problem solving in social studies

• Community and Engagement
• Honors and Awards
• Give Now 

This is How Students Can Learn Problem-Solving Skills in Social Studies

A new  study  led by a researcher from North Carolina State University offers lessons on how social studies teachers could use computational thinking and computer-based resources to analyze primary source data, such as economic information, maps or historical documents. The findings suggest that these approaches advance not only computational thinking, but also student understanding of social studies concepts.

In the journal  Theory & Research in Social Education , researchers reported findings from a case study of a high school social studies class called “Measuring the Past” that was offered in a private school. In the project-centered class, students used statistical software to analyze historical and economic data and identify trends. Researchers found students were able to learn problem-solving skills through the series of structured computer analysis projects.

“The purpose of social studies is to enhance student’s ability to participate in a democratic society,” said  Meghan Manfra , associate professor of education at NC State. “Our research indicates computational thinking is a fruitful way to engage students in interdisciplinary investigation and develop the skills and habits they need to be successful.”

There is a growing effort to incorporate computational thinking across subjects in K-12 education, Manfra said, to help prepare students for a technology-driven world. Computers have made new techniques possible for historians and social scientists to analyze and interpret digital data, maps and images. Teachers face a potential “firehose” of primary source data they could bring into the classroom, such as the National Archives’ collection of historical letters, speeches, and maps  important to American history .

“There are more efforts to integrate computer science across grade levels and subject areas,” Manfra said. “We take the definition of ‘computational thinking’ to be less computer science specific, and much more about a habit of mind. We see it as a structured problem-solving approach.”

In the high school class under study, researchers offered a phrase for the class to use as a guide for how to think about and structure the class projects: analyze the data, look for patterns, and then develop rules or models based on their analysis to solve a problem. They shortened that phrase to “data-patterns-rules.” The projects were also structured as a series, with each students gaining more independence with each project.

“The teacher had a lot of autonomy to develop a curriculum, and the projects were unique,” Manfra said. “Another important aspect of the structure was the students did three rounds of analyzing data, presenting their findings, and developing a model based on what they found. Each time, the teacher got more general in what he was giving the students so they had to flex more of their own thinking.”

In the first project, students analyzed  Dollar Street , a website by GapMinder that has a database of photographs of items in homes around the world. Students posed and answered their own questions about the data. For example, one group analyzed whether the number of books in a home related to a family’s income.

In the second project, students tracked prices of labor or products like wool, grain and livestock in England to understand the bubonic plague’s impact on the economy during the Middle Ages.

In the last project, students found their own data to compare social or economic trends during two American wars, such as the War of 1812 and World War I. For example, one group of students compared numbers of draftees and volunteers in two conflicts and related that to the outcome of the war.

From the students’ work, the researchers saw that students were able to learn problem-solving and apply data analysis skills while looking at differences across cultures, the economic effects of historical events and to how political trends can help shape conflicts.

“Based on what we found, this approach not only enhances students’ computational thinking for STEM fields, but it also improves their social studies understanding and knowledge,” Manfra said. “It’s a fruitful approach to teaching and learning.”

From student essays about computational thinking, the researchers saw many students came away with a stronger understanding of the concept. Some students defined it as thinking “based on computer-generated statistics,” while others defined it as analyzing data so a computer can display it, and others said it meant analyzing information in a “computer-like” logical way. In addition, they also saw that students learned skills important in an age of misinformation – they were able to think deeply about potential limitations of the data and the source it came from.

“We found that students were developing data literacy,” Manfra said “They understood databases as a construction, designed to tell a story. We thought that was pretty sophisticated, and that thinking emerged because of what they were experiencing through this project.”

This story originally appeared on the NC State News site.

• Research and Impact
• faculty publications
• Meghan Manfra
• social studies education

More From College of Education News

North Carolina Teachers Bring Cybersecurity to Classrooms with Help from GenCyber Teacher Camp Led By Professor of Learning, Design, and Technology Florence Martin 

How Can Teachers Integrate New Technologies Like AI Into the Classroom? ‘Be Open Minded and Take Risks,’ Says Friday Institute for Educational Innovation Executive Director and NC State College of Education Associate Dean for Translational Research Krista Glazewski 

Congratulations to the 2024-2025 DELTA Grants Recipients 

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

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

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

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

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

18k Accesses

20 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

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Social Problem Solving

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
• Customer Service Skills
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings
• Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Effective Decision Making
• Decision-Making Framework
• Introduction to Problem Solving
• Identifying and Structuring Problems
• Investigating Ideas and Solutions
• Implementing a Solution and Feedback
• Creative Problem-Solving

Social Problem-Solving

• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills
• Personal and Romantic Relationship Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

The SkillsYouNeed Guide to Interpersonal Skills

Social problem-solving might also be called ‘ problem-solving in real life ’. In other words, it is a rather academic way of describing the systems and processes that we use to solve the problems that we encounter in our everyday lives.

The word ‘ social ’ does not mean that it only applies to problems that we solve with other people, or, indeed, those that we feel are caused by others. The word is simply used to indicate the ‘ real life ’ nature of the problems, and the way that we approach them.

Social problem-solving is generally considered to apply to four different types of problems:

• Impersonal problems, for example, shortage of money;
• Personal problems, for example, emotional or health problems;
• Interpersonal problems, such as disagreements with other people; and
• Community and wider societal problems, such as litter or crime rate.

A Model of Social Problem-Solving

One of the main models used in academic studies of social problem-solving was put forward by a group led by Thomas D’Zurilla.

This model includes three basic concepts or elements:

Problem-solving

This is defined as the process used by an individual, pair or group to find an effective solution for a particular problem. It is a self-directed process, meaning simply that the individual or group does not have anyone telling them what to do. Parts of this process include generating lots of possible solutions and selecting the best from among them.

A problem is defined as any situation or task that needs some kind of a response if it is to be managed effectively, but to which no obvious response is available. The demands may be external, from the environment, or internal.

