersonal competencies that drive successful collaboration. Instructors should assess students on teamwork processes like relationship management, where they encourage participation from each other, as well as skills in communication where they actively listen to their teammates.

Even better would be feedback telling students how well they were able to take on the perspective of a teammate from another discipline. For example, was the engineering student able to take the view of a student in law and understand the legal ramifications of a new technology’s implementation?

My colleagues and I believe that explicit instruction on how to collaborate, opportunities for practice, and feedback about collaboration processes will better prepare today’s students to work together to solve tomorrow’s problems.

• Decision making
• Cooperation
• Problem solving
• Collaboration
• Dunning-Kruger effect
• Wicked problems
• student collaboration
• College graduates
• 21st century skills
• Group decision making
• Collaborative problem solving

University Relations Manager

2024 Vice-Chancellor's Research Fellowships

Head of Research Computing & Data Solutions

Community member RANZCO Education Committee (Volunteer)

Director of STEM

• Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools »

Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools

Collaborative Problem Solving ® (CPS) is an evidence-based, trauma-informed practice that helps students meet expectations, reduces concerning behavior, builds students’ skills, and strengthens their relationships with educators.

Collaborative Problem Solving is designed to meet the needs of all children, including those with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. It promotes the understanding that students who have trouble meeting expectations or managing their behavior lack the skill—not the will—to do so. These students struggle with skills related to problem-solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance. Collaborative Problem Solving has been shown to help build these skills.

Collaborative Problem Solving avoids using power, control, and motivational procedures. Instead, it focuses on collaborating with students to solve the problems leading to them not meeting expectations and displaying concerning behavior. This trauma-informed approach provides staff with actionable strategies for trauma-sensitive education and aims to mitigate implicit bias’s impact on school discipline . It integrates with MTSS frameworks, PBIS, restorative practices, and SEL approaches, such as RULER. Collaborative Problem Solving reduces challenging behavior and teacher stress while building future-ready skills and relationships between educators and students.

Transform School Discipline

Traditional school discipline is broken, it doesn’t result in improved behavior or improved relationships between educators and students. In addition, it has been shown to be disproportionately applied to students of color. The Collaborative Problem Solving approach is an equitable and effective form of relational discipline that reduces concerning behavior and teacher stress while building skills and relationships between educators and students. Learn more >>

A Client’s Story

Collaborative Problem Solving and SEL

Collaborative Problem Solving aligns with CASEL’s five core competencies by building relationships between teachers and students using everyday situations. Students develop the skills they need to prepare for the real world, including problem-solving, collaboration and communication, flexibility, perspective-taking, and empathy. Collaborative Problem Solving makes social-emotional learning actionable.

Collaborative Problem Solving and MTSS

The Collaborative Problem Solving approach integrates with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) in educational settings. CPS benefits all students and can be implemented across the three tiers of support within an MTSS framework to effectively identify and meet the diverse social emotional and behavioral needs of students in schools. Learn More >>

The Results

Our research has shown that the Collaborative Problem Solving approach helps kids and adults build crucial social-emotional skills and leads to dramatic decreases in behavior problems across various settings. Results in schools include remarkable reductions in time spent out of class, detentions, suspensions, injuries, teacher stress, and alternative placements as well as increases in emotional safety, attendance, academic growth, and family participation.

Educators, join us in this introductory course and develop your behavioral growth mindset!

This 2-hour, self-paced course introduces the principles of Collaborative Problem Solving ®  while outlining how the approach is uniquely suited to the needs of today's educators and students. Tuition: $39 Enroll Now

Bring CPS to Your School

We can help you bring a more accurate, compassionate, and effective approach to working with children to your school or district.

What Our Clients Say

Education insights, corporal punishment ban in new york sparks awareness of practice, to fix students’ bad behavior, stop punishing them, behaviors charts: helpful or harmful, bringing collaborative problem solving to marshalltown, ia community school district, the benefits of changing school discipline, eliminating the school-to-prison pipeline, ending restraint and seclusion in schools: podcast, a skill-building approach to reducing students’ anxiety and challenging behavior, the school discipline fix book club, what can we do about post-pandemic school violence, sos: our schools are in crisis and we need to act now, talking to kids about the tiktok bathroom destruction challenge, north dakota governor’s summit on innovative education 2021, kids of color suffer from both explicit and implicit bias, school discipline is trauma-insensitive and trauma-uninformed, privacy overview.

How to ace collaborative problem solving

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

Want better strategies? Become a bulletproof problem solver

How to master the seven-step problem-solving process

Countering otherness: Fostering integration within teams

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

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

To weather a crisis, build a network of teams

Unleash your team’s full potential

Modern marketing: Six capabilities for multidisciplinary teams

Beyond collaboration overload

MORE FROM MCKINSEY

Take a step Forward

Collaborative Problem Solving: What It Is and How to Do It

What is collaborative problem solving, how to solve problems as a team, celebrating success as a team.

Problems arise. That's a well-known fact of life and business. When they do, it may seem more straightforward to take individual ownership of the problem and immediately run with trying to solve it. However, the most effective problem-solving solutions often come through collaborative problem solving.

As defined by Webster's Dictionary , the word collaborate is to work jointly with others or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor. Therefore, collaborative problem solving (CPS) is essentially solving problems by working together as a team. While problems can and are solved individually, CPS often brings about the best resolution to a problem while also developing a team atmosphere and encouraging creative thinking.

Because collaborative problem solving involves multiple people and ideas, there are some techniques that can help you stay on track, engage efficiently, and communicate effectively during collaboration.

