problem solving abilities can be facilitated by

Search form

• Table of Contents
• Troubleshooting Guide
• A Model for Getting Started
• Justice Action Toolkit
• Coronavirus Response Tool Box
• Best Change Processes
• Databases of Best Practices
• Online Courses
• Ask an Advisor
• Subscribe to eNewsletter
• Community Stories
• YouTube Channel
• About the Tool Box
• How to Use the Tool Box
• Privacy Statement
• Workstation/Check Box Sign-In
• Online Training Courses
• Capacity Building Training
• Training Curriculum - Order Now
• Community Check Box Evaluation System
• Build Your Toolbox
• Facilitation of Community Processes
• Community Health Assessment and Planning
• Section 2. Developing Facilitation Skills

Chapter 16 Sections

• Section 1. Conducting Effective Meetings
• Section 3. Capturing What People Say: Tips for Recording a Meeting
• Section 4. Techniques for Leading Group Discussions
• Main Section

What are facilitation skills?

Community organizations are geared towards action. There are urgent problems and issues we need to tackle and solve in our communities. That's why we came together in the first place, isn't it? But for groups to be really successful, we need to spend some time focusing on the skills our members and leaders use to make all of this action happen, both within and outside our organizations.

One of the most important sets of skills for leaders and members are facilitation skills. These are the "process" skills we use to guide and direct key parts of our organizing work with groups of people such as meetings, planning sessions, and training of our members and leaders.

Whether it's a meeting (big or small) or a training session, someone has to shape and guide the process of working together so that you meet your goals and accomplish what you've set out to do. While a group of people might set the agenda and figure out the goals, one person needs to concentrate on how you are going to move through your agenda and meet those goals effectively. This is the person we call the "facilitator."

So, how is facilitating different than chairing a meeting?

Well, it is and it isn't. Facilitation has three basic principles:

• A facilitator is a guide to help people move through a process together, not the seat of wisdom and knowledge. That means a facilitator isn't there to give opinions, but to draw out opinions and ideas of the group members.
• Facilitation focuses on  how people participate in the process of learning or planning, not just on  what gets achieved
• A facilitator is neutral and never takes sides

The best meeting chairs see themselves as facilitators. While they have to get through an agenda and make sure that important issues are discussed, decisions made, and actions taken, good chairs don't feel that they have all of the answers or should talk all the time. The most important thing is what the participants in the meeting have to say. So, focus on how the meeting is structured and run to make sure that everyone can participate. This includes things like:

• Making sure everyone feels comfortable participating
• Developing a structure that allows for everyone's ideas to be heard
• Making members feel good about their contribution to the meeting
• Making sure the group feels that the ideas and decisions are theirs, not just the leader's.
• Supporting everyone's ideas and not criticizing anyone for what they've said.

Why do you need facilitation skills?

If you want to do good planning, keep members involved, and create real leadership opportunities in your organization and skills in your members, you need facilitator skills. The more you know about how to shape and run a good learning and planning process, the more your members will feel empowered about their own ideas and participation, stay invested in your organization, take on responsibility and ownership, and the better your meetings will be.

How do you facilitate?

Meetings are a big part of our organizing life. We seem to always be going from one meeting to the next. Other parts of the Tool Box cover planning and having good meetings in depth. But here, we're going to work on the process skills that good meeting leaders need to have. Remember, these facilitation skills are useful beyond meetings: for planning; for "growing" new leaders; for resolving conflicts; and for keeping good communication in your organization.

Can anyone learn to facilitate a meeting?

Yes, to a degree. Being a good facilitator is both a skill and an art. It is a skill in that people can learn certain techniques and can improve their ability with practice. It is an art in that some people just have more of a knack for it than others. Sometimes organization leaders are required to facilitate meetings: thus, board presidents must be trained in how to facilitate. But other meetings and planning sessions don't require that any one person act as facilitators, so your organization can draw on members who have the skill and the talent.

To put it another way, facilitating actually means:

• Understanding the goals of the meeting and the organization
• Keeping the group on the agenda and moving forward
• Involving everyone in the meeting, including drawing out the quiet participants and controlling the domineering ones
• Making sure that decisions are made democratically

How do you plan a good facilitation process?

A good facilitator is concerned with both the outcome of the meeting or planning session, with how the people in the meeting participate and interact, and also with the process. While achieving the goals and outcomes that everyone wants is of course important, a facilitator also wants to make sure that the process is sound, that everyone is engaged, and that the experience is the best it can be for the participants.

In planning a good meeting process, a facilitator focuses on:

• Climate and environment
• Logistics and room arrangements
• Ground rules

A good facilitator will make plans in each of these areas in advance. Let's look at some of the specifics.

Climate and Environment

There are many factors that impact how safe and comfortable people feel about interacting with each other and participating. The environment and general "climate" of a meeting or planning session sets an important tone for participation.

Key questions you would ask yourself as a facilitator include:

• Is the location a familiar place, one where people feel comfortable? Face it, if you're planning to have an interactive meeting sitting around a conference table in the Mayor's office, some of your folks might feel intimidated and out of their environment. A comfortable and familiar location is key.
• Is the meeting site accessible to everyone? If not, have you provided for transportation or escorts to help people get to the site? Psychologically, if people feel that the site is too far from them or in a place they feel is "dangerous," it may put them off from even coming. If they do come, they may arrive with a feeling that they were not really wanted or that their needs were not really considered. This can put a real damper on communication and participation. Another reminder: can people with disabilities access the site as well? Ensure the meeting site is accessible to all. 
• Is the space the right size? Too large? Too small? If you're wanting to make a planning group feel that it's a team, a large meeting hall for only 10 or 15 people can feel intimidating and make people feel self-conscious and quiet. On the other hand, if you're taking a group of 30 folks through a meeting, a small conference room where people are uncomfortably crunched together can make for disruption: folks shifting in their seats, getting up to stretch and get some air. This can cause a real break in the mood and feeling of your meeting or planning session. You want folks to stay focused and relaxed. Be sure to choose a room size that matches the size of your group.

Logistics and Room Arrangements

Believe it or not: how people sit, whether they are hungry and whether they can hear can make or break your planning process. As a facilitator, the logistics of the meeting should be of great concern to you, whether you're responsible for them or not. Some things to consider are:

• Chair arrangements: Having chairs in a circle or around a table encourages discussion, equality, and familiarity. Speaker's podiums and lecture style seating make people feel intimidated and formal. Avoid them at all costs.
• Places to hang newsprint: You may be using a lot of newsprint or other board space during your meeting. Can you use tape without damaging the walls? Is an easel available? Is there enough space so that you can keep important material visible instead of removing it?
• Sign-In sheet: Is there a table for folks to use? Would it be helpful to provide nametags?
• Refreshments: Grumbling stomachs will definitely take folks' minds off the meeting. If you're having refreshments, who is bringing them? Do you need outlets for coffee pots? Can you set things up so folks can get food without disrupting the meeting? And who's cleaning up afterwards?
• Microphones and audio-visual equipment: Do you need a microphone? Video cameras? Be sure to have someone set up and test the equipment before you start. 

To build a safe as well as comfortable environment, a good facilitator has a few more points to consider. How do you protect folks who are worried their ideas will be attacked or mocked? How do you hold back the big talkers who tend to dominate while still making them feel good about their participation? Much of the answer lies in the Ground Rules.

Ground Rules

Most meetings have some kind of operating rules. Some groups use Robert's Rules of Order (parliamentary procedure) to run their meetings while others have rules they've adopted over time. When you want the participation to flow and for folks to really feel invested in following the rules, the best way to go is to have the group develop them as one of the first steps in the process. This builds a sense of power in the participants ("Hey, she isn't telling us how to act. It's up to us to figure out what we think is important!") and a much greater sense of investment in following the rules. Common ground rules are:

• One person speaks at a time
• Raise your hand if you have something to say
• Listen to what other people are saying
• No mocking or attacking other people's ideas
• Be on time coming back from breaks (if it's a long meeting)
• Respect each other

A process to develop ground rules is:

• Begin by telling folks that you want to set up some ground rules that everyone will follow as we go through our meeting. Put a blank sheet of newsprint on the wall with the heading "Ground Rules."
• Ask for any suggestions from the group. If no one says anything, start by putting one up yourself. That usually starts people off.
• Write any suggestions up on the newsprint. It's usually most effective to "check -in" with the whole group before you write up an idea ("Sue suggested raising our hands if we have something to say. Is that okay with everyone?") Once you have gotten 5 or 6 good rules up, check to see if anyone else has other suggestions.
• When you are finished, check in with the group to be sure they agree with these Ground Rules and are willing to follow them. 

Facilitating a meeting or planning session

The facilitator is responsible for providing a "safe" climate and working atmosphere for the meeting. But you're probably wondering, "What do I actually do  during the meeting to guide the process along?" Here are the basic steps that can be your facilitator's guide:

Start the meeting on time

Few of us start our meetings on time. The result? Those who come on time feel cheated that they rushed to get there! When latecomers straggle in, don't stop your process to acknowledge them. Wait until after a break or another appropriate time to have them introduce themselves.

Welcome everyone

Make a point to welcome everyone who comes. Don't complain about the size of a group if the turnout is small! Nothing will turn the folks off who  did come out faster. Thank all of those who are there for coming and analyze the turnout attendance later. Go with who you have.

Make introductions

There are lots of ways for people to introduce themselves to each other that are better than just going around the room. The kinds of introductions you do should depend on what kind of meeting you are having, the number of people, the overall goals of the meeting, and what kind of information it would be useful to know. Some key questions you can ask members to include in their introductions are:

• How did you first get involved with our organization? (if most people are already involved, but the participants don't know each other well)
• What do you want to know about our organization? (if the meeting is set to introduce your organization to another organization)
• What makes you most angry about this problem? (if the meeting is called to focus on a particular problem)

Sometimes, we combine introductions with something called an "ice breaker." Ice breakers can:

• Break down feelings of unfamiliarity and shyness
• Help people shift roles--from their "work" selves to their "more human" selves
• Build a sense of being part of a team
• Create networking opportunities
• Help share participants' skills and experiences

Some ways to do introductions and icebreakers are:

• In pairs, have people turn to the person next to them and share their name, organization and three other facts about themselves that others might not know. Then, have each pair introduce each other to the group. This helps to get strangers acquainted and for people to feel safe--they already know at least one other person, and didn't have to share information directly in front of a big group at the beginning of the meeting.
• Form small groups and have each of them work on a puzzle. Have them introduce themselves to their group before they get to work. This helps to build a sense of team work.
• In a large group, have everyone write down two true statements about themselves and one false one. Then, every person reads their statements and the whole group has to guess which one is false. This helps folks get acquainted and relaxed.
• Give each participant a survey and have the participants interview each other to find the answers. Make the questions about skills, experience, opinions on the issue you'll be working on, etc. When everyone is finished, have folks share the answers they got.