A solution is a response or coping mechanism which is specific to the problem or situation. It is the outcome of the problem-solving process.

Once a solution has been identified, it must then be implemented. D’Zurilla’s model distinguishes between problem-solving (the process that identifies a solution) and solution implementation (the process of putting that solution into practice), and notes that the skills required for the two are not necessarily the same. It also distinguishes between two parts of the problem-solving process: problem orientation and actual problem-solving.

Problem Orientation

Problem orientation is the way that people approach problems, and how they set them into the context of their existing knowledge and ways of looking at the world.

Each of us will see problems in a different way, depending on our experience and skills, and this orientation is key to working out which skills we will need to use to solve the problem.

An Example of Orientation

Most people, on seeing a spout of water coming from a loose joint between a tap and a pipe, will probably reach first for a cloth to put round the joint to catch the water, and then a phone, employing their research skills to find a plumber.

A plumber, however, or someone with some experience of plumbing, is more likely to reach for tools to mend the joint and fix the leak. It’s all a question of orientation.

Problem-Solving

Problem-solving includes four key skills:

• Defining the problem,
• Coming up with alternative solutions,
• Making a decision about which solution to use, and
• Implementing that solution.

Based on this split between orientation and problem-solving, D’Zurilla and colleagues defined two scales to measure both abilities.

They defined two orientation dimensions, positive and negative, and three problem-solving styles, rational, impulsive/careless and avoidance.

They noted that people who were good at orientation were not necessarily good at problem-solving and vice versa, although the two might also go together.

It will probably be obvious from these descriptions that the researchers viewed positive orientation and rational problem-solving as functional behaviours, and defined all the others as dysfunctional, leading to psychological distress.

The skills required for positive problem orientation are:

Being able to see problems as ‘challenges’, or opportunities to gain something, rather than insurmountable difficulties at which it is only possible to fail.

For more about this, see our page on The Importance of Mindset ;

Believing that problems are solvable. While this, too, may be considered an aspect of mindset, it is also important to use techniques of Positive Thinking ;

Believing that you personally are able to solve problems successfully, which is at least in part an aspect of self-confidence.

See our page on Building Confidence for more;

Understanding that solving problems successfully will take time and effort, which may require a certain amount of resilience ; and

Motivating yourself to solve problems immediately, rather than putting them off.

See our pages on Self-Motivation and Time Management for more.

Those who find it harder to develop positive problem orientation tend to view problems as insurmountable obstacles, or a threat to their well-being, doubt their own abilities to solve problems, and become frustrated or upset when they encounter problems.

The skills required for rational problem-solving include:

The ability to gather information and facts, through research. There is more about this on our page on defining and identifying problems ;

The ability to set suitable problem-solving goals. You may find our page on personal goal-setting helpful;

The application of rational thinking to generate possible solutions. You may find some of the ideas on our Creative Thinking page helpful, as well as those on investigating ideas and solutions ;

Good decision-making skills to decide which solution is best. See our page on Decision-Making for more; and

Implementation skills, which include the ability to plan, organise and do. You may find our pages on Action Planning , Project Management and Solution Implementation helpful.

There is more about the rational problem-solving process on our page on Problem-Solving .

Potential Difficulties

Those who struggle to manage rational problem-solving tend to either:

• Rush things without thinking them through properly (the impulsive/careless approach), or
• Avoid them through procrastination, ignoring the problem, or trying to persuade someone else to solve the problem (the avoidance mode).

This ‘ avoidance ’ is not the same as actively and appropriately delegating to someone with the necessary skills (see our page on Delegation Skills for more).

Instead, it is simple ‘buck-passing’, usually characterised by a lack of selection of anyone with the appropriate skills, and/or an attempt to avoid responsibility for the problem.

An Academic Term for a Human Process?

You may be thinking that social problem-solving, and the model described here, sounds like an academic attempt to define very normal human processes. This is probably not an unreasonable summary.

However, breaking a complex process down in this way not only helps academics to study it, but also helps us to develop our skills in a more targeted way. By considering each element of the process separately, we can focus on those that we find most difficult: maximum ‘bang for your buck’, as it were.

Continue to: Decision Making Creative Problem-Solving

See also: What is Empathy? Social Skills

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Cooperative Problem-Solving Activities for Social Studies, Grades 6-12

• Michael Hickman
• Erin O`Donnell Wigginton
• Description

"These activities will foster participation and critical thinking in the classroom." —R. Jon Frey, Director of Speech Activities Aberdeen Central High School, SD

"Cooperative group learning is a powerful approach, and this book provides explicit ideas and guidelines." —Stephanie van Hover, Associate Professor of Social Studies Education University of Virginia

Give your students the opportunity to think, discover, and learn together in social studies!

Teamwork helps students strengthen individual retention, improve performance, and promote meaning-making in the classroom. To give adolescent minds practice in critical thinking, the authors use their considerable teaching experience to present more than 40 problem-solving activities that are ready for immediate use in the social studies classroom.

This second edition of Catch Them Thinking in Social Studies demonstrates how to use collaborative learning strategies to fully engage students in meaning-making. Cooperative Problem-Solving Activities for Social Studies, Grades 6–12 offers lessons in five areas of social studies instruction: geography, politics, economics, culture, and history. Each activity includes background information, clue cards, objectives, tasks, and worksheets. This updated edition helps teachers:

• Develop students' decision-making, analysis, and communication skills
• Foster teamwork and interdependent learning
• Construct cooperative problem-solving activities using their own curriculum

Featuring current research and new activities, this hands-on resource helps teachers facilitate cooperative problem solving in social studies and provides teacher tips throughout the book.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

“Cooperative group learning is a powerful approach, and this book provides explicit ideas and guidelines.”

“These activities will foster participation and critical thinking in the classroom.”