• Set Expectations. From the very beginning, expectations for openness and respect must be established for CPS to be effective. Everyone participating should feel that their ideas will be heard and valued.
• Provide Variety. Another way of providing variety can be by eliciting individuals outside the organization but affected by the problem. This may mean involving various levels of leadership from the ground floor to the top of the organization. It may be that you involve someone from bookkeeping in a marketing problem-solving session. A perspective from someone not involved in the day-to-day of the problem can often provide valuable insight.
• Communicate Clearly.  If the problem is not well-defined, the solution can't be. By clearly defining the problem, the framework for collaborative problem solving is narrowed and more effective.
• Expand the Possibilities.  Think beyond what is offered. Take a discarded idea and expand upon it. Turn it upside down and inside out. What is good about it? What needs improvement? Sometimes the best ideas are those that have been discarded rather than reworked.
• Encourage Creativity.  Out-of-the-box thinking is one of the great benefits of collaborative problem-solving. This may mean that solutions are proposed that have no way of working, but a small nugget makes its way from that creative thought to evolution into the perfect solution.
• Provide Positive Feedback. There are many reasons participants may hold back in a collaborative problem-solving meeting. Fear of performance evaluation, lack of confidence, lack of clarity, and hierarchy concerns are just a few of the reasons people may not initially participate in a meeting. Positive public feedback early on in the meeting will eliminate some of these concerns and create more participation and more possible solutions.
• Consider Solutions. Once several possible ideas have been identified, discuss the advantages and drawbacks of each one until a consensus is made.
• Assign Tasks.  A problem identified and a solution selected is not a problem solved. Once a solution is determined, assign tasks to work towards a resolution. A team that has been invested in the creation of the solution will be invested in its resolution. The best time to act is now.
• Evaluate the Solution. Reconnect as a team once the solution is implemented and the problem is solved. What went well? What didn't? Why? Collaboration doesn't necessarily end when the problem is solved. The solution to the problem is often the next step towards a new collaboration.

The burden that is lifted when a problem is solved is enough victory for some. However, a team that plays together should celebrate together. It's not only collaboration that brings unity to a team. It's also the combined celebration of a unified victory—the moment you look around and realize the collectiveness of your success.

We can help

Check out MindManager to learn more about how you can ignite teamwork and innovation by providing a clearer perspective on the big picture with a suite of sharing options and collaborative tools.

Need to Download MindManager?

Try the full version of mindmanager free for 30 days.

Business Collaboration collaborative culture company culture

5 Expert Collaborative Problem-Solving Strategies

Lorin mccann.

• December 9th, 2015

You don’t need to be an executive to initiate powerful change within your organization. According to collaboration expert Jane Ripley, collaboration begins with you.

Expecting superiors, employees, coworkers, or other departments to take responsibility will get you nowhere, fast. Instead, adopt collaboration as a personal responsibility and be unafraid to take initiative — it doesn’t matter if you’re an entry-level employee or a seasoned executive.

Jane Ripley is a collaboration expert and co-author of the book Collaboration Begins With You: Be a Silo Buster along with Ken Blanchard and Eunice Parisi-Carew (you can follow Jane on Twitter: @WiredLeadership ). Jane draws on her research working with companies ranging from small businesses and entrepreneurs to large, multi-national enterprises to talk about collaborative problem-solving strategies professionals can use no matter what organizational level they’re at.

Initiating collaborative problem-solving within an organization is a complex task, with many moving parts. Jane describes it well: “Imagine you’re in the aircraft and there’s this dashboard. You’ve got to try and get all the buttons and levers in the right places.” Collaboration within an organization is also a complex process.

The approach Jane and her co-authors adopt in their books aims to simplify a complex subject with actionable models, including the UNITE model for collaborative problem-solving:

U = Utilize difference N = Nurture safety and trust I = Involve others in creating a clear purpose, values, and goals T = Talk openly E = Empower yourself and others

Executives can use these strategies to transform the culture and impact of their organizations from the company culture from the top down. Alternatively,entry-level employees can adopt the same strategies to accelerate professional growth while offering enormous value to their organizations from the bottom up.

In this post, we’ll look at each of the elements of the UNITE model — and what you need to know to put them into action.  

1. Utilize differences in collaborative problem-solving

Collaborative problem-solving relies on the presence of multiple perspectives.

Jane advises to remember that different perspectives are not personal. In fact, conflict is important.

Fear of contrasting opinions often indicates a competitive mindset, not a collaborative one. This only creates more problems rather than solving them.

“The power,” Jane says, “is in the combination of perspectives.”  

2. Nurture safety and trust within your organization

Effective collaboration is impossible when trust isn’t a part of the culture.

Jane elaborates: “My co-author, Eunice Parisi-Carew, always says, ‘Fear is the number one inhibitor to collaboration, because if you’re inhibited, you won’t contribute, and if you don’t contribute nobody will know that you have a different perspective.’”

In fact, trust is one of the most crucial elements in being a silo-buster; it plays enormous role in preventing bottlenecks and accelerating growth.

“Some people come to the workplace trusting everybody, and they get let down. Other people come to the workplace believing nobody will do the work as well as they can. Those people try to do it all and become a bottleneck,” Jane explains.

Low trust within an organization rarely goes unnoticed. Even if executives are unaware of the problem, employees always are — it negatively impacts their ability to be effective.

A tell-tale sign of a low-trust culture for leaders is when people don’t contribute ideas. Jane shares a classic example: “When the leader sits at the meeting and says, ‘I’ve got this new thing that’s been handed to us from headquarters, now we’ve got to implement XYZ initiative. Any ideas?’ And…there’s no response.”