When doing introductions and icebreakers, it's important to remember:

• Every participant needs to take part in the activity. The only exception may be latecomers who arrive after the introductions are completed. At the first possible moment, ask the latecomers to say their name and any other information you feel they need to share in order for everyone to feel comfortable and equal.
• Be sensitive to the culture, age, gender and literacy levels of participants and any other factors when deciding how to do introductions. For example, an activity that requires physical contact or reading a lengthy instruction sheet may be inappropriate for your group. Also, keep in mind what you want to accomplish with the activity. Don't make a decision to do something only because it seems like fun.
• It is important to make everyone feel welcome and listened to at the beginning of the meeting. Otherwise, participants may feel uncomfortable and unappreciated and won't participate well later on. Also, if you don't get some basic information about who is there, you may miss some golden opportunities. For example, the editor of the regional newspaper may be in the room; but if you don't know, you'll miss the opportunity for a potential interview or special coverage.
• And don't forget to introduce yourself. You want to make sure that you establish some credibility to be facilitating the meeting and that folks know a bit about you. Credibility doesn't mean you have a college degree or 15 years of facilitation experience. It just means that you share some of your background so folks know why you are doing the facilitation and what has led you to be speaking up.

Review the agenda, objectives and ground rules for the meeting

Go over what's going to happen in the meeting. Check with the group to make sure they agree with and like the agenda. You never know if someone will want to comment and suggest something a little different. This builds a sense of ownership of the meeting and lets people know early on that you're there to facilitate  their process and their meeting, not your own agenda.

The same is true for the outcomes of the meeting. You'll want to go over these with folks as well to get their input and check that these are the desired outcomes they're looking for. This is also where the ground rules that we covered earlier come in.

Encourage participation

This is one of your main jobs as a facilitator. It's up to you to get those who need to listen to listen and those who ought to speak. Encourage people to share their experiences and ideas and urge those with relevant background information share it at appropriate times.

Stick to the agenda

Groups have a tendency to wander far from the original agenda, sometimes without knowing it. When you hear the discussion wandering off, bring it to the group's attention. You can say "That's an interesting issue, but perhaps we should get back to the original discussion."

Avoid detailed decision-making

Sometimes, it's easier for groups to discuss the color of napkins than the real issues they are facing. Help the group not to get immersed in details. Suggest instead, "Perhaps the committee could resolve the matter." Do you really want to be involved in that level of detail?

Seek commitments

Getting commitments for future involvement is often a meeting goal. You want leaders to commit to certain tasks, people to volunteer to help on a campaign, or organizations to support your group. Make sure adequate time is allocated for seeking commitment. For small meetings, write people's names down on newsprint next to the tasks they agreed to undertake.

One important rule of thumb is that no one should leave a meeting without something to do. Don't ever close a meeting by saying "We'll get back to you to confirm how you might like to get involved." Seize the moment! Sign them up!

Bring closure to each item

Many groups will discuss things ten times longer than they need to unless a facilitator helps them to recognize they're basically in agreement. Summarize a consensus position, or ask someone in the group to summarize the points of agreement, and then move forward. If one or two people disagree, state the situation as clearly as you can: "Tom and Levonia seem to have other feelings on this matter, but everyone else seems to go in this direction. Perhaps we can decide to go in the direction that most of the group wants, and maybe Tom and Levonia can get back to us on other ways to accommodate their concerns." You may even suggest taking a break so Tom and Levonia can caucus to come up with some options.

Some groups feel strongly about reaching consensus on issues before moving ahead. If your group is one of them, be sure to read a good manual or book on consensus decision making. Many groups, however, find that voting is a fine way to make decisions. A good rule of thumb is that a vote must pass by a two-thirds majority for it to be a valid decision. For most groups to work well, they should seek consensus where possible, but take votes when needed in order to move the process forward.

Respect everyone's rights

The facilitator protects the shy and quiet folks in a meeting and encourages them to speak out. There is also the important job of keeping domineering people from monopolizing the meeting or ridiculing the ideas of others.

Sometimes, people dominate a discussion because they are really passionate about an issue and have lots of things to say. One way to channel their interest is to suggest that they consider serving on a committee or task force on that issue. Other people, however, talk to hear themselves talk. If someone like that shows up at your meeting, look further ahead in this chapter for some tips on dealing with "disrupters."

Be flexible

Sometimes issues will arise in the meeting that are so important, they will take much more time than you thought. Sometimes, nobody will have thought of them at all. You may run over time or have to alter your agenda to discuss them. Be sure to check with group about whether this is O.K. before going ahead with the revised agenda. If necessary, ask for a five-minute break to confer with key leaders or participants on how to handle the issue and how to restructure the agenda. Be prepared to recommend an alternate agenda, dropping some items if necessary.

Summarize the meeting results and needed follow-ups

Before ending the meeting, summarize the key decisions that were made and what else happened. Be sure also to summarize the follow-up actions that were agreed to and need to take place. Remind folks how much good work was done and how effective the meeting hopefully was. Refer back to the objectives or outcomes to show how much you accomplished.

Thank the participants

Take a minute to thank people who prepared things for the meeting, set up the room, brought refreshments, or did any work towards making the meeting happen. Thank all of the participants for their input and energy and for making the meeting a success.

Close the meeting

People appreciate nothing more than a meeting that ends on time! It's usually a good idea to have some "closure" in a meeting, especially if it was long, if there were any sticky situations that caused tension, or if folks worked especially hard to come to decisions or make plans.

A nice way to close a meeting is to go around the room and have people say one word that describes how they are feeling now that all of this work has been done. You'll usually get answers from "exhausted" to "energized!" If it's been a good meeting, even the "exhausted" ones will stick around before leaving.

Facilitator skills and tips

Here are a few more points to remember that will help to maximize your role as a facilitator:

Don't memorize a script

Even with a well-prepared agenda and key points you must make, you need to be flexible and natural. If people sense that you are reading memorized lines, they will feel like they are being talked down to, and won't respond freely.

Watch the group's body language

Are people shifting in their seats? Are they bored? Tired? Looking confused? If folks seem restless or in a haze, you may need to take a break, or speed up or slow down the pace of the meeting. And if you see confused looks on too many faces, you may need to stop and check in with the group, to make sure that everyone knows where you are in the agenda and that the group is with you.

Always check back with the group

Be careful about deciding where the meeting should go. Check back after each major part of the process to see if there are questions and that everyone understands and agrees with decisions that were made.

Summarize and pause

When you finish a point or a part of the meeting process, sum up what was done and decided, and pause for questions and comments before moving on. Learn to "feel out" how long to pause -- too short, and people don't really have time to ask questions; too long, and folks will start to get uncomfortable from the silence.

Be aware of your own behavior

Take a break to calm down if you feel nervous or are losing control. Watch that you're not repeating yourself, saying "ah" between each word, or speaking too fast. Watch your voice and physical manner. (Are you standing too close to folks so they feel intimidated, making eye contact so people feel engaged?) How you act makes an impact on how participants feel.

Occupy your hands

Hold onto a marker, chalk, or the back of a chair. Don't play with the change in your pocket!

Watch your speech

Be careful you are not offending or alienating anyone in the group. Use swear words at your own risk!

Use body language of our own

Using body language to control the dynamics in the room can be a great tool. Moving up close to a shy, quiet participant and asking them to speak may make them feel more willing, because they can look at you instead of the big group and feel less intimidated. Also, walking around engages people in the process. Don't just stand in front of the room for the entire meeting.

Don't talk to the newsprint, blackboard or walls--they can't talk back!

Always wait until you have stopped writing and are facing the group to talk.

Dealing with disrupters: Preventions and interventions

Along with these tips on facilitation, there are some things you can do both to prevent disruption before it occurs to stop it when it's happening in the meeting. The most common kinds of disrupters are people who try to dominate, keep going off the agenda, have side conversations with the person sitting next to them, or folks who think they are right and ridicule and attack other's ideas.

Preventions. Try using these "Preventions" when you set up your meeting to try to rule out disruption:

Get agreement on the agenda, ground rules and outcomes. In other words, agree on the process. These process agreements create a sense of shared accountability and ownership of the meeting, joint responsibility for how the meeting is run, and group investment in whether the outcomes and goals are achieved.

Listen carefully. Don't just pretend to listen to what someone in the meeting is saying. People can tell. Listen closely to understand a point someone is making. And check back if you are summarizing, always asking the person if you understood their idea correctly.

Show respect for experience. We can't say it enough. Encourage folks to share strategies, stories from the field, and lessons they've learned. Value the experience and wisdom in the room.

Find out the group's expectations. Make sure that you uncover at the start what participants think they are meeting for. When you find out, be clear about what will and won't be covered in this meeting. Make plans for how to cover issues that won't be dealt with: Write them down on newsprint and agree to deal with them at the end of the meeting, or have the group agree on a follow-up meeting to cover unfinished issues.

There are lots of ways to find out what the group's expectations of the meeting are: Try asking everyone to finish this sentence: "I want to leave here today knowing...." You don't want people sitting through the meeting feeling angry that they're in the wrong place and no one bothered to ask them what they wanted to achieve here. These folks may act out their frustration during the meeting and become your biggest disrupters.

Stay in your facilitator role. You cannot be an effective facilitator and a participant at the same time. When you cross the line, you risk alienating participants, causing resentment, and losing control of the meeting. Offer strategies, resources, and ideas for the group to work with, but  not opinions.

Don't be defensive. If you are attacked or criticized, take a "mental step" backwards before responding. Once you become defensive, you risk losing the group's respect and trust, and might cause folks to feel they can't be honest with you.

"Buy-in" power players. These folks can turn your meeting into a nightmare if they don't feel that their influence and role are acknowledged and respected. If possible, give them acknowledgment up front at the start of the meeting. Try giving them roles to play during the meeting such as a "sounding board" for you at breaks, to check in with about how the meeting is going.