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

• Skip to main content

Teaching SEL

Social Emotional Learning Lessons for Teachers and Counselors

Social Decision Making and Problem Solving

Enhancing social-emotional skills and academic performance.

The approach known as Social Decision Making and Social Problem Solving (SDM/SPS) has been utilized since the late 1970s to promote the development of social-emotional skills in students, which is now also being applied in academic settings. This approach is rooted in the work of John Dewey (1933) and has been extensively studied and implemented by Rutgers University in collaboration with teachers, administrators, and parents in public schools in New Jersey over several decades.

SDM/SPS focuses on developing a set of skills related to social competence, peer acceptance, self-management, social awareness, group participation, and critical thinking.

The curriculum units are structured around systematic skill-building procedures, which include the following components:

• Introducing the skill concept and motivation for learning; presentation of the skill in concrete behavioral components
• Modeling behavioral components and clarifying the concept by descriptions and behavioral examples of not using the skill
• Offering opportunities for practice of the skill in “student-tested,” enjoyable activities, providing corrective feedback and reinforcement until skill mastery is approached
• Labeling the skill with a prompt or cue, to establish a “shared language” that can be used for future situations
• Assigning skill practice outside of structured lessons
• Providing follow-through activities and integrating prompts in academic content areas and everyday interpersonal situations

Connection to Academics

Integrating SDM/SPS into students’ academic work enhances their social-emotional skills while enriching their academic performance. Research consistently supports the benefits of social-emotional learning (SEL) instruction.

Readiness for Decision Making

This aspect of SDM/SPS targets the development of skills necessary for effective social decision making and interpersonal behavior across various contexts. It encompasses self-management and social awareness. A self-management unit focuses on skills such as listening, following directions, remembering, taking turns, and maintaining composure in the classroom. These skills help students regulate their emotions, control impulsivity, and develop social literacy. Students learn to recognize physical cues and situations that may trigger high-arousal, fight-or-flight reactions or dysregulated behavior. Skills taught in this domain should include strategies to regain control and engage clear thinking, such as breathing exercises, mindfulness, or techniques that activate the parasympathetic nervous system.

A social awareness unit emphasizes positive peer relationships and the skills necessary for building healthy connections. Students learn to respond positively to peers who offer praise, compliments, and express positive emotions and appreciation. Skills in this unit also include recognizing when peers need help, understanding when they should seek help from others, and learning how to ask for help themselves. Students should develop the ability to provide and receive constructive criticism and collaborate effectively with diverse peers in group settings.

Decision Making Framework – FIG TESPN

To equip students with a problem-solving framework, SDM/SPS introduces the acronym FIG TESPN. This framework guides students when faced with problems or decisions and aims to help them internalize responsible decision making. The goal is for students to apply this framework academically and personally, even in challenging and stressful situations. 

FIG TESPN stands for:

• (F)eelings are my cue to problem solve.    
• (I) have a problem.
• (G)oals guide my actions.
• (T)hink of many possible things to do.
• (E)nvision the outcomes of each solution.
• (S)elect your best solution, based on your goal.
• (P)lan, practice, anticipate pitfalls, and pursue your best solution.
• (N)ext time, what will you do – the same thing or something different?

Integration of FIG TESPN into academics

Once students have become familiar with the FIG TESPN framework, there are limitless opportunities for them to apply and practice these skills. Many of the texts students read involve characters who make decisions, face conflicts, deal with intense emotions, and navigate complex interpersonal situations. By applying the readiness skills and FIG TESPN framework to these assignments, students can meet both academic and social-emotional learning (SEL) state standards. 

Teachers and staff play a crucial role in modeling readiness skills and the use of FIG TESPN. They can incorporate these skills into their questioning techniques, encouraging individual students and groups to think critically when confronted with problems. This approach helps students internalize the problem-solving framework and develop their decision-making abilities.

By integrating social decision making and problem-solving skills into academic subjects such as social studies, social justice, ethics, and creative writing, students gain a deeper understanding of the FIG TESPN framework. The framework becomes an integral part of their learning experience and supports their growth in both academic and social-emotional domains.

SDM/SPS Applied to Literature Analysis

• Think of an event in the section of the book assigned. When and where did it happen? Put the event into words as a problem. 
• Who were the people that were involved in the problem? What were their different feelings and points of view about the problem? Why did they feel as they did? Try to put their goals into words. 
• For each person or group of people, what are some different decisions or solutions to the problem that he,she, or they thought of that might help in reaching their goals?
• For each of these ideas or options, what are all of the things that might happen next? Envision and write both short- and long-term consequences.
• What were the final decisions? How were they made? By whom? Why? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
• How was the solution carried out? What was the plan? What obstacles were met? How well was the problem solved? What did you read that supports your point of view?
• Notice what happened and rethink it. What would you have chosen to do? Why?
• What questions do you have, based on what you read? What questions would you like to be able to ask one or more of the characters? The author? Why are these questions important to you?

a simplified version…

• I will write about this character…
• My character’s problem is…
• How did your character get into this problem?
• How does the character feel?
• What does the character want to happen?
• What questions would you like to be able to ask the character you picked, one of the other characters, or the author?

SDM/SPS Applied to Social Studies 

• What is the event that you are thinking about? When and where is it happening? Put the event into words as a problem, choice, or decision.
• What people or groups were involved in the problem? What are their different feelings? What are their points of view about the problem?
• What do each of these people or groups want to have happen? Try to put their goals into words.
• For each person or group, name some different options or solutions to the problem that they think might help them reach their goals. Add any ideas that you think might help them that they might not have thought of. 
• For each option or solution you listed, picture all the things that might happen next. Envision long- and short-term consequences. 
• What do you think the final decision should be? How should it be made? By whom? Why?
• Imagine a plan to help you carry out your solution. What could you do or think of to make your solution work? What obstacles or roadblocks might keep your solution from working? Who might disagree with your ideas? Why? What else could you do?
• Rethink it. Is there another way of looking at the problem that might be better? Are there other groups, goals, or plans that come to mind?