Silence follows because, as Jane explains, “not usually because [the employees] don’t have any ideas, it’s just that they just don’t want to voice them” — for fear of criticism, negative feedback, no feedback, or backlash.  

3. Involve others for effective collaborative problem-solving

According to Jane, “Not all the best ideas come from the top, and not all the best ideas come from a specific group. Marketing can have a very valuable perspective on the use of collaborative software, and so can IT.”

It may be uncomfortable to involve people and departments with whom you don’t currently have a relationship, but it’s essential for effective collaborative problem-solving. Even as an entry-level employee, you can take the initiative to open the lines of communication to other people within your organization.

Invite someone to lunch — or suggest involving someone from another department in a final review on a project that could use their feedback. It’s a simple way to begin, but it’s powerful.  

4. Don’t be afraid to talk openly

How important is speed to your organization? On a scale of one to ten it’s probably an eight, nine, or ten.

According to Jane, speed is the number-one benefit of talking openly, or transparency: “If you’ve all got the same information, you can all make decisions and bring those pieces of information together to solve the problem more quickly.” Alternatively, a lack of transparency creates confusion, more meetings, and more discussion.

“So now you’ve got a [unproductive] discussion instead of having everybody on the same level playing field all coming at it from the same approach, able to look at the data or the information and critically evaluate that,” she adds.

And speed isn’t the only benefit of talking openly. As counterintuitive as it may seem, so is security.

Jane often talks about information theft when discussing transparency. “When information is kept in silos you open up an opportunity for other people to prosper from it,” she says. “So an unscrupulous individual can take that information and do what they like with it, whereas if it’s common knowledge, it’s in the public domain, [and] they have no more power.”  

5. Don’t wait to empower yourself and others

As a leader, empowering your organization starts with you. As an employee, it’s no different! You can’t wait for someone at the top to make the shift before you allow yourself to as well.

Jane shares insights into how both leaders and employees can take take steps to empower themselves, and in doing so empower others:

Firstly, leaders must discard a competitive mindset in favor of a collaborative one.

“Empowering yourself and others is the big part for the leader. [Leaders] are coaching for competence, creating clarity around goals, and setting boundaries. They’re removing roadblocks, sharing their networks, and giving opportunities to build knowledge… it’s how they help an individual become collaborative and make a greater contribution [to the organization].”

Instead of keeping your knowledge, network, and expertise close to the vest as a leader, share it openly with your employees. Not only will your experiences add enormous value to their professional growth, it will also empower them to be more effective in their jobs. They’ll also trust and appreciate you more.

Employees can also take initiative within their organization, regardless of the current company culture. They can start by offering their ideas, insights — even their networks.

Jane says, “It always amazes me how, particularly with the millennial generation, that they’re networked electronically they have some phenomenal people in their networks and can bring those equally to leaders who are sitting in a position maybe four, five, six, seven years older than them, it’s tremendous.”  

People are innately collaborative

Jane ties together the concepts and action steps surrounding collaborative problem with a familiar example:

“People are innately collaborative. We do it innately and we do it socially. If somebody wants to throw a party everybody says,‘What should I bring?’‘What shall I do?’ ‘I’ll do the decorating!’

And yet, when they come to work, ‘Oh, wait a minute, the decorating belongs to that department, refreshments belongs to that department, so now we need a meeting.’”

“We’re wired,” Jane explains, “for collaboration, and it’s our workplace habits, systems, and beliefs that get in the way. For better collaborative problem-solving where you work, you don’t need more meetings.”

Instead, work on building a culture of collaboration by utilizing difference, nurturing safety and trust, involving others in creating a clear purpose, values, and goals, talking openly, and empowering yourself and others. And that’s something we all can do.

Lorin is an inbound marketer and demand generation specialist at Lotus Growth , a B2B marketing consultancy. She also helps entrepreneurs kick off new digital marketing strategies at Vrtical . Read more by Lorin McCann »

Data Center

The 3 pillars of successful collaborative problem solving.

We already covered quite a lot of ground when it comes to assuming a leadership position and building a positive team environment . But there is still one topic missing: how can you bring the best out of the group efforts? How can you stimulate people to solve problems together and to join forces towards a common goal?

This article will cover the subject of collaborative problem solving, and we will explore its many dimensions and particularities. While there are certain situations where individual decision making is recommended, there is a wide body of research that shows group decisions as superior to individual ones. Groups usually bring more background information, different perspectives, and a broader range of solutions to the problem at hand.

While there are many components to analyze in collaborative problem solving, we will focus on three during this article:

Analyzing the Problem from the Perspective of the Group

• Managing Conflict within a Group
• Creating an Environment for Continuous Learning

People have different approaches to problem solving. Some prefer to go with their guts and solve the problems as they come without looking at the big picture or at possible consequences of a choice; others – like me – prefer to conduct a more detailed analysis of the different possible scenarios and to try to forecast the most likely implications of each decision.

Bringing together people with different attitudes definitely has its benefits, but you should keep an eye for the conflicts that might arise. People who rely on their guts might simply become annoyed by the level of details demanded by the more rational fellows. These, on the other hand, might not like the quick decisions made by intuitive people and decide to become less active in the project.

It is important to understand that there are both risks and benefits to group problem solving. However, if the situation is managed properly, the benefits usually outweigh the risks.

The 7-Steps Divergent-Convergent Method for Problem Analysis

We already discussed several brainstorming techniques for managing risks in a project . Brainstorming, however, is just one of the steps in solving problems collaboratively, so let’s discuss a more general framework to address the issue. But before, I would like to make a quick remark. As the leader of your team , it is your responsibility to provide an established method for solving the challenges your project faces. If you use a different method each time you get together to discuss an issue, it will take time for your team to adapt and the members might feel a bit lost. Therefore, a recommended practice is to develop a unified framework that is both broad enough to be useful in most future situations and practical enough to be easily implemented. This standardization also addresses the problem of different perspectives, since all the members are aware of the steps involved in the process.