Interventions. Try using these "Interventions" when disruption is happening during the meeting:

• First try to remind them about the agreed-on agenda. If that doesn't work, throw it back to the group and ask them how they feel about that person's participation. Let the group support you.
• Go back to that agenda and those ground rules and remind folks of the agreements made at the beginning of the meeting.
• It's better to say what's going on than try to cover it up. Everyone will be aware of the dynamic in the room. The group will get behind you if you are honest and up -front about the situation.
• Try a humorous comment or a joke. If it's self-deprecating, so much the better. Humor almost always lightens the mood. It's one of the best tension-relievers we have.
• Try one or more of these approaches : Show that you understand their issue by making it clear that you hear how important it is to them. Legitimize the issue by saying, "It's a very important point and one I'm sure we all feel is critical." Make a bargain to deal with their issue for a short period of time ("O.K., let's deal with your issue for 5 minutes and then we ought to move on.") If that doesn't work, agree to defer the issue to the end of the meeting, or set up a committee to explore it further.
• Use body language. Move closer to conversers, or to the quiet ones. Make eye contact with them to get their attention and covey your intent.
• In case you've tried all of the above suggestions and nothing has worked, it's time to take a break, invite the disruptive person outside the room and politely but firmly state your feelings about how disruptive their behavior is to the group. Make it clear that the disruption needs to end. But also try to find out what's going on, and see if there are other ways to address that person's concerns.
• Confront the disruptive person politely but very firmly in the room. Tell the person very explicitly that the disruption needs to stop now. Use body language to encourage other group members to support you. This is absolutely the last resort when action must be taken and no alternatives remain!

Online Resources

Facilitating Political Discussions from the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University is designed to assist experienced facilitators in training others to facilitate politically charged conversations. The materials are broken down into "modules" and facilitation trainers can use some or all of them to suit their needs.

Inclusive Facilitation for Social Change  from FSG provides assistance in facilitating inclusive meetings to create effective and empowering experiences for everyone involved.

Making Meetings Work  from the Collective Impact Forum is a blog post from Paul Schmitz discussing lessons we can apply to ensure that meetings are purposeful, engaging, and advance our work in ways that people anticipate with enthusiasm instead of dread.

Print Resources

Auvine, B., Dinsmore, B., Extrom, M., Poole, S., & Shanklin, M. (1978). A manual for group facilitators . Madison, WI: The Center for Conflict Resolution.

Bobo, K., Kendall, J., & Max, S., (1991). A manual for activists in the 1990s . Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.

Nelson-Jones, R. (1992). Group leadership: A training approach . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schwarz, R. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

How to Facilitate Creative Problem Solving Workshops

Posted in Blog , Create , Facilitation , Innovation , Virtual Facilitation by Jo North

This article gives you a comprehensive guide to creative problem solving, what it is and a brief history. It also covers how creative problem solving works, with a step-by-step guide to show you how to solve challenging opportunities and problems in your own organization through fresh approaches, and how to facilitate a creative problem solving workshop.

Here are The Big Bang Partnership we are expert facilitators of creative problem solving workshops . Please do comment or email us if you would like any further tips or advice, or if you’d like to explore having us design and facilitate a workshop for you.

What is Creative Problem Solving?

Creative problem solving, sometimes abbreviated to CPS, is a step-by-step process designed to spark creative thinking and innovative solutions for purposeful change.

The creative problem solving process is at the root of other contemporary creativity and innovation processes, such as innovation sprints and design sprints or design thinking . These methods have adapted and repackaged the fundamental principles of creative problem solving.

Creative Problem Solving Definition

Here are definitions of each component of the term creative problem solving process:

• Creative – Production of new and useful ideas or options.
• Problem – A gap between what you have and what you want.
• Solving – Taking action.
• Process – Steps; a method of doing something.

Source: Creative Leadership: Skills that Drive Change Puccio, Murdock, Mance (2007)

The definition of creative problem solving (CPS) is that it’s a way of solving challenges or opportunities when the usual ways of thinking have not worked.

The creative problem solving process encourages people to find fresh perspectives and come up with novel solutions. This means that they can create a plan to overcome obstacles and reach their goals by combining problem solving and creative thinking skills in one process.

Using creative problem-solving removes the haphazard way in which most organizations approach challenges and increases the probability of a successful solution that all stakeholders support.

For an overview of the history of the creative problem solving process, have a read of my article here .

Creative Problems to Solve

Just a few examples of creative problems to solve using the creative problem solving process are:

• Shaping a strategy for your organization
• Developing or improving a new product or service
• Creating a new marketing campaign
• Bringing diverse stakeholders together to collaborate on a joint plan
• Formulating work-winning solutions for new business proposals, bids or tenders
• Working on a more sustainable business model
• Finding eco-innovation solutions
• Social or community innovation
• Co-creation leading to co-production

Messy, Wicked and Tame Problems

If your problem or challenge is ‘ messy ’ or ‘ wicked ’, using the creative problem solving process is an excellent method for getting key stakeholders together to work on it collaboratively. The creative problem solving process will help you to make progress towards improving elements of your challenge.

Messy Problems

In the field of innovation, a messy problem is made up of clusters of interrelated or interdependent problems, or systems of problems. For example, the problems of unemployment in a community, the culture in a workplace or how to reach new markets are likely to be caused by multiple factors.

It’s important to deconstruct messy problems and solve each key problem area. The creative problem solving process provides a valuable method of doing so.

Wicked Problems

Design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber introduced the term “ wicked problem ” in 1973 to describe the complexities of resolving planning and social policy problems.

Wicked problems are challenges that have unclear aims and solutions. They are often challenges that keep changing and evolving. Some examples of current wicked problems are tackling climate change, obesity, hunger, poverty and more.

Tame Problems

‘ Tame ’ problems are those which have a straightforward solution and can be solved through logic and existing know-how. There is little value in using the creative problem solving process to solve tame problems.

Creative Problem Solving Skills

Specific thinking skills are essential to various aspects of the creative problem solving process. They include both cognitive (or intellectual) skills and affective (or attitudinal, motivational) skills.

There are also three overarching affective skills that are needed throughout the entire creative problem solving Process. These creative problem solving skills are:

• Openness to new things, meaning the ability to entertain ideas that at first seem outlandish and risky
• Tolerance for ambiguity, which is the ability to deal with uncertainty without leaping to conclusions
• Tolerance for complexity, defined as being able to stay open and persevere without being overwhelmed by large amounts of information, interrelated and complex issues and competing perspectives

They show an individual’s readiness to participate in creative problem solving activities.

Creative Problem Solving and Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves reflecting analytically and more objectively on your learning experiences and working processes. Based on your reflection, you can identify opportunities for improvement and make more effective decisions.

Critical thinking is an important skill when using the creative problem solving process because it will drive you to seek clarity, accuracy, relevance and evidence throughout.

Strategies for Creative Problem Solving

One of the most successful strategies for creative problem solving process is to get a multi-disciplinary team of internal, and sometimes external, stakeholders together for a creative problem solving workshop. Here is a process that you can use to facilitate your own creative problem solving workshop.

How to Facilitate a Creative Problem Solving Workshop

Challenge or problem statement.

The first, potentially most important, stage of the creative problem solving process is to create a challenge statement or problem statement. This means clearly defining the problem that you want to work on.

A challenge or problem statement is usually a sentence or two that explains the problem that you want to address through your creative problem solving workshop.

How might we…?

A good way of expressing your challenge is to use the starting phrase “How might we …?” to produce a question that will form the core of your creative problem solving mission. Framing your problem as a question in this way helps people to begin to think about possibilities and gives scope for experimentation and ideation.

Why it’s important to have a clear problem statement

Defining your problem or challenge statement matters because it will give you and your colleagues clarity from the outset and set out a specific mission for your collaborative working.

If you begin the creative problem solving process without a clear problem or challenge statement, you’ll likely experience misunderstanding and misalignment, and need to retrace your steps. Taking time to get your challenge or problem statement right is time well spent. You can download my free resources on how to create a challenge statement for innovation and growth here .

Creative Problem Solving Process

Once you have defined your creative problem to solve, and the strategies for creative problem solving that you want to use, the next steps are to work through each stage of the creative problem solving process. You can do this on your own, with your team, working cross-functionally with people from across your organization and with external stakeholders. For every step in the creative problem solving process there is a myriad of different techniques and activities that you can use. You could literally run scores of creative problem solving workshops and never have to repeat the same format or techniques! The creative problem solving techniques that I’m sharing here are just a few examples to get you started.

Creative Problem Solving Workshop Agenda

To make the creative problem solving process more accessible to more people, I’ve built on the work by Osborn, Parnes, Puccio and others, to create our Creative Problem Solving Workshop Journey Approach that you can use and adapt to work on literally any problem or challenge statement that you have. I’ve used it in sectors as diverse as nuclear engineering, digital and tech, utilities, local government, retail and e-ecommerce, transport, financial services, not-for-profit and many, many more.

Every single workshop we design for our clients is unique, and our starting point is always our ‘go-to’ outline agenda that we can use to save ourselves time and know that our sessions are well-designed and put together.

The timings are just my suggestion, so please do change them to suit the specific needs of your creative problem-solving workshop.

All the activities I suggest are presented for in-person workshops, and they can be adapted super-easily for virtual workshops, using and online whiteboard such as Miro .

Keep the activities for each agenda item long enough to allow people to get into it, but not too long. You want the sessions to feel appropriately pacey, active and engaging. Activities that are allowed to go on too long drag and sap creative energy.

Outline Agenda

Welcome and Warm-up                                             0900-0930

Where do we want to be, and why?                         0930-1000

Where are we today?                                                 1000-1030

Break                                                                           1030-1045

Why are we where we are today?                            1045-1115

Moving forward – Idea generation                           1115-1230

Lunch                                                                          1230-1315

Energiser                                                                     1315-1330

Moving forward – Idea development                       1330-1415

Break                                                                           1415-1445

Action Planning                                                           1445-1530

Review, feedback and close                                      1530-1600

Here is the agenda with more detail, and suggested activities for each item.

Detailed Creative Problem Solving Workshop Agenda

Welcome and warm-up.

The welcome and warm-up session is important because:

• For groups who don’t know each other, it’s essential that people introduce themselves and start to get to know who everyone is.
• This session also helps people to transition from their other work and activities to focusing on the purpose of the day.
• It sets the tone for the rest of the event.