Applying FIG TESPN to Emigration

• What countries were they leaving?
• How did they feel about leaving their countries?
• What problems were going on that made them want to leave?
• What problems would leaving the country bring about?
• What would have been their goals in leaving or staying?
• What were their options and how did they envision the results of each possibility?
• What plans did they have to make? What kinds of things got in their way at the last minute? How did they overcome the roadblocks? 
• Once they arrived in a new country, how did they feel? What problems did they encounter at the beginning? What were their first goals?

Adapted from: Fostering Social-Emotional Learning in the Classroom

Join the Mailing List

Search the blog.

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Alyssa Teaches

an Upper Elementary Blog

Critical Thinking in Your Social Studies Lessons

If your state is like mine, you’re expected to teach critical thinking skills in every subject. And it makes sense why! We want our students to be evaluating content and creating solutions – not just memorizing facts. Today, I want to share some easy ways to get your students using critical thinking skills in social studies.

What Critical Thinking Skills Can I Teach?

Practically all of them!

Here are just a few skills you can integrate into your history lessons:

• ask questions
• determine credibility and evaluate bias
• interpret sources
• recognize a variety of perspectives
• analyze choices
• compare and contrast
• determine relationships
• sequence events
• draw conclusions based on evidence
• differentiate facts from opinions
• explore impact

A lot of the social studies activities you’re using probably include some critical thinking skills! Let’s take a look at some simple strategies you can try to include more critical thinking opportunities in your lessons.

Ask Questions

A simple way to encourage students to dig a little deeper when they learn about history is to use higher-order thinking questions. Once they know the what, where, who, and when, you can guide students to explore the HOW and WHY. What were the causes of these events? What effects did they have? How did they impact different groups of people then and now?

Inquiry-based lessons are a great way to get students using these skills. Plus, they give them ownership of what they’re learning and help to increase engagement.

If you want to start a little more low-key, you can use some HOTS question prompts. A simple “parking lot” or bulletin board where students can record questions is also a good place to begin.

Analyze Primary Sources

I LOVE using primary sources to teach social studies. Primary source analysis requires students to use their background knowledge and observational skills to draw conclusions about history.

I almost always have students collaborate when they work with primary sources so they can bounce ideas off each other. I also usually use DBQs or question prompts so they have some direction. Afterward, I like to follow up with a whole-class discussion to debrief.

Compare & Contrast

A simple Venn diagram or t-chart is a great way for students to compare people, places, civilizations, artifacts, inventions, events, and time periods from history.

Plus, comparing helps students identify connections between people/places and over time.

Use Sorting Activities

Sorting activities are one of my favorite ways to get students thinking critically. They’re hands-on, interactive, and perfect for kids to do with a partner or in a small group.

You can assign an open sort, where students sort cards with words and/or pictures according to their own categories by looking for connections or patterns. I love this activity because it helps me see how students think.

Another option is to do a closed sort where you can ask students to sort according to specific rules. For example, they might sequence events into a timeline or sort them into cause-and-effect relationships. To make it more challenging, you can involve some inferencing scenarios. For instance, you can have them match quotes to the person or group that would’ve been likely to say them.

Explore Perspectives

We want students to consider a variety of perspectives and points of view when they learn about different historical events or periods. Primary sources are very helpful here, especially if you can find letters or diary entries. Picture books are another good option if you can find ones that provide different perspectives on a topic.

An easy activity is to use two different quotes about an event (that represent two points of view) and have students analyze their differences. Again, guiding questions or prompts will help them to understand the perspectives of different groups of people. One activity I’ve used is to explore the English colonization of Jamestown from Captain John Smith’s perspective compared to Chief Powhatan’s.

Even creating a fake social media profile for a historical figure can help students think critically about someone’s needs, wants, and point-of-view.

Look at Cause and Effect

I think that exploring cause and effect relationships in history helps students understand the impact of events that have taken place. I like using a simple graphic organizer that has room for multiple causes and effects. (Cause and effect is also a good place to tie in perspectives and connections.)

Analyze Decision Making

Another critical thinking activity you can use is to analyze specific choices that people made.

A decision-making model graphic organizer helps students determine the costs and benefits of a choice or event. For example, they can weigh the costs and benefits of the 13 Colonies declaring independence from Great Britain.

A good extension activity is to have students discuss alternate decisions that could have been made. They can hypothesize how different choices would have changed history.

Investigate the Impact of Geography

Geography has played such a huge role in human history, but it’s not something our students always think about. It helps to use activities that encourage students to consider the specific ways geography has affected people. Comparing early maps to current maps is one option. And I love having students explore locations with Google Earth.

You can also practice this skill with the 5 themes of geography .

Research and Create Products

Finally, social studies research projects are a great way to use critical thinking skills. Students can take their research and create an artifact or product to apply their knowledge. They can also design solutions for the future based on what they’ve learned.

I’m all about finding ways to make social studies engaging . Incorporating critical thinking skills into your social studies lessons is a great way to challenge students, and it doesn’t have to be complicated. I hope you give some of these activities a try!

Related posts

Must-Have Civil War Books for Kids

How to Make Social Studies Interesting

End of Year Social Studies Activities for Upper Elementary Students

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply, join the mailing list for tips, ideas, and freebies.

• Mentor Teacher
• Organization
• Social Studies
• Teacher Tips
• Virginia Studies

• Research and Innovation
• The Abstract
• Audio Abstract Podcast
• Centennial Campus
• Campus Life
• Faculty and Staff
• Awards and Honors
• HR and Finance
• Resilient Pack
• We Are the Wolfpack
• Service and Community
• Red Chair Chats
• News Releases
• In the News
• NC State Experts on 2024 Elections
• NC State Experts Available on Climate
• NC State Experts on Roe v. Wade
• NC State Supply Chain Experts
• Experts on COVID-19
• Hurricane Experts
• About NC State News
• Faculty Support
• Training Program

This is How Students Can Learn Problem-Solving Skills in Social Studies

For Immediate Release

A new study led by a researcher from North Carolina State University offers lessons on how social studies teachers could use computational thinking and computer-based resources to analyze primary source data, such as economic information, maps or historical documents. The findings suggest that these approaches advance not only computational thinking, but also student understanding of social studies concepts.