While there are many variations and possibilities to create a framework for collaborative problem solving, I am particularly fond of a 7-steps divergent-convergent approach presented by this Project Management Book . The figure below details the steps, and the following discussion explains each one.

Step 01 – Identifying the Problem

Identifying the problem is the most critical part of problem solving because it directs all the following project efforts. If a rocket is not perfectly aligned at the launching time, there is almost nothing the crew can do to fix the situation. In competitions such as Bobsleigh, the beginning is the most crucial moment. The same is valid for our projects: if we don’t start right, we will not finish right.

Step 02 – Identifying the Real Cause of the Problem

What is actually causing your company to lose money? Is it low demand (i.e. the market’s “fault”) or a bad product (i.e. your fault)? How can you identify it?

Looking for the source of the problem is a process that might require some time and the analysis of several sources of data. Regarding our previous question, how can you identify if it’s the general demand that is low or if it’s a flaw in your product that is making people run away? Looking at the competitors’ situations is a good start. How are they doing in the market? Are they successful? If yes, then chances are high that the customers are leaving you because they don’t like your product or service. If you want to dig deeper into the cause of it, look at past data from your company. At which exact moment did you experience losses in the number of customers? After which update? What does your competition have that you don’t?

Looking for the real source of the problem is much more efficient if you have multiple perspectives, so group decision earns a plus point here. Different heads eliminate the confirmation bias of an individual decision maker.

Step 03 – Setting the Prerequisites for Your Solution

What does the final solution for the problem look like? When will you achieve it? The prerequisites of a solution define exactly that: the ideal conditions of solving the problem at hand. In our previous example, we can think of several intermediate and final requirements for the solution: broadly speaking, our problem will be solved when we implement a product that not only solves the previous flaws but also meets the demands of the market. The discussion about how to create a highly effective work breakdown structure might prove itself useful in identifying the different components of the problem and in establishing a precise end-point to the process.

Step 04 – Generating Alternatives

This is the time when brainstorming is most useful. Once you specify where you want to go, it is time to start thinking about how to get there. Naturally, creativity is something that requires time, and the creative process might even seem inefficient to some. This step, however, is extremely important in solving problems, since one among the alternatives generated will be the base for the future work. Therefore, you should really spend some time here to make sure that you have a very relevant (doesn’t need to be exhaustive though, that’s impossible) list of alternatives from which you can choose the best one for the moment.

Step 05 – Selecting an Alternative among the Options

If you don’t have good options, you will not have a good solution. Now it is time to scrutinize the alternatives created by using the prerequisites defined earlier. You might want to look at both qualitative and quantitative components of an alternative, and search for the one that offers the highest benefits at the lowest costs. Evidently, this is not an easy step: there is a lot of uncertainty going on, and it is simply not possible to know for sure which alternative is the absolute best to solve your problem.

Step 06 – Performing a Risk Analysis and a Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Alternative

This is why the next step involves performing a risk analysis and a profit vs. cost evaluation of the selected alternative. It might be the case that, after looking at the risks involved and at the potential profits, the team decides to go back and choose another possible solution. This is totally fine and is part of the process, but you should also consider what made you choose the wrong alternative in the first place. Maybe you overlooked a critical component? Maybe you did not consider the consequences and the costs in details? If you want to improve your problem solving skills, it is not enough to correct wrong decisions. You have to look back and identify why the wrong decision was made, which data was missing, and how you can fix it to improve future decision making.

Step 07 – Create a Plan of Action

Once you have chosen which alternative to pursue, it is time to create an actionable plan to implement it. I explore in details the art of creating a work breakdown structure in a separate article, and the process can be used here as well.

How to Manage Conflict within Your Project Team

Any group working on the same project is destined to fight. Conflicts might happen early in the course of the project, or they might come in more advanced stages. It’s not an “if”, but a when” matter. So what should you do when they appear? Should you simply run away and try to avoid all types of conflict? Should you just assume a totalitarian approach and impose yourself as the boss and holder of the right opinion? Hopefully I don’t even need to answer these questions for you. But while many people see conflict as something negative to the health of the project, I would like to propose a way to look at conflict as a positive step in collaborative problem solving. What if you could use conflict to boost the performance of your team? Wouldn’t that be great?

The two main problems that conflicts cause are (1) making the wrong decision, and (2) damaging team relationships. While making the wrong decision is quite straightforward to solve – you just need to carry a rational analysis of the consequences of the action -, managing the relationships is a bit harder. This happens because, well, if there is conflict in the problem solving process, there will inevitably be a losing side. The key is to find a way to work together with your team in order to show to everyone why certain decisions are made, as well as to maintain a good relationship among all team members.

So before we move to the right way of dealing with conflict, let’s have a look at the wrong way of doing it.

4 Wrong Ways of Dealing with Conflict

Avoiding or Moving Away from the Conflict

This happens quite often. When people see they will not win the argument, they sometimes just walk away. It’s the “I prefer leaving rather than admitting I was wrong” mindset. From a leader perspective, the issue is a bit broader: you might not only want to avoid your personal conflicts, but you may also choose to withdraw from conflicts in your team. If two people disagree on something, walking away and not acknowledging that there is a conflict is one of the worst ways to deal with it. If the conflict is an actual problem – and not just a discussion about whether cats are better than dogs -, walking away will just postpone the matter until you can’t hide anymore. The problem is: if you can’t hide, it means the problem has become really big. So, instead of running away at the first sign of conflicts, acknowledge their presence and work together with your team to solve them.