Items to include in the welcome and warm-up are:

• Welcome to the event.
• Thank people for taking the time.
• The purpose and objectives of the event, and an overview of the agenda for the day. Introduce your problem or challenge statement.
• Ground rules in terms of phone usage, breaks, confidentiality.

It’s good to have the agenda and ground rules visible so that everyone can see them throughout the day, and don’t forget to inform people of any fire evacuation instructions that need to be shared, and information on refreshments, washrooms and so on.

Remember to introduce yourself and say a little bit about you as the workshop leader, keeping it brief.

Things to look out for are:

• How people are feeling – energy, interest, sociability, nervousness and so on.
• Cliques or groups of people who choose to sit together. Make a mental note to move the groups around for different activities so that people get to work with as many different people as possible to stimulate thinking and make new connections.

If you’d like some ideas for icebreakers and warmups, there are lots to choose from in these articles:

Icebreakers for online meetings

Creative warmups and energizers that you can do outside

Where do we want to be, and why?

The first session in your creative problem-solving workshop aims to start with thinking about what the group wants to achieve in the future. As well as setting the direction for your problem statement for the day, it allows delegates to stretch their thinking before they become too embedded in working through their current position, issues and concerns. It is positive and motivational to identify those aspirations that everyone shares, even if the reasons or details differ from person to person.

Suggested creative problem-solving techniques for Where do we want to be, and why ?

Horizon Scanning

Brief the delegates as follows:

• Use the resources / idea generators provided [e.g. magazines, newspapers, scissors, glue, stickers, glitter, any other craft items you like, flip chart paper) and your own thoughts.
• Identify a range of themes that are relevant to the challenge statement you are working on in this workshop. Feel free to use your imagination and be creative!
• For each theme, explain why it is important to the challenge statement.

This activity can be adapted for virtual workshops using online whiteboards such as Miro.

WIFI – Wouldn’t It Be Fantastic If…

This creative problem solving technique opens up delegates’ thinking and frames challenges as a positive and motivational possibility.

Ask delegates to spend just a few minutes completing the following statement as many times as they can with real items relating to their challenge for the workshop:

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if… (‘wifi’)

Delegates should then select the wibfi statements that would make the most material difference to their challenge.

They might have a couple or more of connected statements that they want to combine into a new one. If so, that’s completely fine.

Ask them to write their final statement on a flipchart.

Where are we today?

After establishing the vision for the future, it is important to gain a collective view on the starting point, and gain different, individual perspectives on the current position.

Suggested creative techniques for Where are we today?

Rich pictures

Rich pictures provide a useful way of capturing the elements of messy, unstructured situations and ambiguous and complex problems.

A rich picture is intended to portray the unstructured situation that the delegates are working with.

Brief the activity in as follows, noting that they can assist in the construction of a rich picture which should initially be rich in content, but the meaning of which may not be initially apparent. 

• Ask delegates to consider the messy problem or situation that they are facing and dump all the elements of the scenario they are viewing in an unstructured manner using symbols and doodles.
• Ask them to look for elements of structure such as buildings and so on, and elements of process such as things in a state of change. They may see ways in which the structure and process interact as they use hard factual data and soft subjective information in the picture. 
• If appropriate, ask the delegates to include themselves in the picture as participants or observers, or both, and to give the rich picture meaningful and descriptive title.
• Without explanation, one group’s rich picture is often a mystery to another observer, so ask small working groups to talk through the, to the wider group. It is not meant to be a work of art but a working tool to assist your delegates in understanding an unstructured problem or change scenario.

Out of the box

Representing a problem in any new medium can help bring greater understanding and provide a rich vehicle for discussion and idea generation.

Collect a range of (clean and safe!) junk materials, such as cardboard boxes, empty packets, old magazines and newspapers etc.

You will also need some string, glue and tape.

Ask delegates to use the items around them to create (a) 3D vision(s) of the solution(s) to their challenge.

This provides a different perspective, as well as getting everyone engaged, active and conversing.

Why are we here?

This stage of the away day focuses on helping the group to understand the critical success factors that have driven positive outcomes, as well as any constraints, perceived or real, that are getting in the way of future progress. It identifies items that can be explored further in the idea generation, selection and development stages.

Suggested creative techniques for Why are we here?

Ishikawa Fish Bone

The fishbone diagram was developed by Professor Ishikawa of the University of Tokyo. It can encourage development of a comprehensive and balanced picture, involving everyone, keeping everyone on track, discouraging partial or premature solutions, and showing the relative importance and interrelationships between different parts of the challenge.

Ask the delegates to write their problem statement to the fish bone template, like the example shown here.

Then ask them to identify the major categories of causes of the problem. If they are stuck on this, suggest some generic categories to get them going, such as:

Delegates should then write the categories of causes as branches from the main arrow.

Next, they will identify all the possible causes of the problem, asking: “Why does this happen?”

As each idea is given, one of the delegates in each group writes it as a branch from the appropriate category. Causes can be written in several places if they relate to several categories.

Again, get the delegates to ask: “why does this happen?” about each cause, and write sub–causes branching off the causes.

If you have time, ask the delegates to carry on asking “Why?” and generating deeper levels of causes.

Mind mapping

The term mind mapping was devised by Tony Buzan for the representation of ideas, notes, information and so on in radial tree diagrams, sometimes also called spider diagrams.

These are now very widely used.

To brief in the mind map technique, the instructions below are usually best communicated via a quick demonstration by the facilitator, using an everyday, fun topic and asking delegates to shout out ideas for you to capture.

How to mind map:

• Ask delegates to turn their paper to landscape format and write a brief title for the overall topic in the middle of the page.
• For each major subtopic or cluster of materials ask them to start a new major branch from the central topic and label it.
• Continue in this way for ever finer sub-branches.
• Delegates may find that they want to put an item in more than one place. They could just copy it into each place or they could just draw a line to show the connections.
• Encourage delegates to use colour, doodles and to have fun with their mind map. This stimulates more right brain, creative thinking.

Moving forward – Idea generation

The next sessions are all about coming up with ideas, potential solutions to get from your starting position to the vision for the future that you all created earlier.

I recommend that you use at least two, or preferably all three of the idea generation techniques I have provided here because if you only use one, you are more likely to only get the most obvious, top of mind ideas from your team.

By looking at your challenge or opportunity from different perspectives using a range of techniques, you are more likely to create greater diversity of ideas.

This technique is really good for almost any subject, and especially…

…getting input from everyone. The noisy ones have much less opportunity to dominate!

…getting all the thoughts that people have out of their heads and onto paper.

…getting you started. This is a really accessible technique that is easy to run.

…getting people talking and engaged.

You will need plenty of sticky notes and pens.

Clustering with sticky notes – step-by-step guide

• Ask people to focus on the challenge that is the subject of the session.
• Each person is to work individually at first. They will take a pile of post-it notes and a pen, and get as many items down on the post-it notes as they can, writing only one item on each post-it note so that each person has a pile of written notes in front of them (12-15 each would be great).
• Say to the group that if they think they have finished, it probably is just a mental pause. The best thing for them to do is to look out of the window or move around briefly (but not look at their phones, laptop or disturb other people!) because they are likely to have a second burst of thinking. This is really important because it means you will get more thoughts down than just the obvious front-of-mind ones that come out early on. Allow 5-10 minutes for this step.
• Make sure that people don’t put more than one item on a post-it note.
• When everyone has got a pile of sticky notes and generally have run out of steam, ask them to “cluster” their notes as a group into similar themes on the flip chart paper, a bit like playing the card game “Snap”. Things that no-one else has should be included as a cluster of one item.
• Ask the groups to put a ring around each cluster and give it a name that summarises the content.
• Ask each group to feedback on the contents of their clusters, note similarities and differences and agree your next steps, writing them up on the flip chart for everyone to see.

Force-fitting with pictures

Force-fitting is about using dissimilar, or apparently unrelated, objects, elements, or ideas to obtain fresh new possibilities for a challenge or opportunity. You will need some magazines, photos or newspapers for this activity.

It is a very useful and fun-filled method of generating ideas. The idea is to compare the problem with something else that has little or nothing in common and gain new insights as a result.

You can force a relationship between almost anything, and get new insights – companies and whales, management systems and data networks, or your relationship and a hedgehog. Forcing relationships is one of the most powerful ways to develop ways to develop new insights and new solutions.

The following activity – Random Stimulus, a useful way of generating ideas through a selection of objects or cards with pictures – takes about 15 to 20 minutes to complete in total.

It is important to brief delegates to work intuitively through this process rather than over-thinking it. Just follow each of the simple steps outlined here in order.

Force-fitting with pictures step-by-step guide

Step 1 : Choose an image from the ones below at random. It really does not matter which one you choose, so just pick one that you think is interesting. This should take you no longer than a few seconds! Do this first before you move to the next steps.

Step 2: Now look at the image that you have selected. Feel free to pull it out so you can have it in front of you as you work. Write down as many interesting words as you can that come to mind when you look at the picture you have selected.

Step 3 : Now go back and “force fit” each of your interesting words into a potential solution for your challenge. If you have a negative word, turn it into a positive solution. Do this for every word on your list. You don’t have to work through the list in order – if you get stuck on a word, do another one and then come back to it when you’re ready. Don’t forget – premature evaluation stifles creativity. Just write stuff down without judging anything. You will have the opportunity to go back and select what you want / don’t want to use later.

Step 4 : Look at your outputs from this activity and highlight the things that resonate with you in terms of making progress with your challenge.

The SCAMPER technique is based very simply on the idea that anything new is actually a modification of existing old things around us.

SCAMPER was first introduced by Bob Eberle to address targeted questions that help solve problems or ignite creativity during creative meetings.

The name SCAMPER is acronym for seven thinking activities: ( S ) substitute, ( C ) combine, ( A ) adapt, ( M ) modify, ( P ) put to another use, ( E ) eliminate and ( R ) reverse. These keywords represent the necessary questions addressed during the creative thinking meeting. Ask you delegates to work through each one.

• S —Substitute (e.g., components, materials, people)
• C —Combine (e.g., mix, combine with other assemblies or services, integrate)
• A —Adapt (e.g., alter, change function, use part of another element)
• M —Magnify/Modify (e.g., increase or reduce in scale, change shape, modify attributes)
• P —Put to other uses
• E —Eliminate (e.g., remove elements, simplify, reduce to core functionality)
• R —Rearrange/Reverse (e.g., turn inside out or upside down)

Moving forward – Idea development

The objective of this session is to select the most useful or interesting ideas that you have come up with in the earlier idea generation activities, and shape them into a useful solution.