In the journal Theory & Research in Social Education , researchers reported findings from a case study of a high school social studies class called “Measuring the Past” that was offered in a private school. In the project-centered class, students used statistical software to analyze historical and economic data and identify trends. Researchers found students were able to learn problem-solving skills through the series of structured computer analysis projects.

“The purpose of social studies is to enhance student’s ability to participate in a democratic society,” said Meghan Manfra , associate professor of education at NC State. “Our research indicates computational thinking is a fruitful way to engage students in interdisciplinary investigation and develop the skills and habits they need to be successful.”

There is a growing effort to incorporate computational thinking across subjects in K-12 education, Manfra said, to help prepare students for a technology-driven world. Computers have made new techniques possible for historians and social scientists to analyze and interpret digital data, maps and images. Teachers face a potential “firehose” of primary source data they could bring into the classroom, such as the National Archives’ collection of historical letters, speeches, and maps important to American history .

“There are more efforts to integrate computer science across grade levels and subject areas,” Manfra said. “We take the definition of ‘computational thinking’ to be less computer science specific, and much more about a habit of mind. We see it as a structured problem-solving approach.”

In the high school class under study, researchers offered a phrase for the class to use as a guide for how to think about and structure the class projects: analyze the data, look for patterns, and then develop rules or models based on their analysis to solve a problem. They shortened that phrase to “data-patterns-rules.” The projects were also structured as a series, with each students gaining more independence with each project.

“The teacher had a lot of autonomy to develop a curriculum, and the projects were unique,” Manfra said. “Another important aspect of the structure was the students did three rounds of analyzing data, presenting their findings, and developing a model based on what they found. Each time, the teacher got more general in what he was giving the students so they had to flex more of their own thinking.”

In the first project, students analyzed Dollar Street , a website by GapMinder that has a database of photographs of items in homes around the world. Students posed and answered their own questions about the data. For example, one group analyzed whether the number of books in a home related to a family’s income.

In the second project, students tracked prices of labor or products like wool, grain and livestock in England to understand the bubonic plague’s impact on the economy during the Middle Ages.

In the last project, students found their own data to compare social or economic trends during two American wars, such as the War of 1812 and World War I. For example, one group of students compared numbers of draftees and volunteers in two conflicts and related that to the outcome of the war.

From the students’ work, the researchers saw that students were able to learn problem-solving and apply data analysis skills while looking at differences across cultures, the economic effects of historical events and to how political trends can help shape conflicts.

“Based on what we found, this approach not only enhances students’ computational thinking for STEM fields, but it also improves their social studies understanding and knowledge,” Manfra said. “It’s a fruitful approach to teaching and learning.”

From student essays about computational thinking, the researchers saw many students came away with a stronger understanding of the concept. Some students defined it as thinking “based on computer-generated statistics,” while others defined it as analyzing data so a computer can display it, and others said it meant analyzing information in a “computer-like” logical way. In addition, they also saw that students learned skills important in an age of misinformation – they were able to think deeply about potential limitations of the data and the source it came from.

“We found that students were developing data literacy,” Manfra said “They understood databases as a construction, designed to tell a story. We thought that was pretty sophisticated, and that thinking emerged because of what they were experiencing through this project.”

Note to editors : The abstract follows.

“Assessing computational thinking in the social studies”

Authors : Meghan McGlinn Manfra, Thomas C. Hammond and Robert M. Coven.

Published online in Theory & Research in Social Education on Dec. 14, 2021.

DOI : 10.1080/00933104.2021.2003276

Abstract : Although computational thinking has most often been associated with the science, technology, engineering, and math education fields, our research takes a first step toward documenting student outcomes associated with integrating and assessing computational thinking in the social studies. In this study, we pursued an embedded research design, merging teacher action research with qualitative case study, into collaborative inquiry. Through analysis of classroom-based data, including samples of student work, we were able to develop an understanding of the manner with which student understanding of computational thinking emerged in this classroom. Findings suggest that, through the integration of carefully designed learner-centered tasks, students came to view computational thinking as computer mediated data analysis or an approach to analyzing data and solving problems. The iterative nature of the instructional design—three consecutive units built around the same heuristic of data-patterns-rules—as well as the variety of learning-centered tasks given to students, appeared to have enabled the teacher and students to have a common set of procedures for problem solving and a common language to articulate the goals and outcomes of data analysis and interpretation. Our study demonstrated that framing a lesson through the lens of computational thinking provides teachers with strategies for engaging students in a structured, yet authentic approach to grappling with complex problems relevant to the subject.

• college of education
• social studies
• teacher education
• teacher education and learning sciences
• technology in education

More From NC State News

New model uses satellite imagery, machine learning to map flooding in urban environments 

Researchers Develop General Framework for Designing Quantum Sensors 

Shape-Shifting ‘Transformer Bots’ Inspired by Origami 

• Curriculum & Instruction
• Experiential
• Personal Story
• Primary Sources
• Professional Learning

3 Ways to Help Close the Achievement Gap with Problem-Solving Skills

Socioeconomically disadvantaged students often come to school with lower level problem-solving skills than peers

In our last post in this series on skills that help bridge the achievement gap, we discussed how bulking up on sequencing and processing skills can be a key part of closing the achievement gap between low-income and middle- to high-income students. In this post, our focus will be on problem-solving , another skill-set sometimes found lacking in students from poverty. With a little bit of professional learning around poverty awareness, you can help support students who might be in danger of falling behind.