Hide or Smooth Over the Conflict

While this might be a suitable short-term solution, prioritizing relationships over decisions will cause you to do suboptimal choices. Camouflaging conflicts is the practice of “ focusing on the positive side ” of the relationships instead of looking at the whole picture. Even though this hides the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

Forcing the Solutions of Disagreements

This is one of the main differences between leaders and bosses . The boss will normally approach the conflict as something negative and, if no agreement is reached, will impose his or her own opinion grounded on the fact that “he (or she) is the boss”. The boss might do it through raising his voice, laughing at your idea, or just the argument that he is the decision maker.

Hopefully, the destructive nature of such approach is as clear for you as it is for me. Forcing a decision impacts negatively both components of conflict: it does not ensure that the right decision will be made, and it for sure damages the relationships in the project team.

Accepting a Lose-Lose Solution

If not everyone can have it, then nobody will have it. This approach usually involves reducing the solution to give both parts of the conflict a “fair share”: both of them don’t get exactly what they want, but in the end they are somewhat satisfied because the other side didn’t get it either. Despite sounding “fair”, this approach is as bad as the previous one in a sense that it also impacts negatively both components of the conflict: there is no guarantee that relationships will be improved, and the results will certainly be suboptimal.

The Right Way of Dealing with Conflict – Confronting It

Now that we know what not to do, it is time to talk about what to do when there is a conflict to solve.

The first step is to try to prevent the conflict. And I’m not talking about a laissez-faire approach of letting your team move by itself in the hope that if no active actions are taken, no real conflicts will arise. I’m talking about actively setting up the environment in order to maximize the chances of “conflictless” collaborative problem solving. Have a look at the article on how to build a positive team environment in order to get great insights on how to manage your project environment.

If, despite your efforts, the conflict still happens, it is your job to acknowledge it. Make it clear to people why there is a conflict, what is the subject or decision related to it, and how people are dealing with the situation. Normally the disagreement will be about some aspect of the project, and not about the people working on the team. Therefore, acknowledging the problem will help you detach it from the personal level and avoid hurting people.

Once the conflict is acknowledged, it is time to position it in the context of the project. Which components of the project will be affected by the decision at hand? Do you have to solve the conflict now or can you wait for more information before issuing an ultimatum?

We already agreed that forcing a decision is not helpful at all. So on what should you focus if not on positions? My suggestion is to try to understand the interests of each part. What are they looking for? If people are asking for more memory on the computers you are about to buy, why do they need it? Is it a sensible argument? Interests, goals, and requirements will give you a better understanding of what each side is trying to achieve with the decision at hand. This, in turn, will help you manage the conflict more efficiently than before.

Once you have a good understanding of the problem, it is time to discuss the alternatives. We already discussed it earlier in this articles, so I will not go through everything again. The process is pretty similar to the steps 04 and 05 in the divergent-convergent framework for problem solving .

Ok, I know it all sounds wonderful in theory, but the problems start when we move to practice. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but there is not much more I can do here apart from discussing the general guidelines for dealing with conflicts. I simply cannot provide a detailed guideline to each and every specific situation you might encounter. This is why conflict management relies a lot on experience and on observing how the team behaves while working together. You must deeply understand the members of your team before you are able to provide a solution that fits all sides.

Creating the Environment for Continuous Learning

Continuous learning makes the third pillar of our successful collaborative problem solving framework. This concept has two sides: it encourages people to take more risks, and it helps learning and improvement through mistakes.

Creating the Right Culture for Continuous Learning

The speed and the efficiency with which people learn depend not only on themselves as individuals but also on the organizational culture that permeates the project team. If you punish every failure of your team members, do you really expect them to try something new? If you shout every time they give a different idea, do you really expect them to actively contribute during team meetings?

Here are a few guidelines that project managers can follow to speed up the process of continuous learning:

• Be accessible to your team and welcome new ideas and opinions.
• Ask for the opinion of your team members when discussing topics related to the project.
• Serve as a model of curiosity and humility.
• Encourage everyone to participate, despite the mistakes they might do during the process.
• Eliminate people’s fear of being punished because of their mistakes.
• Praise the team members when they are successful in accomplishing a task or when they offer valuable input to a situation.

The idea of continuous learning is kind of a consequence of what we already discussed. Having a good set of ground rules , listening actively to your team members, and promoting honest discussions are just a few among the many key elements that define an effective culture for continuous learning. Here are a few other components that you want to keep in mind:

Notice and Question Assumptions

This is really a skill for life. Learning how to question assumptions and how to properly address them brings you a much more complete understanding of the reality around you. I’ve experienced that myself, and I would never choose to remain ignorant to this skill. In the context of project management, questioning assumptions is about questioning the basis of your information. What are the statements on which you are grounding your analysis? What is the evidence behind each statement? Are your assumptions in accordance to your data?

Make Learning a Conscious and Recurring Activity

Many people think that learning is restricted to school and university. There is a time in life when you “study”, and there is a time when you “work”. What they are missing is the fact that these can (and should) be integrated into a broader concept of “learning to improve yourself”. Whether at university or at work, learning for self-improvement is the most effective way of learning new things. My own example comes in handy again (no, I’m not a narcissistic person). In high school, I would learn just for sake of entering university. I’ve spent 11 years of my childhood and adolescence studying every single basic field of science to literally flush it away of my mind after the final exams. I don’t really regret that, specially because regretting too long over the past brings unnecessary pain, but I wish it had been different. In any case, I am lucky to have learned my lesson early in life, while still in my early 20s. Now everything that I study, every single article I read, every post I write, everything is for the sake of developing a better version of myself day after day. I am learning consciously, and this makes all the difference.