Suggested creative techniques for Moving forward – Idea development:

This is a useful exercise to help your delegates to quickly prioritise their ideas as a team.

• Ask delegates to use the grid shown here to plot their ideas, using sticky notes/
• They should then write a question for each of their ‘yes’ and perhaps some of your ‘maybe’ items that begins with the words ‘ How could we …? ’
• Then ask them to work on each of their questions, capturing their work a flipchart.

Sticky dot voting

Sticky dot voting is a quick, widely used voting method. Once all the ideas are on display give each group member a number of sticky dots (for example 5 each) to ‘vote’ for their favourite solution or preferred option. The number of sticky dots can vary according to what you think will work.

• Give everyone a few minutes of quiet planning time so that they can privately work out their distribution of votes.
• They may distribute their votes as they wish, for example: 2 or 3 on one idea, one each on a couple of others, all on one idea or one each on a whole series of ideas.
• To minimise the risk of people being influenced by one another’s votes, no votes are placed until everyone is ready. When everyone is finished deciding, they go up to the display and place their votes by sticking dots beside the items of their choice.
• As facilitator, lead a discussion on the vote pattern, and help the group to translate it into a shortlist for further development.

Once your delegates have selected their most promising ideas, choose from these creative problem solving techniques to help your group develop their thinking.

Assumption surfacing

Assumption surfacing is all about making underlying assumptions more visible.

• Ask the group to identify the key choices they have made, thinking about what assumptions have guided these choices and why they feel they are appropriate.
• Delegates should list the assumptions, and then add in a possible counter-assumption for each one.
• They should then work down the list and delete any assumption / counter assumption pairs that do not materially affect the outcome of the choice.
• Finally, ask delegates to reflect on the remaining assumptions, consider how these assumptions potentially impact their thinking and whether anything needs to be done as a result.

The words who, why, what, where, when, how are  known as 5Ws and H, or Kipling’s list.

They provide a powerful checklist for imagination or enquiry that is simple enough to prompt thinking but not get in the way.

Ask delegates to:

• Create a list of key questions relating to their challenge, using 5Ws and H as prompts.
• Then ask them to answer of their questions as a way of info gathering and solution-finding for their challenge.

Force field analysis

Force field analysis represents the opposing driving and restraining forces in situation.

For example, it can help to map out the factors involved in a problematic situation at the problem exploration stage, or to understand factors likely to help or hinder the action planning and implementation stages.

The process is as follows:

• Delegates identify a list of the driving and restraining forces and discuss their perceptions of them.
• All the driving forces are arrows propelling the situation, and all the restraining forces are arrows that push back against the direction of the current situation.
• Delegates can use arrow thickness to indicate strength of the force, and arrow lengths to indicate either how difficult the force would be to modify, although these elements are optional.
• Delegates can then use the diagrams to generate ideas around possible ways to move in the desired direction by finding ways to remove the restraining forces and by increasing the driving forces.

Wizard of Oz prototyping

In the classic story of the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her friends go to see the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz only to discover that he’s a fraud with no real magic.

Wizard of Oz Prototyping means creating a user experience that looks and feels very realistic, but is an illusion created to test an idea and generate a lot of really useful feedback very quickly and early on in your design process. The approach also means that you avoid incurring the cost of having to build the real solution.

In the workshop, ask delegates to consider how they could create a Wizard of Oz prototype through rough design sketches, lego or modelling clay.

Action Planning

I’m sure that many of us have been to meetings or events that have been interesting and maybe even fun at the time, but quickly forgotten due to lack of follow up or commitment to take action once the workshop is over.

The action planning phase is an essential part of mobilising the thinking from the workshop into meaningful, pragmatic activity and progress in the organisation. Getting commitment to deliver specific actions within agreed timescales from individuals at the workshop is as essential part of any event.

Suggested creative technique for Action Planning :

Blockbusters

You may remember the 80s quiz show called Blockbusters? Teenage contestants had to get from one side of the board to the other by answering questions.

This technique is based on a similar (sort of!) principle, and it is useful for action planning and helping delegates to visualise moving from where they are now to where they want to be.

• First ask delegates to write down the key aspects of where they are now on sticky notes (one item per sticky note) and put them down the left-hand side of a piece of flipchart paper, landscape.
• Then delegates are to do the same for the key aspects of where they would like to be, this time placing the sticky notes on the right-hand side of the paper, each one aligned to a relevant note on the left-hand side. For example, of they have a sticky note that says ‘struggling for sales’ on the left, they might have one that says ‘increase turnover by 35%’ on the right, both positioned level with each other.
• The final step is for delegates to fill in the space between with the 5 key actions for each item that will get them from where they are now to where they want to be. These can be different and separate actions, and don’t have to be in chronological order.
• You can ask delegates to add in target timescales and owners for each action as well.

Review, feedback and close

At the end of the day, it’s essential to bring everything together, review the progress and thank attendees.

It’s also a great opportunity to gain some feedback on the participants’ experience of the session.

Suggested creative technique for Review, feedback and close :

Goldfish Bowl

The general idea of this technique is that a small group (the core) is the focus of the wider group. The small group discusses while the rest of the participants sit around the outside and observe without interrupting. Facilitation is focused on the core group discussion.

A variation is to invite people from the outside group to ‘jump in’ and replace a member of the core group. It sounds a bit odd on paper, but it works very well and can be great fun.

Sometimes people in the core group are quite pleased to be ‘relieved’ of their duties!

In smaller events, it is also a good idea to make it a game. Make sure that everyone jumps into the core group at least once.

 This can really help people focus on active listening, and on building on each other’s points.

Often the best way to brief this in is by demonstrating it with a willing volunteer.

For more facilitation tips, techniques and ideas, have a look at my articles here:

How to design a virtual innovation sprint

How to facilitate a virtual brainstorming session

How to facilitate a goal setting workshop

How to be a great facilitator

I’d love to hear from you, whether you’re facilitating your own creative problem solving workshops, or would like some help from us to design and facilitate them for you. I hope you’ve found this article helpful. If you’d like to join my free, private Facebook group, Idea Time for Workshop Facilitators , for even more ideas and resources, please do come and join us.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

• Some of our clients
• Jo's PhD Research
• CONTENT STUDIO
• Idea Time Book
• Innovation Events
• Innovation Consulting
• Creative Facilitation Skills
• Executive Development

Privacy Policy © The Big Bang Partnership Limited 2023

Privacy Overview

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• *New* Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

What Is Creative Problem-Solving & Why Is It Important?

• 01 Feb 2022

One of the biggest hindrances to innovation is complacency—it can be more comfortable to do what you know than venture into the unknown. Business leaders can overcome this barrier by mobilizing creative team members and providing space to innovate.

There are several tools you can use to encourage creativity in the workplace. Creative problem-solving is one of them, which facilitates the development of innovative solutions to difficult problems.

Here’s an overview of creative problem-solving and why it’s important in business.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Research is necessary when solving a problem. But there are situations where a problem’s specific cause is difficult to pinpoint. This can occur when there’s not enough time to narrow down the problem’s source or there are differing opinions about its root cause.

In such cases, you can use creative problem-solving , which allows you to explore potential solutions regardless of whether a problem has been defined.

Creative problem-solving is less structured than other innovation processes and encourages exploring open-ended solutions. It also focuses on developing new perspectives and fostering creativity in the workplace . Its benefits include:

• Finding creative solutions to complex problems : User research can insufficiently illustrate a situation’s complexity. While other innovation processes rely on this information, creative problem-solving can yield solutions without it.
• Adapting to change : Business is constantly changing, and business leaders need to adapt. Creative problem-solving helps overcome unforeseen challenges and find solutions to unconventional problems.
• Fueling innovation and growth : In addition to solutions, creative problem-solving can spark innovative ideas that drive company growth. These ideas can lead to new product lines, services, or a modified operations structure that improves efficiency.

Creative problem-solving is traditionally based on the following key principles :

1. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

Creative problem-solving uses two primary tools to find solutions: divergence and convergence. Divergence generates ideas in response to a problem, while convergence narrows them down to a shortlist. It balances these two practices and turns ideas into concrete solutions.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

By framing problems as questions, you shift from focusing on obstacles to solutions. This provides the freedom to brainstorm potential ideas.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

When brainstorming, it can be natural to reject or accept ideas right away. Yet, immediate judgments interfere with the idea generation process. Even ideas that seem implausible can turn into outstanding innovations upon further exploration and development.

4. Focus on "Yes, And" Instead of "No, But"

Using negative words like "no" discourages creative thinking. Instead, use positive language to build and maintain an environment that fosters the development of creative and innovative ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Whereas creative problem-solving facilitates developing innovative ideas through a less structured workflow, design thinking takes a far more organized approach.

Design thinking is a human-centered, solutions-based process that fosters the ideation and development of solutions. In the online course Design Thinking and Innovation , Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar leverages a four-phase framework to explain design thinking.

The four stages are:

• Clarify: The clarification stage allows you to empathize with the user and identify problems. Observations and insights are informed by thorough research. Findings are then reframed as problem statements or questions.
• Ideate: Ideation is the process of coming up with innovative ideas. The divergence of ideas involved with creative problem-solving is a major focus.
• Develop: In the development stage, ideas evolve into experiments and tests. Ideas converge and are explored through prototyping and open critique.
• Implement: Implementation involves continuing to test and experiment to refine the solution and encourage its adoption.

Creative problem-solving primarily operates in the ideate phase of design thinking but can be applied to others. This is because design thinking is an iterative process that moves between the stages as ideas are generated and pursued. This is normal and encouraged, as innovation requires exploring multiple ideas.

Creative Problem-Solving Tools

While there are many useful tools in the creative problem-solving process, here are three you should know:

Creating a Problem Story

One way to innovate is by creating a story about a problem to understand how it affects users and what solutions best fit their needs. Here are the steps you need to take to use this tool properly.

1. Identify a UDP

Create a problem story to identify the undesired phenomena (UDP). For example, consider a company that produces printers that overheat. In this case, the UDP is "our printers overheat."

2. Move Forward in Time

To move forward in time, ask: “Why is this a problem?” For example, minor damage could be one result of the machines overheating. In more extreme cases, printers may catch fire. Don't be afraid to create multiple problem stories if you think of more than one UDP.