What are problem-solving skills?

As discussed here, problem-solving skills  refers to the ability to analyze and evaluate a problem, look for possible solutions, and select a potential solution based on some reasoned understanding and degree of consideration.

Click here to subscribe so you can get our upcoming posts about closing the achievement gap!

How do you know your students have trouble with problem-solving?

Sometimes it’s not obvious what poverty in the classroom looks like. According to Eric Jensen in Teaching with Poverty in Mind,  some students  have exaggerated responses because of survival mechanisms (Jensen, 2009). In other words, they have learned that the way to survive is to be the loud, squeaky wheel. They learn early to respond quickly and exaggeratedly to problems. This mechanism that serves them well at home follows them to school, and makes it difficult for them to think through solutions to problems.

1. Make sure students are taking think-time

One indication that students have trouble problem-solving is they don’t allow themselves think-time. This is because the inability to respond in appropriate terms hinders students’ ability to problem-solve because they’re not giving themselves enough time to problem-solve. Problem-solving requires think-time, meaning it takes a little time to make the best possible decision. However, for many of these students, the idea of taking the time needed to really think isn’t in their frame of reference.

To teach students about think-time, we as teachers must make visible how we process problems and find solutions, and give students opportunities in which they are provided sufficient time to develop problem-solving skills.

2. Give them a plan for problem-solving

Jensen outlines a five-step plan for attacking a problem and finding potential solutions, which you can share with students:

• Identify and define the problem
• Brainstorm solutions
• Evaluate each solution with a checklist or rubric
• Implement the selected solution
• Follow up and debrief on the results

(Jensen, 2009)

Try sharing this list with students and have them work through it step by step while attacking a problem.

3. Give students opportunities to practice problem-solving

Jensen also suggests creating or simulating real-world problems to solve. This  gives problem-solving exercises more of a connection to students’ lives or to social studies content, making it more meaningful and memorable for students. My mind immediately goes to important historical questions such as: Should Lincoln have let the southern states secede from the Union? Should the colonies have rebelled against England? Whatever topic you choose, there are so many ways to use these steps in your social studies classroom to help students build positive experiences with problem-solving in which they practice think-time.

If you’re looking for more skills to help low-income students catch up, check out my article on processing and sequencing skills, which are also important for closing the achievement gap. I hope that learning which practical skills students in poverty lack will help equip you to address this problem in your classrooms. Closing the achievement gap might be easier than we expected. Looking at the suggestion Jensen provides in Teaching with Poverty in Mind , the method isn’t “rocket-science,” it’s practical skills that any student can learn.

Consider: if every teacher made a conscious effort to teach problem-solving skills, how would school culture change? Do you allow your students think-time? Is  closing the achievement gap a real possibility?

Would you like more professional learning resources?

DISCOVER NOW

If you liked this, click here to learn about how sequencing and processing skills can help close the achievement gap for students

Pam Gothart has been in education for 22 years including teaching high school social studies, and spent 12 years as a history director. Pam holds an Ed.S. from Samford University, where she focused her study on professional learning. She is passionate about education and helping teachers to be unique and effective leaders.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How can we help you?

• edWebinar Calendar
• edWebinar Recordings
• AI in Education
• Mental Health & Wellness Week 2024
• Amplify Excellence Across the Curriculum Week 2024
• Structured Literacy and Language Diversity Week: Spring 2024
• Elementary Writing Week 2024
• Power of Purposeful Reading Practice Week 2024
• Science of Reading Week 2024
• Emergent Bilingual Week
• Earn Free CE Certificates
• K-12 State Approvals
• Early Childhood
• Professional Associations
• Communities
• Create a Private PLC on edWeb for Your Teachers and Staff
• District and Regional Members
• Best Practices Guide & Framework
• Case Studies: Virtual Professional Learning
• edWeb 2024 Professional Learning Survey
• About edWeb
• Advisory Board
• Press Releases
• Awards & Recognition
• Partners and Sponsors
• Testimonials
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• edWeb Tutorials
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Accessibility Information
• Member Login

Join live or receive a link to the recording and earn a CE certificate

« All Events

Effective Social Studies Practices: Thinking Like a Scholar

Tuesday, august 13, 2024 @ 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm edt.

Presented by Brian Thomas, Curriculum Developer, TCI

Sponsored by Teachers’ Curriculum Institute (TCI)

Register Here

Learn more  about viewing the live presentation and the recording, earning your CE certificate, and using our new accessibility features.

Teachers’ Curriculum Institute (TCI) uses six core instructional practices that make social studies engaging and accessible for every student. One of TCI’s strategies for classroom activities is the Social Studies Skill Builder, which uses short, fast-paced activities to teach skills and content. After quickly modeling a skill, such as analyzing political ads, you can let your students practice the skill repeatedly.

In this edWebinar, Brian Thomas, TCI curriculum specialist, will guide you through this teaching strategy, offering practical tips and real-world examples to help you implement them in your classroom. You’ll discover how to foster critical thinking, encourage collaboration, and make social studies come alive for your students.

This edWebinar will be of interest to K-12 social studies teachers, school leaders, and education technology leaders. There will be time for questions at the end of the presentation.

About the Presenter

Brian Thomas is a former classroom teacher and current National Account Manager and Curriculum Developer at TCI. He has been with TCI since 2004. Prior to TCI, Brian taught middle school social studies in the Lakota Local School District for 12 years near his home in Cincinnati, OH. During that time, he served as a department chairperson as well as the Athletic Director. Brian’s education includes a B.S.Ed. from Miami University, Oxford, OH in secondary education – social studies (1992). He also holds an M.S.Ed. in learning design and technology from Purdue University, Lafayette, IN (2016).

Join the K-12 Social Studies and Civics: Educating Tomorrow’s Citizens  community to network with educators, participate in online discussions, receive invitations to upcoming edWebinars, and view recordings of previous programs to earn CE certificates.