Stimulate Creativity and Provide a Structured Approach To It

A structured approach to creativity, really? Are you serious? Hell yeah. Creativity is not a single event in our days. We don’t wake up and *poof!* “Now I am creative!” You might wake up and have a great idea right after opening your eyes, but this is just the tangible manifestation of days and months of apparently uncreative effort. The creative *poof* (or eureka, if you prefer), is just the tip of the iceberg. It is, however, the part that gets the most attention. And if you know a bit of psychology, you know that this conditions create the perfect scenario for the very interesting availability heuristic . In one sentence: the availability heuristic says that we judge the likelihood of an event based on how easily we can retrieve instances of similar situations from our memory. So if we just receive information saying that creativity is a magical moment, we will hardly ever see it as a laborious process. The truth, however, is that we must be disciplined and consume a lot of information before we are capable of producing valuable insights on our own.

Question the Goals, Scope, and Plan of the Project

Last but not least, you should always go back and take another look at the goals, scope, and plan of your project. There is a well-known saying: “Every new information modifies a decision.” Continuous learning presupposes reviewing early decisions once you have gathered more data in the course of the project.

Final Words

And with this article we are done covering the three most important aspects of how to effectively manage a team. There is much more to discuss, I know, but these are the most fundamental skills you must incorporate before moving to other topics. Hopefully the article was helpful and see in the next post!

Start a Free Trial

Your 14-day trial comes with sample data for a quick evaluation

More From Forbes

Why collaboration yields improved productivity (and the science behind it).

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Group of business people joining together silver and golden colored gears on table at workplace top ... [+] view

What do farms and offices have in common? More than you might initially expect.

In a study by evolutionary biologist William W. Muir, experiments in livestock breeding determined that “competition among domesticated plants or animals can have a dramatic negative impact on yield of a stand or farm.”

Muir found that breeding designed to produce more passive rather than competitive hens eventually allowed the chickens to become healthier and produce more eggs than they previously did. This was in large part because the more passive chickens were no longer aggressively competing with each other for food and other resources.

While the business world is naturally competitive, an unhealthy sense of competition should not exist within your own team. Instead, an emphasis on creating a collaborative environment will improve your organization’s productivity and ensure that every employee can thrive.

What does Collaboration look like in the Workplace?

When most people hear the word “collaboration,” they likely think of groups of employees working together on an important company project. This is certainly an important aspect of creating a collaborative environment, but successful collaboration doesn’t rely on company edicts.

Instead, a study from the Harvard Business Review advises , “Questions or simple rules aimed at fostering autonomy and cooperation and leveraging employees’ initiative can be more effective than top-down control in shaping collective behavior.”

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

In other words, leaders should focus on creating a culture that encourages employees to collaborate, rather than trying to artificially force teams to work together on a particular project. While guidance may be needed in some situations to keep everything running smoothly, there should be a greater emphasis on creating an environment where the employees will initiate collaborative efforts because they understand that everyone’s success is tied together.

Collaboration doesn’t even necessarily require direct interaction between employees. As Didi Gurfinkel, co-founder and CEO of DataRails explains, “In our increasingly data-driven age, more people from more departments need access to company information. A company’s finance team will often need to access data that was generated by non-finance departments. Access to marketing data, supply chain data, HR data and more, is vital for sound decision-making and helps the finance team steer the overall strategy of the business. By using tools that automatically import and process data across sources and formats, businesses can foster true digital collaboration for faster and smarter work, rather than having disparate departments.”

This can be especially valuable for organizations with a remotely distributed workforce. Digital collaboration can streamline administrative tasks, while real-time communication tools make it that much easier to resolve a question or get assistance.

How Collaboration helps drive Productivity

A collaborative environment can significantly improve productivity simply by eliminating wasted time. For example, studies have found that the average “knowledge employee” spends roughly 2.5 hours a day gathering information, in large part because the information they need is inaccessible or out of date due to the siloing of data by the business. The inability to easily access people or software with the necessary knowledge or information results in even more wasted time.

Digital collaboration ensures that each team member can quickly get accurate information, while a workplace culture that encourages collaboration ensures that employees are more likely to work together to find useful solutions. On the other hand, Salesforce reports that 86% of executives cite ineffective collaboration as a major contributor to business failures.

Collaborative environments help employees learn from each other. Multiple inputs improve problem-solving capabilities and creative thinking, subsequently increasing the organization’s ability to adapt in a changing market environment. Perhaps most importantly, this creates an engaged workforce where each person feels like a contributing member of a unified team.

It should come as no surprise, then, that a Stanford study found that those who work in a collaborative rather than individual setting are 50% more effective at completing tasks, boosting their intrinsic motivation and helping them become more engaged with their work.

Understand what Collaboration isn’t to avoid Common Pitfalls

Unfortunately, some business leaders assume that “collaboration” simply means spending time communicating back and forth with other team members. While email, video calls and meetings can certainly facilitate some collaborative efforts, too much of a focus on these can become a distraction from actually performing collaborative work.

In fact, a Harvard Business Review analysis entitled Collaboration Overload Is Sinking Productivity reveals that “time spent on email, IM, phone and video calls — has risen 50% or more over the past decade to consume 85% or more of most people’s work weeks.”

Though this trend was significantly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, the fact remains that emails and video calls do not represent productive work. When taken to extremes, such “collaborative” efforts are more likely to lead to burnout as employees are forced to work longer hours to complete tasks.