3. Move Backward in Time

To move backward in time, ask: “What caused this UDP?” If you can't identify the root problem, think about what typically causes the UDP to occur. For the overheating printers, overuse could be a cause.

Following the three-step framework above helps illustrate a clear problem story:

• The printer is overused.
• The printer overheats.
• The printer breaks down.

You can extend the problem story in either direction if you think of additional cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Break the Chains

By this point, you’ll have multiple UDP storylines. Take two that are similar and focus on breaking the chains connecting them. This can be accomplished through inversion or neutralization.

• Inversion: Inversion changes the relationship between two UDPs so the cause is the same but the effect is the opposite. For example, if the UDP is "the more X happens, the more likely Y is to happen," inversion changes the equation to "the more X happens, the less likely Y is to happen." Using the printer example, inversion would consider: "What if the more a printer is used, the less likely it’s going to overheat?" Innovation requires an open mind. Just because a solution initially seems unlikely doesn't mean it can't be pursued further or spark additional ideas.
• Neutralization: Neutralization completely eliminates the cause-and-effect relationship between X and Y. This changes the above equation to "the more or less X happens has no effect on Y." In the case of the printers, neutralization would rephrase the relationship to "the more or less a printer is used has no effect on whether it overheats."

Even if creating a problem story doesn't provide a solution, it can offer useful context to users’ problems and additional ideas to be explored. Given that divergence is one of the fundamental practices of creative problem-solving, it’s a good idea to incorporate it into each tool you use.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a tool that can be highly effective when guided by the iterative qualities of the design thinking process. It involves openly discussing and debating ideas and topics in a group setting. This facilitates idea generation and exploration as different team members consider the same concept from multiple perspectives.

Hosting brainstorming sessions can result in problems, such as groupthink or social loafing. To combat this, leverage a three-step brainstorming method involving divergence and convergence :

• Have each group member come up with as many ideas as possible and write them down to ensure the brainstorming session is productive.
• Continue the divergence of ideas by collectively sharing and exploring each idea as a group. The goal is to create a setting where new ideas are inspired by open discussion.
• Begin the convergence of ideas by narrowing them down to a few explorable options. There’s no "right number of ideas." Don't be afraid to consider exploring all of them, as long as you have the resources to do so.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool is an empathetic approach to creative problem-solving. It encourages you to consider how someone in another world would approach your situation.

For example, if you’re concerned that the printers you produce overheat and catch fire, consider how a different industry would approach the problem. How would an automotive expert solve it? How would a firefighter?

Be creative as you consider and research alternate worlds. The purpose is not to nail down a solution right away but to continue the ideation process through diverging and exploring ideas.

Continue Developing Your Skills

Whether you’re an entrepreneur, marketer, or business leader, learning the ropes of design thinking can be an effective way to build your skills and foster creativity and innovation in any setting.

If you're ready to develop your design thinking and creative problem-solving skills, explore Design Thinking and Innovation , one of our online entrepreneurship and innovation courses. If you aren't sure which course is the right fit, download our free course flowchart to determine which best aligns with your goals.

About the Author

Problem Solving - Facilitation Techniques

• Understanding Issues
• Generating Ideas
• Making Decisions
• Managing Difficulties
• Solving Problems

Problem Definition

A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

Gap Analysis

Determine the gap between the present situation and a desired future state

Open Space Technology

Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Issue Analysis

A process for understanding a complex problem situation

The Journalistic Six - Who What When Where Why How

A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

Fishbone Analysis

A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

Problem Analysis: Social Process Triangles

Using the Social Process Triangles created by the Institute of Cultural Affairs to identify a broad range of issues faced by a community, followed by the Consensus Workshop Method to see larger patterns of issues.

Pareto Chart

This process is used to prioritize certain factors among others. It is also referred to as identifying the "critical few" that play a significant role in whatever issue is being examined.

Email Questions

A virtual asynchronous start for an issues or problem solving workshop.

Reverse Brainstorming

A lateral thinking approach for ideas to a difficult problem

Flip and Rip

Creativity through pictures and images

Useful technique to examine the consequences of doing nothing.

Some features unfortunately do not work as intended on Internet Explorer. Please, use another browser (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) for best performance. Thank you!

Inspired by distraction: mind wandering facilitates creative incubation

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 22941876
• DOI: 10.1177/0956797612446024

Although anecdotes that creative thoughts often arise when one is engaged in an unrelated train of thought date back thousands of years, empirical research has not yet investigated this potentially critical source of inspiration. We used an incubation paradigm to assess whether performance on validated creativity problems (the Unusual Uses Task, or UUT) can be facilitated by engaging in either a demanding task or an undemanding task that maximizes mind wandering. Compared with engaging in a demanding task, rest, or no break, engaging in an undemanding task during an incubation period led to substantial improvements in performance on previously encountered problems. Critically, the context that improved performance after the incubation period was associated with higher levels of mind wandering but not with a greater number of explicitly directed thoughts about the UUT. These data suggest that engaging in simple external tasks that allow the mind to wander may facilitate creative problem solving.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
• Attention / physiology*
• Consciousness / physiology*
• Creativity*
• Problem Solving / physiology*
• Task Performance and Analysis
• Young Adult

The learning analytics of model-based learning facilitated by a problem-solving simulation game

• Published: 29 June 2018
• Volume 46 , pages 847–867, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Cai-Ting Wen 1 ,
• Chia-Jung Chang 1 ,
• Ming-Hua Chang 1 ,
• Shih-Hsun Fan Chiang 1 ,
• Chen-Chung Liu 1 ,
• Fu-Kwun Hwang 2 &
• Chin-Chung Tsai 3  

1788 Accesses

26 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study investigated students’ modeling progress and strategies in a problem-solving simulation game through content analysis, and through supervised and unsupervised lag sequential analysis (LSA). Multiple data sources, including self-report models and activity logs, were collected from 25 senior high school students. The results of the content analysis found that the problem-solving simulation game helped most of the students to reflectively play with the science problem and build a workable model to solve it. By using the supervised LSA, it was found that the students who successful solved the game frequently linked the game contexts with the physics terminologies, while those who did not solve the problem simply relied on the intuitive knowledge provided in the reference materials. Furthermore, the unsupervised LSA identified four activity patterns that were not noticed in the supervised LSA: the fragmented, reference material centered, reference material aided modeling, and modeling centered patterns. Each pattern has certain associations with certain problem-solving outcomes. The results of this study also shed light on the use of different analytics techniques. While the supervised LSA is particularly helpful for depicting a contrast of activity patterns between two specific student groups, the unsupervised LSA is able to identify hidden significant patterns which were not clearly distinguished in the pre-defined student groups. Researchers may find these analytics techniques useful for analyzing students’ learning processes.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura

Stage theory of cognitive development—jean piaget.

The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: a meta-analysis

Rui Huang, Albert D. Ritzhaupt, … Jingwei Li

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bamberger, Y. M., & Davis, E. A. (2013). Middle-school science students’ scientific modelling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (2), 213–238.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baum, L. E., & Petrie, T. (1966). Statistical inference for probabilistic functions of finite state Markov chains. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37 (6), 1554–1563.

Campbell, T., & Oh, P. S. (2015). Engaging students in modeling as an epistemic practice of science: An introduction to the special issue of the Journal of Science Education and Technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24 (2–3), 125–131.

Chang, C.-J., Chang, M.-H., Chiu, B.-C., Liu, C.-C., Fan Chiang, S.-H., Wen, C.-T., et al. (2017). An analysis of student collaborative problem solving activities mediated by collaborative simulations. Computers & Education, 114, 222–235.

Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., & Shen, Y. J. (2012). Are one-to-one computers necessary? An analysis of collaborative web exploration activities supported by shared displays. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 3–13.

Google Scholar  

Clark, D. B., Virk, S., Sengupta, P., Brady, C., Martinez-Garza, M., Krinks, K., … & Minstrell, J. (2016). SURGE’s evolution deeper into formal representations: The siren’s call of popular game-play mechanics. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7 (1), 107–146.

de Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 179–201.

Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rosé, C. P., Jordan, P. W., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI magazine, 22 (4), 39.

Hou, H. T. (2015). Integrating cluster and sequential analysis to explore learners’ flow and behavioral patterns in a simulation game with situated-learning context for science courses: A video-based process exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 424–435.

Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Epistemic beliefs, online search strategies, and behavioral patterns while exploring socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (3), 471–480.

Jeong, H., Gupta, A., Roscoe, R., Wagster, J., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Using hidden Markov models to characterize student behaviors in learning-by-teaching environments. In International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 614–625). Berlin: Springer.

Lee, C. Y., & Chen, M. P. (2009). A computer game as a context for non-routine mathematical problem solving: The effects of type of question prompt and level of prior knowledge. Computers & Education, 52, 530–542.

Lee, S., & Kim, H. B. (2014). Exploring secondary students’ epistemological features depending on the evaluation levels of the group model on blood circulation. Science & Education, 23 (5), 1075–1099.

Lin, P. C., Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., & Chang, K. E. (2014). Exploring college students’ cognitive processing patterns during a collaborative problem-solving teaching activity integrating Facebook discussion and simulation tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 51–56.

Lisowska, K. M., Olbryt, M., Student, S., Kujawa, K. A., Cortez, A. J., Simek, K., … & Kupryjańczyk, J. (2016). Unsupervised analysis reveals two molecular subgroups of serous ovarian cancer with distinct gene expression profiles and survival. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology , 142 (6), 1239–1252.

Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57 (3), 1907–1918.

Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50 (3), 627–639.

Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining learning through modeling in K-6 science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24 (2–3), 192–215.

Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2014). Design principles for support in developing students’ transformative inquiry skills in Web-based learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 22 (3), 309–325.

Quigley, D., Ostwald, J. L., & Sumner, T. (2017, March). Scientific modeling: using learning analytics to examine student practices and classroom variation. In LAK (pp. 329–338).

Rosyid, H. A., Palmerlee, M., & Chen, K. (2016). Deploying learning materials to game content for serious education game development: A case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.01611 .

Schuchardt, A. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). Modeling scientific processes with mathematics equations enhances student qualitative conceptual understanding and quantitative problem solving. Science Education, 100 (2), 290–320.

Sengupta, P., & Clark, D. (2016). Playing modeling games in the science classroom: The case for disciplinary integration. Educational Technology, 56 (3), 16–22.