• Google Calendar
• Outlook 365
• Outlook Live

Related Events

4:00 pm - 5:00 pm

Computational Thinking for PreK-5: Coding Solutions That Enhance Creativity and Problem-Solving Skills

Inquiry-Based Learning Meets Language Acquisition: Inquire to Acquire

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm

A PBL Approach to Animation Storytelling to Foster Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging

• Education & Teaching
• Schools & Teaching

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Cooperative Problem-Solving Activities for Social Studies Grades 6–12 Paperback – November 4, 2014

• Print length 200 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Skyhorse
• Publication date November 4, 2014
• Dimensions 8 x 0.7 x 10.75 inches
• ISBN-10 1629147427
• ISBN-13 978-1629147420
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Skyhorse; Reissue edition (November 4, 2014)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 200 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1629147427
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1629147420
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.64 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 8 x 0.7 x 10.75 inches
• #1,294 in Social Studies Teaching Materials
• #2,131 in Inclusive Education Methods
• #4,466 in Language Arts Teaching Materials

About the author

Michael hickman.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 65% 20% 0% 0% 16% 65%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 65% 20% 0% 0% 16% 20%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 65% 20% 0% 0% 16% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 65% 20% 0% 0% 16% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 65% 20% 0% 0% 16% 16%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Program Profile: Social Decision Making/Problem Solving Program

Evidence Rating: Promising | One study

Program Summary

This is a prevention program targeted at middle school students, which is designed to reduce stressors by teaching coping and decision-making skills. The program is rated Promising. Students who participated in the intervention demonstrated a statistically significant greater level of coping skills to reduce stressors, compared with students who did not receive any intervention.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Description

Program goals.

The Social Decision Making/Problem Solving (SDM) program, originally known as the Improving Social Awareness-Social Problem Solving Program, was developed in 1979 as a collaborative effort among professionals from a wide variety of disciplines, including teachers and school administrators of Middlesex Borough, N.J.; psychologists and researchers from the Department of Psychology at Rutgers University; and the Community Mental Health Center at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. The program's ultimate goal was to prevent violence, substance abuse, and related problem behaviors by teaching social, emotional, and decision-making skills that students would utilize throughout their lives.

Program Theory

The SDM program uses an extended version of the Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving (ICPS) framework. The ICPS framework is founded on the belief that interpersonal cognitive problem-solving skills are an essential component of one’s adjustment throughout his or her life. Proponents of the ICPS framework argue that through means-ends thinking (a central aspect of the ICPS framework), individuals choose how to interpret and respond to problematic situations they encounter (Elisa 1986). Drawing on the ICPS framework and other research, the SDM program emphasizes that even though a child’s behavior and peer acceptance are influenced by numerous factors, there are specific behaviors that can predict acceptance or rejection within a peer group. The SDM program enhances these specific behaviors through the training and practice of important social and decision-making skills throughout the program’s curriculum.

Program Components

Given its preventive aim, the SDM program seeks to alleviate the stress that arises during the elementary to middle school transition (stress that can disrupt or interfere with the development of expected academic achievements and interpersonal behaviors). In an effort to lessen this stress, students in the SDM program are asked to:

• Focus on their feelings and the feelings of others in problematic situations
• Think about their goals and develop solutions to achieve these goals, while also keeping in mind potential consequences
• Focus on how they would implement their solutions
• Develop confidence in their ability to overcome problematic situations, while also understanding that even the best solutions do not always lead to resolutions

The SDM program takes place during the school year and is structured around a specific curriculum. The curriculum includes three sets of social-problem solving skills: interpersonal sensitivity, means-ends thinking, and planning and anticipation. Interpersonal sensitivity focuses on an individual’s feelings in problematic situations, articulating those feelings, and developing a goal for the situation. Means-ends thinking strives to develop alternate ways to reach an individual’s goal in the situation, while also developing consequences for each goal. Finally, planning and anticipation focuses on carrying out the solution, anticipating potential obstacles, and using the knowledge gained from the present situation to plan for the future.

The SDM program is organized into three phases: the readiness phase, the instructional phase, and the application phase. The readiness phase focuses on developing students’ self-control skills, as well as their group participation and social awareness skills. The instructional phase includes an eight-step problem-solving procedure and stresses the importance of initiative in producing positive resolutions, both of which take place during the first half of the year. Finally, the application phase, which takes place during the second half of the school year, utilizes the skills developed during the instructional phase and integrates them into the students’ social and affective realms.

The readiness phase has two specific units that are taught to students: a self-control unit and an improving social awareness unit. Within the self-control unit, students are taught the personal skills that impact their ability to self-regulate, control their emotions, and communicate. Specially, this unit stresses the importance of listening, following directions, and taking turns. The social awareness unit teaches students the skills necessary to function effectively within a group. Within the social awareness unit, students are taught characteristics that are accepted by others, such as positivity and appreciation. Overall, both units not only introduce these skills, but assist students with applying these skills in real-life situations (Bruene–Butler 1997).

The instructional phase of the program consists of 20 lessons, conducted twice a week, averaging about 40 minutes per lesson. The first two lessons discuss problem situations and the importance of developing skills to handle these situations more easily. The next 16 lessons consist of two lessons on each of the eight problem-solving skill areas. The final two lessons provide children the opportunity to utilize these problem-solving skills in a specific situation. Each lesson is conducted by a teacher using a scripted curriculum. The main goal of this phase is for students to develop decision-making and problem-solving processes, while understanding that these processes can be applied to a variety of situations.

The application phase of the program consists of two main parts. First, teachers are instructed to mediate conflicts between students by facilitating children’s problem-solving thinking rather than intervening and providing their own solution; this is known as life space intervention. Secondly, teachers incorporate the problem-solving skills into the everyday classroom curriculum. For example, students record problem situations they encountered, skills they used in the situation, and how the situation turned out. The class then discusses the situation and focuses on how there are certain skills that help in various situations. The application lessons are held approximately once a week and teachers are encouraged to use the life space intervention as often as needed.