Collaboration should be more about working together — not just talking about what needs to be done. Businesses would do well to evaluate which type of communications are truly effective at promoting collaborative efforts.

As it turns out, your organization has more in common with chickens and other livestock than you might expect. Business leaders need to take a look at the kind of work environment they are fostering — is it one where the chickens become high producers, or is it one where they peck each other to death?

By taking meaningful steps to foster autonomy and collaboration among all team members, you will create an environment where everyone can make greater contributions.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

FIND A MEDIATOR QUICK LISTS

• Mediators Listed by State/City
• Mediators Listed by Practice Area
• Mediator Services
• Certification
• Mediate University
• Statewide Banner
• Online Meeting Room
• About Mediation
• Public Policy

Collaborative Problem Solving: An Effective Approach For Managing Conflict In The Workplace

The workplace is a complex interpersonal environment where conflict inevitably occurs. When handled poorly, conflict undermines relationships, team performance, and morale. It keeps managers and staff alike up at night, dreading the start of a new day at work. When handled well, working though conflict can build trust and create a positive work environment where people work effectively together.

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) was originated by Dr. Ross Greene and subsequently developed by Dr. Greene and Dr. Stuart Ablon, and their associates at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School. It is a method of conflict resolution that was originally developed for working with very difficult children. As more people have learned CPS, it has been applied in an increasingly wide range of settings with diverse populations and provocative results. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated everywhere from homes and schools to residential treatment facilities, hospitals and even corrections facilities. We have found this approach to be coherent, accessible, and applicable to the workplace setting.

The CPS Philosophy

It is essential for the managers to establish an expectation among themselves and with their staff that conflict will be handled in a consistent manner. Managers also need to have and to communicate a clear philosophy of conflict management. The original philosophy of CPS is that “kids do well if they can. If they can’t, we adults need to figure out why, so we can help. ” Translated into the workplace, this reads, “staff do well at their jobs if they can. If they can’t, managers need to help them figure out why, so they can.”

The CPS philosophy informs us that the manager’s explanation of a staff’s behavior, attitude, etc. will guide his or her intervention with that staff member. Conventional wisdom tells the manager that staff’s challenging behavior is usually designed to get things or avoid things, such as getting attention or avoiding work. Flowing from a conventional explanation like this, a conventional response to such behavior would be to ignore it or try to motivate more compliant behavior. This approach might work in some situations, but not as effectively as a transparent, systematic, and collaborative method of conflict resolution.

The CPS Approach To Managing Conflict

When presented with conflict or an expectation that a staff member is not meeting, managers generally have three choices: Plan A: impose their will; Plan B: collaborative problem solving; Plan C: drop the issue, at least for now.

Which option managers chose depends on the long term and short term goals managers have with individual staff; how far along they and their staff are in realizing those goals; and the situation/problem at hand. As managers come to know more about each of these Plans and as they improve their understanding of how each of their staff respond to them in different situations, they will gain more confident in which Plan to chose at any given point in time.

In executing Plan A, managers are exercising their prerogative as the person in authority. This is what French and Raven (1959) refer to as “legitimate power.” There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Sometimes it represents the shortest distance between two points. Sometimes staff really want their manager to make an executive decision and get on with it rather than take the time needed to arrive at a consensus.

More often, Plan A is experienced by staff in the same way they experienced a parent saying, “because I said so.” Staff may comply because there was no real choice, but they remain angry and consequently find passive ways to resist. Managers, may be able to tell themselves, “my staff did what I told them to do”, but it is highly likely that the situations which required the boss to give these orders will keep popping up. Plan A can be effective; it can also be risky and unproductive. It rarely solves tough problems in durable ways. It certainly does not teach staff the skills that would be needed to resolve such issues in the future without the intervention of their managers. It definitely does not build the kind of collaborative relationships that are key to effective management in organizations that require group problem solving to succeed.

Plan C has obvious advantages. “Pick your battles” is sage and time-tested advice, but that there is a significant downside to this strategy. Managers are likely to feel that when they execute Plan C they will be viewed by staff as dodging the issue or capitulating. They might then be concerned that their staff, in observing their managers avoid a conflict, will be emboldened to continue with this behavior. To execute Plan C properly, the manager must recognize that Plan C is not giving in. It is a well thought out decision. What is giving in? A failed Plan A leading to Plan C! In other words, the manager tries to make staff do something, it does not occur, and then the manager drops the expectation. The key to using Plan C successfully is to only use it tactically. Managers use it when they have reasoned that a particular conflict is not worth the time it will take to effectively work it through; because the timing is not right for dealing with the issue; or simply because they or their organizations have bigger fish to fry for the moment.

Plan B is the middle way. Plan B is the heart and soul of CPS: it is collaborative problem solving. At the end of a successfully executed Plan B the manger can say to him or herself, “we worked it out. We solved the problem…..together.” Obviously CPS did not invent the idea that people at different levels of authority can jointly work out their problems. What CPS does exceptionally well is to describe a series of  research-based  and easily understandable  steps for accomplishing this goal.

Our description of Plan B below differs somewhat from how Plan B is described in working with challenging kids. The modifications to Plan B flow from our experience applying it in the workplace. Plan B consists of two phases. In the first phase, the manager and staff member form a collaborative relationship. They take turns working towards a mutual definition of their problem. This definition serves as the basis for entering into the second phase, which is negotiation and problem solving. The first phase generally takes a lot longer than the second. It’s a lot like painting a room in a house. To paint well, two-thirds of the time needs to be spent prepping. Only one-third of the time will actually be devoted to applying the paint. The same holds true for two people trying to solve a problem. It is the “prep work” that makes the difference between an effort that lasts and one that just buys a little time until the next conflict. Although the first phase of Plan B is broken into three steps, it is often necessary to go back and forth between steps to complete this prep work. Plan B should be thought of as a process, not a technique.