Shen, J., Lei, J., Chang, H. Y., & Namdar, B. (2014). Technology-enhanced, modeling-based instruction (TMBI) in science education. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 529–540). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46 (5), 30.

Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2013). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education, 22 (1), 119–142.

Tan, J., & Biswas, G. (2007). Simulation-based game learning environments: building and sustaining a fish tank. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE international workshop on digital game and intelligent toy enhanced learning (pp. 73–80).

Tan, J. P. L., Caleon, I. S., Jonathan, C. R., & Koh, E. (2014). A dialogic framework for assessing collective creativity in computer-supported collaborative problem-solving tasks. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 9 (3), 411–437.

Taub, R., Armoni, M., Bagno, E., & Ben-Ari, M. M. (2015). The effect of computer science on physics learning in a computational science environment. Computers & Education, 87, 10–23.

Wu, S. Y., Chen, S. Y., & Hou, H. T. (2015). A study of users’ reactions to a mixed online discussion model: A lag sequential analysis approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31 (3), 180–192.

Yang, T. C., Chen, S. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). The influences of a two-tier test strategy on student learning: A lag sequential analysis approach. Computers & Education, 82, 366–377.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Cai-Ting Wen, Chia-Jung Chang, Ming-Hua Chang, Shih-Hsun Fan Chiang & Chen-Chung Liu

Department of Physics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

Fu-Kwun Hwang

Program of Learning Sciences, Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

Chin-Chung Tsai

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen-Chung Liu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wen, CT., Chang, CJ., Chang, MH. et al. The learning analytics of model-based learning facilitated by a problem-solving simulation game. Instr Sci 46 , 847–867 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9461-5

Download citation

Received : 02 August 2017

Accepted : 16 June 2018

Published : 29 June 2018

Issue Date : December 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9461-5

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

• Simulation games
• Lag sequential analysis
• Learning analytics
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

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

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

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

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

12k Accesses

9 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Nadia Rehman, Wenlan Zhang, … Samia Batool

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

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

A guide to critical thinking: implications for dental education

Deborah Martin

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Quick links

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Can the Effect of Problem Solvers’ Characteristics on Adolescents’ Cooperative Problem Solving Ability Be Improved by Group Sizes?

Chuanhua gu.

1 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China

2 Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, Wuhan 430079, China

Xiaoqing Ma

Qianqian li.

3 Department of Preschool Education, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, China

Associated Data

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Cooperative problem solving (CPS) is an essential ability in people’s daily life. When individuals with different problem-solvers’ characteristics (orientation and style) are assigned to different group sizes to solve social tasks, what are the differences in the performance of CPS ability? Based on this, through online experimental tasks, the present study examined the effect of problem-solving orientation and style on CPS ability in online social tasks. Meanwhile, it explored the role of group sizes as an environmental variable. The results showed that the more positive the problem-solving orientation, the better the performance of individual CPS ability. In addition, the more rational the problem-solving styles and the larger the group sizes, the higher the scores of participants’ CPS ability. This study provides a new theoretical perspective for the complex relationship between the characteristics of problem solvers and CPS ability, and also provides empirical support for the cultivation of the CPS ability of adolescents.

1. Introduction

Cooperation with others has been regarded as the core form of human activities [ 1 ], and cooperation is also one of the factors that promote social progress. The social division of labor makes people pay more and more attention to the cultivation of cooperative problem-solving (CPS) ability. The OECD (2017) [ 2 ] pointed out that CPS is an essential ability for people in education and work. It refers to the ability of an individual to effectively participate in the problem-solving process of two or more agents. In this process, individuals share the understanding and efforts needed to reach a solution to the problem, and at the same time, they combine their knowledge, skills, and efforts to achieve the solution reached.

In recent years, CPS ability has been widely studied in the field of education. It was found that students’ individual factors (including subject knowledge, personality, emotion, experience, motivation, and cognitive ability) will affect their cooperation and problem-solving process [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. However, these individual factors are mainly concentrated in the cognitive dimension, while the individual characteristics in the social dimension (orientation and style) have not been investigated yet. Previous studies have shown that problem situation, task characteristics, and groups composition can affect the type of cooperation and the process of problem solving [ 2 , 5 , 6 ]. At present, most CPS ability research uses “scientific tasks” as experimental tasks, while there is little research that uses “social tasks” in social fields. “Social tasks” is regarded as the basic task of solving social problems, which covers a wide area and has strong applicability, so the social tasks research should be increased.

General cognitive tasks (i.e., balance problems, memory tasks, conservation tasks, and mathematical problems) are usually used in problem-solving research. The relevant research focuses more on the individual, but research on the individual’s CPS ability in the groups is rarely involved. Group social creativity refers to the ability of group members to cooperate with each other in a specific way and jointly propose or solve social problems in personal life, interpersonal relationships, and social environments. It often shows unique, novel, appropriate, and effective problem-solving strategies. Compared with the independent thinking of individuals, the nature of CPS creativity can be shown in the study of groups accomplishing tasks together.

This study uses the method of an online cooperative problem-solving experiment to investigate the effect of an individual’s problem-solving orientation/style on their CPS ability, and effectively intervene in their CPS ability to find the best conditions to promote their CPS performance, to provide theoretical support for the cultivation of this ability.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. collaborative problem solving.

People pay more and more attention to the cultivation and promotion of CPS ability [ 7 ]. Cooperation is considered to be a kind of coordinated and synchronous activity to continuously establish and maintain a common idea about a certain problem [ 8 ]. Problem solving refers to the process in which an individual tries to find a way to achieve the goal based on the present situation in a problem situation where the solution is unclear [ 9 ]. With the improvement of the refined level of social division of labor, cooperation between two or more people has become the basic mode to solve problems in various fields, and cooperation and problem solving have gradually been integrated into CPS [ 10 ].

Compared with individual problem solving, the advantages of CPS are obvious: (1) CPS has a more effective division of labor, which makes the problem solved faster and better; (2) solutions to problems can include knowledge, opinions, and experience from various sources; (3) the ideas of other group members can improve the quality of individual solutions [ 11 ]. CPS includes two key dimensions: cognitive dimension and social dimension [ 9 , 12 ]. In the cognitive dimension, group members need to work together, exchange information, form a common understanding of problems, and discuss the most appropriate strategies to solve problems. Then, they should supervise and modify the strategies to solve problems until the group’s goals are achieved. In the social dimension, the main process is group communication, which can promote or hinder the progress of cooperation in the cognitive dimension.

Combined with previous studies, it is found that most of the empirical studies on the effect factors of adolescents’ CPS ability focus on students’ individual factors: gender and cooperative attitude; family factors: family socioeconomic status; school factors: teacher–student relationship and the teacher’s method of teaching [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. The effect of individual differences on students’ CPS ability is also very different.

2.2. Social Problem Solving

Social problem solving is defined as a self-oriented cognitive-behavioral process in which individuals try to identify special problems encountered in daily life and find effective solutions [ 18 ]. The structure of social problem-solving skills is multidimensional and multifaceted. D’Zurilla and Goldfried put forward the theoretical model of social problem solving, which was developed and modified by D’Zurilla and Nezu [ 19 ]. The theoretical model of social problem solving divides social problem solving into two relatively independent parts: (1) problem-solving orientation; (2) problem-solving styles. Problem-solving orientation includes two dimensions: positive problem-solving orientation and negative problem-solving orientation, while problem-solving styles consist of three dimensions: rational problem-solving styles, impulse/neglect problem-solving styles, and escape problem-solving styles.

Generally, the research on solving social problems can be divided into two categories: the first is theoretical model research [ 20 , 21 ]; the second is applied research [ 22 , 23 ]. The first type of research is represented by the research of D’Zurilla who put forward a five-factor model for solving social problems. In the second type of research, the researchers explored the effectiveness of social problem-solving ability and studied its relationship with specific behaviors and health. On this basis, the related factors of social problem-solving ability were investigated, followed by a series of intervention studies [ 24 , 25 ].

2.3. Group Sizes

Cooperation is everywhere, and most students’ learning activities in school need to be carried out through interaction with peers. When students solve a problem together, they need to adjust the differences in problem understanding among the members of the group by establishing a common understanding, and they should negotiate the behaviors of the members of the group. Then, they form a solution to the problem and reach a consensus to finally achieve the group goals [ 26 ]. Cooperation is the core of this process.

Previous studies have found that researchers mostly measure the scale of cooperative groups in the form of two-person groups or three-person groups, for example, the measurement of cooperative problem solving in PISA2015 [ 2 ]. Moreover, these studies pay more attention to the “problem solving” of cooperative problem-solving ability, but as one of the core dimensions of cooperative problem solving, “the size of the cooperative group” seems to have not been systematically explored by researchers.

3. Current Study

According to the analysis of the existing research, it was found that the individual will be different from person to person when solving social problems, which is mainly manifested in the differences in the characteristics of two problem solvers: problem orientation and problem style. Based on previous studies, this study explores the influence of different orientations/styles on teenagers’ CPS ability by two behavioral experiments, and finds ways to promote individuals’ CPS ability.

4. Experiment 1

4.1. hypotheses.

Previous studies have indicated that the performance of individual CPS ability is mainly focused on individual factors, family economic status, and the relationship between teachers and students [ 13 , 14 , 27 ]. Experiment 1 was intended to investigate the effect of problem-solving orientation (positive and negative) and the number of group sizes (small and large) on CPS ability. We proposed the following hypotheses:

Problem-solving orientation affects participants’ CPS ability in social tasks, and participants with a positive problem-solving orientation have a higher CPS ability than those with a negative problem-solving orientation .

Group sizes affect participants’ CPS ability in social tasks, and the CPS of individuals in tasks is significantly improved if they are provided with bigger groups .

There is a significant interaction effect between participants’ problem-solving orientation, size of the groups, and CPS ability; individuals show a higher level of CPS ability if they have a positive problem-solving orientation and are presented with large group sizes .

4.2. Method

4.2.1. participants and design.

A total of 238 copies of Social Problem-Solving Inventory were randomly distributed online to students at a high school in Shandong Province in China; 224 valid questionnaires were collected. All participants were aged 15 years old (100 female; 123 male). Social Problem-Solving Inventory scores were standardized using the method proposed by Wang and Gu (2009) [ 15 ]. Thirty-six participants (22 female; 14 male) whose scores on positive problem-solving orientation and negative problem-solving orientation were higher than one standard deviation, were selected as the participants of experiment 1.