Evaluation Outcomes

Elias and colleagues (1986) found that students in the Social Decision Making/Problem Solving (SDM) program demonstrated stronger coping skills to deal with middle school stressors, compared with students who received no intervention. This difference was statistically significant.

Evaluation Methodology

To assess the effectiveness of the Social Decision Making/Problem Solving (SDM) program, Elias and colleagues (1986) used a quasi-experimental design to measure the program’s impact when children were faced with a stressful life event. Three levels of the intervention were compared:

• Children receiving the full SDM program (the instructional phase occurred from October to December 1979, and the application phase occurred from January to May 1980)
• Children receiving the instructional phase only (which occurred from January to May 1980)
• Children who entered middle school in the previous year (1978–1979) without having received any portion of the intervention

The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the difference between the children who received the full SDM program and the children who received no intervention. The study was conducted in a primarily blue-collar, multiethnic town in central New Jersey. Specially, the study participants included 158 fifth graders (80 boys and 78 girls) from all four of the town’s elementary schools, whose parents provided parental permission, all of which tested 1 year above grade level on standardized tests. The study used a delayed control design, with two of the elementary schools beginning with the instructional phase at the beginning of the school year, and the other two schools implementing the instructional phase only in the second half of the year. The study noted that no significant differences were found among the four elementary schools used in the study.

The effectiveness of the SDM program was investigated using the Survey of Middle School Stressors, which measured the children’s transition from elementary to middle school. This assessment included several parts. During the first part of the assessment, students were asked questions about their feelings towards middle school and their ability to adjust. In the second part of the assessment, students were asked to rate their middle school on a 7-point scale of adjectives, such as interesting to boring, or afraid to unafraid. Finally, during the third part of the assessment students were presented with 28 situations that typically lead to distress or upset feelings, such as forgetting a locker combination or finding their way around a larger school. The students were then asked to rate whether each stressor was not a problem, a small problem, a medium problem, or a large problem since starting middle school. Overall, the Survey of Middle School Stressors provided a summary of two categories: Problem Frequency , defined as the number of stressors rated as small, medium, or large problems; and Problem Intensity , which included the number of stressors labeled as large problems. Study authors also conducted analyses to determine the difference between students who received only the instructional portion of the intervention and students who received no intervention.

Other Information (Including Subgroup Findings)

Comparative Research

Elias and colleagues (1986) also conducted analyses to determine the differences between students who received the instructional portion only of the Social Decision Making/Problem Solving (SDM) program and students who received no intervention. Students who received partial intervention demonstrated greater coping skills regarding middle school stressors, compared with students who received no intervention. This difference was statistically significant.

CrimeSolutions doe not consider comparative research learn more about how CrimeSolutions treats comparative effectiveness research .

Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Elias, Maurice J., Michael Gara, Michael Ubriaco, Peggy A. Rothbaum, John F. Clabby, and Thomas Schuyler. 1986. “Impact of a Preventive Social Problem Solving Intervention on Children’s Coping with Middle-School Stressors.” American Journal of Community Psychology 14(3):259–75.

Additional References

Elias, Maurice J., Michael Gara, Thomas Schuyler, Leslie R. Branden-Muller, and Michael A. Sayette. 1991. “The Promotion of Social Competence: Longitudinal Study of a Preventive School-Based Program.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 61(3):409–17. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Bruene–Butler, Linda, June Hampson, Maurice J. Elias, John F. Clabby, Jr., and Thomas F. Schuyler. 1997. “The Improving Social Awareness, Social Problem–Solving Project.” In George W. Albee and Thomas P. Gullotta (eds.). Primary Prevention Works. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 239–67.

Elias, Maurice J. and Roger P. Weissberg. 2000. “Primary Prevention: Educational Approaches to Enhance Social and Emotional Learning. Journal of School Health 70(5):186–90.

Elias, Maurice J., Roger P. Weissberg, Kenneth A. Dodge, J. David Hawkins, Philip C. Kendall, Leonard A. Jason, Cheryl L. Perry, Mary Jane Rotheram–Borus, and Joseph E. Zins. 1994. “The School-Based Promotion of Social Competence: Theory, Research, and Practice.” In Robert J. Haggerty, Lonnie R. Sherrod, Norman Garmezy, and Michael Rutter (eds.). Stress, Risk, Resilience in Children and Adolescents. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 268–316.

Elias, Maurice J. and John F. Clabby. 1988. “Teaching Social Decision Making.” Educational Leadership 45(6):52–55.

Elias, Maurice J., Linda Bruene-Butler, Lisa Blum, and Thomas Schuyler.  1997. “How to Launch a Social & Emotional Learning Program.” Educational Leadership 54(8):15–19.

Related Practices

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Designed to foster the development of five interrelated sets of cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies, in order to provide a foundation for better adjustment and academic performance in students, which can result in more positive social behaviors, fewer conduct problems, and less emotional distress. The practice was rated Effective in reducing students’ conduct problems and emotional stress.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

This practice involves the promotion of social and social-cognitive competencies to prevent future antisocial behavior. The practice is rated Effective for preventing overall antisocial behavior, aggression, delinquency, oppositional and disruptive behaviors, and general antisocial behavior.

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?

Age: 9 - 11

Gender: Male, Female

Race/Ethnicity: Black, American Indians/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, White, Other

Geography: Suburban

Setting (Delivery): School

Program Type: Classroom Curricula, Conflict Resolution/Interpersonal Skills, Leadership and Youth Development, School/Classroom Environment

Current Program Status: Active

151 Centennial Avenue, Suite 1140 NJ 08854 United States

53 Avenue E,Tillett Hall NJ 08854-8040 United States

151 Centennial Ave. Suite 1140 NJ 08901 United States