When Plan B is executed after careful thought has been given, it is called Proactive Plan B. However, sometimes situations quickly arise and it is not possible to take the time to thoughtfully develop a Plan B. The situation demands that the manager responds immediately. When managers apply the principles of CPS on the fly, without a clear plan, this is called Emergency Plan B. It is less likely to be effective than Proactive Plan B, but it is much more likely to be effective than trying to respond to a conflict in the moment without a set of guiding principles. Since chronic problems with staff not meeting expectations in the work place are quite common, managers who are skilled in using CPS will rarely need to use Emergency Plan B with staff they have come to know. Rather, they will have planned, proactive conversations with staff to develop an approach together that they can then use when the need arises in the future.

A Step By Step Illustration Of How To Execute Plan B

Follow the link to the full article which provides step by step instructions and multiple illustrations of how to execute Plan B. It also includes a “troubleshooting” section which provides guidance to managers about what to do when they feel stuck or find that a particular Plan B is not working as well as a broader discussion of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of CPS.

Attachments to this Article

• CPSInTheWorkplace.pdf

Seth Bernstein

Seth Bernstein, Ph.D., is a psychologist who has worked as a clinician and managed care executive for over thirty years. Dr. Bernstein is currently the Executive Director of the Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance. Prior to his work at ABHA, Dr. Bernstein worked as a manager for The Travelers Insurance Company,… MORE >

Stuart Ablon

J. Stuart Ablon, Ph.D., is the Director of Think:Kids in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. He is also Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Ablon co-founded the Center for Collaborative Problem Solving where he also served as Co-Director… MORE >

Featured Members

Read these next

Bob’s great negotiators: roger fisher.

Bob Bordone, in his new segment on YouTube, lists out his 'Great Negotiators'. The great negotiator, the late Roger Fisher, is someone who's skills have advanced the art of negotiation....

Online Mediation Task Force Family / Elder Committee Report

The Online Mediation Family and Elder Committee consisted of the following members: Chair: Susan Guthrie Members: Michael Aurit, Gabrielle Hartley, Ken Neumann, Peter Salem, Linda Seely and Lara Traum. ISSUES...

The Mediator’s Log: A Mediation Story – Section 1

The Mediator's Log: A Mediation Story Part One The Day Commences: Engaging the Participants 0845: The mediator arrives at the venue, the office of one of the lawyers. These days,...

Collaborative Problem Solving Tasks

• First Online: 01 January 2014

Cite this chapter

• Esther Care 5 ,
• Patrick Griffin 5 ,
• Claire Scoular 5 ,
• Nafisa Awwal 5 &
• Nathan Zoanetti 6  

Part of the book series: Educational Assessment in an Information Age ((EAIA))

11k Accesses

22 Citations

This chapter outlines two distinct types of collaborative problem solving tasks – content-free and content-dependent – each allowing students to apply different strategies to solve problems collaboratively. Content-free tasks were developed to emphasise the enhancement of inductive and deductive thinking skills. Content-dependent tasks allow students to draw on knowledge gained through traditional learning areas or subjects within the curriculum. The collaborative problem solving framework emphasises communication for the purpose of information gathering, identification of available and required information, identification and analysis of patterns in the data, formulation of contingencies or rules, generalisation of rules, and test hypotheses. Characteristics of tasks which were identified as appropriate for eliciting collaborative problem solving processes are reported and illustrated by exemplar items.

The views expressed N. Zoanetti, in this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Dispositions for Collaborative Problem Solving

What Is Collaborative Problem Solving and Why Use the Approach?

Collaborative Learning in College Science: Evoking Positive Interdependence

The acronym ATC21S TM has been globally trademarked. For purposes of simplicity the acronym is presented throughout the chapter as ATC21S.

Adams, R., Vista, A., Scoular, C., Awwal, N., Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2015). Automatic coding procedures for collaborative problem solving. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 115–132). Dordrecht: Springer.

Google Scholar  

Awwal, N., Griffin, P., & Scalise, S. (2015). Platforms for delivery of collaborative tasks. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 105–113). Dordrecht: Springer.

Funke, J. (1991). Solving complex problems: Exploration and control of complex systems. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 185–222). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Garofalo, J., & Lester, F. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16 (3), 163–176.

Article   Google Scholar  

Griffin, P. (2014). Performance assessment of higher order thinking. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15 (1), 1–16.

Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Springer.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Petković, M. (2009). Famous puzzles of great mathematicians . Providence: American Mathematical Society.

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it (1st ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving . New York: Academic.

Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B. D., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science, 20 , 75–100.

Zoanetti, N. (2010). Interactive computer based assessment tasks: How problem solving process data can inform instruction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26 (5), 585–606.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Assessment Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Esther Care, Patrick Griffin, Claire Scoular & Nafisa Awwal

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Nathan Zoanetti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esther Care .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Assessment Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Patrick Griffin

Esther Care

Appendix: Collaborative Problem Solving Tasks

In this appendix, screenshots of collaborative problem solving tasks, not described in detail in this chapter, are presented. The tasks are Hexagons, Hot Chocolate, Plant Growth, Small Pyramids, Shared Garden, Sunflower, Warehouse, Light box.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Care, E., Griffin, P., Scoular, C., Awwal, N., Zoanetti, N. (2015). Collaborative Problem Solving Tasks. In: Griffin, P., Care, E. (eds) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Educational Assessment in an Information Age. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_4

Published : 06 September 2014

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-9394-0

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-9395-7

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research