All participants had normal or corrected vision, had never participated in similar experiments before, and participated voluntarily. Participants were familiar with the use of Tencent QQ (PC version) and could type no less than 25 words per minute. Informed consent was obtained from participants and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university.

4.2.2. Apparatus and Stimuli

Measures of social problem-solving : The problem-solving orientation of participants was measured using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory compiled by Wang and Gu (2009) [ 15 ]. The revised scale, from the original 52 questions that were reduced to 32 questions, adopted a five-point Likert scoring method, with “1” being representative of not being in complete conformity, and “5” being representative of character completely. Problem-solving orientation has two dimensions: positive tendency of four topics (i.e., When I have a problem, I believe it can be resolved); negative problem-solving orientation tends to be a total of five topics (i.e., when there is an important problem need to solve, I feel scared).

The social tasks : The social task in this study used a question compiled by PISA 2015. The question was: There are a group of foreign students who want to visit the area where the students take part in the test. The students who take part in the test need to make a visit plan with other students, negotiate the tour guide plan together, determine which students are the guides for which foreign students, and deal with emergencies during the visit. Because the testing system used in PISA 2015 is not open, this study adjusted the sample questions of PISA 2015, so the tasks and requirements of the questions remained unchanged while the tasks were adjusted in the context of Chinese culture.

Instruments : Tencent QQ and a timer. Tencent QQ is an internet-based instant messaging (IM) software developed by Tencent in 1999 based on ICQ, which allows communication in single and multiparticipant modes.

4.2.3. Procedure

Bringing the screened participants into the laboratory individually, according to the pre-divided two-person group or three-person group, the participants were invited to sit and wait quietly, and the main test introduced the experimental process before the experiment formally started.

The experiment was conducted in a quiet and network-stable laboratory. After arriving at the laboratory, the participants were asked to carefully read the online experiment rules of CPS; then, the subjects were asked to use the Tencent QQ to complete the experiment, and they could not open any other program interface unrelated to the experiment during the experiment.

Participants completed a consent form with their basic information. The researcher created a discussion group in Tencent QQ, and the researcher and participants were added. There were three members, one researcher and two participants in the discussion group, who participated in the two-person groups; there were four members, one researcher and three participants in the discussion group, who participated in the three-person group. The researcher introduced the procedure, rules, and specific instructions of the experiment to participants, informing them that they would complete the experiment with the other (two or three) participants.

The researcher sent the task materials of the experiment to the discussion group. The participants in both two-person groups as well as three-person groups had 20 min to complete the CPS task. After the experiment, the researcher saved the data produced by each individual, removing it from the chat history before the next group started to keep the data sorted into relevant groups.

4.2.4. Measurement

The social task of this study was formulated with reference to the sample questions of PISA 2015, and the evaluation of task results should also refer to the sample questions evaluation method of PISA 2015. PISA 2015 takes three core competencies of CPS and four problem-solving tasks at a personal level as the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the matrix, respectively, which constitutes 12 CPS-specific skills. According to the matrix of 12 CPS-specific skills, PISA divided the three dimensions of CPS ability (that is, to establish and maintain consensus; take appropriate actions to solve problems; establish and maintain group organization form) into three levels: low, medium, and high. Grading was performed using scores, where a low grade was one point, a medium grade was two points, and a high grade was three points. The three core competencies of CPS were obtained by adding the specific skill scores of the corresponding columns in the matrix.

The social tasks consisted of three specific tasks, including: (1) determine where foreign students are going to play, (2) determine who is the guide for foreign students, and (3) how to deal with emergencies. The three specific tasks were graded according to the grading standard of CPS core ability.

Both raters were asked to rate a common set of 25% of the ideas to establish reliability. The reliability was satisfactory (the ICC value for the CPS was 0.877). Then, one rater was asked to rate the remaining ideas for novelty [ 28 ].

4.3. Results

4.3.1. descriptive statistics.

Experimental data were sorted and coded in Microsoft Excel. IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 was used for data analysis including descriptive statistics, t-test, and ANOVA. In Experiment 1, the dependent variable index was the CPS ability of the participants. The results are shown in Table 1 .

CPS scores under different problem-solving orientations and group sizes (M ± SD).

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

As can be seen from Table 1 , regardless of whether the two-person group or the three-person group was considered, the CPS ability of individuals with a positive problem-solving orientation was clearly higher than that of individuals with a negative problem-solving orientation. For individuals with a positive problem-solving orientation, the performance of individuals in a three-person group was higher than that of individuals in a two-person group, while individuals with a negative problem-solving orientation were just the opposite, that is, the performance of individuals in a two-person group was higher than that of individuals in a three-person group.

4.3.2. Interaction Analysis

A one-way ANOVA of participants’ gender with problem-solving orientation and CPS found that when the gender of participants was taken as an independent variable, there were some significant differences in various dimensions of problem-solving orientation ( t (1, 34) = −2.319, p = 0.015 < 0.05).

To control for the effect of gender on the results, a 2 (problem-solving orientation: positive and negative) × 2 (sizes of groups: small and large) between-group analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted, with problem-solving orientation and group sizes as independent variables, CPS ability as the dependent variable, and gender as a covariate. The results of ANCOVA are presented in Table 2 .

Variance analysis of CPS scores under different problem-solving orientations and team sizes.

Note. * p < 0.05.

Table 2 showed that after controlling for the gender of the participants, the main effect of problem-solving orientation on CPS ability was significant: F (1, 31) = 10.878, p = 0.002 < 0.05, η 2 p = 0.260. This suggests that problem-solving orientation can significantly affect the individual’s CPS ability. However, the main effect of group sizes on CPS ability was not significant: F (1, 31) = 0.021, p = 0.087 > 0.05. This suggests that group size does not affect the individual’s ability of CPS. The interaction effect between problem-solving orientation and group sizes was not significant on effectiveness: F (1, 31) = 0.890, p = 0.353 > 0.05. This suggests that problem-solving orientation had a direct effect on effectiveness and was moderated by group sizes.

Further analysis showed that the score of the CPS core ability of individuals with a positive problem-solving orientation was much higher than that of individuals with a negative problem-solving orientation. For individuals with a positive orientation, the three-person group produced better CPS scores than those in the two-person group, but the results of this phenomenon were inconsistent for individuals with a negative problem-solving orientation. Therefore, in Experiment 1, the problem-solving orientation had a significant impact on the CPS ability scores of the participants, but there was no significant difference in group sizes.

4.4. Discussion

Experiment 1 investigated the CPS ability of participants under experimental conditions with different group sizes and different problem-solving orientations by controlling the size of groups presented in the experiment. We found that problem-solving orientation had a significant effect on CPS ability. The scores of individuals with a positive orientation were much higher than those with a negative orientation. However, in experiment 1, there was no significant effect of different group sizes on the ability of individual CPS.

Problem-solving orientation can promote the individual’s CPS ability, which accords with some expectations of Experiment 1 and supports existing research. The more positive the individual, the higher the score of their own CPS ability and the better the individual performance in the groups. This may be because individuals with a positive orientation believe more in their ability to solve problems in cooperation with others, so they are willing to put more effort into group work. However, individuals with a negative orientation do not think they have the ability to solve problems, so their mentality and cooperative attitude are negative, and they do not make a great effort in group cooperation. Wigfield and Eccles’ research in 2000 can confirm this view. They put forth the idea that the degree of individual effort depends on whether individuals think they have the ability to succeed [ 29 ]. The research of Dweck (2006) [ 30 ] also verifies that having a good growth mentality (affirmation of one’s own ability) has positive effects on efforts, persistence, and achievements.

However, experiment 1 did not find a significant effect of group size on the ability of an individual’s CPS. However, it can provide a reference for future research and design. This result can mainly be explained from two aspects. First, this study divided the group sizes into two-person groups and three-person groups with reference to several studies, such as the measurement of CPS in PISA 2015 and the measurement of He (2019) [ 31 ]. These studies both measured the individual’s CPS ability in a systematic way, which is different from the online experimental form of this study. This shows that if online experiments are used to measure the individual’s CPS ability, it is necessary to consider the size of the groups. Second, in this study, the online experiment of CPS was conducted online, and there was no real contact between the participants. It is precisely because there was no real contact that the participants could only find the support of group partners from their “cold words,” which, to a certain extent, limits the performance of the participants [ 32 ].

5. Experiment 2

Experiment 1 found that the interaction between problem-solving tendency and group size was not significant. This suggests that only manipulating the problem-solving orientation cannot affect the CPS ability of individuals in different groups and that it is necessary to consider the effect of other individual factors. Therefore, experiment 2 will explore the effect of problem-solving style and group size on CPS ability by manipulating another dimension of problem solving (problem-solving style) and controlling the scale of individual participation in team size.

5.1. Hypotheses

Experiment 2 was intended to investigate the effect of problem-solving styles (rational and impulsive/neglect and evasion) and the number of group sizes (small and large) on CPS ability. If individuals can look at problems from a more rational perspective when facing tasks, they are more willing to take actions in tasks. However, if the individual’s cognition becomes unreasonable, the individual’s emotion will become negative and their behavior will deviate. We proposed the following hypotheses:

Problem-solving styles affect participants’ CPS ability in social tasks, and participants with more rational problem-solving styles have a higher CPS ability than those with irrational (impulsive/neglect and evasion) problem-solving styles .

Group sizes affect participants’ CPS ability in social tasks, and the CPS of individuals is significantly improved if they are provided with bigger group in tasks .

There is a significant interaction effect between participants’ problem-solving styles, the number of group sizes, and CPS ability; individuals show a higher level of CPS ability if they have a rational problem-solving orientation and are presented with large group sizes .

5.2. Method

5.2.1. participants and design.

A total of 238 copies of Social Problem-Solving Inventory were randomly distributed online to students at a high school in Shandong Province in China; 224 valid questionnaires were collected. All participants were aged 15 years old (100 female; 123 male). Social Problem-Solving Inventory scores were standardized using the method proposed by Wang and Gu (2009) [ 15 ]. Fifty-seven participants (29 female; 28 male) whose scores on the rational problem-solving styles and impulsive/neglect problem-solving styles and evasion problem-solving styles were higher than one standard deviation, were selected as participants for experiment 2.

5.2.2. Apparatus and Stimuli

Measures of social problem solving: The problem-solving orientation of participants was measured using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory compiled by Wang and Gu (2009) [ 15 ]. The revised scale, from the original 52 questions that were reduced to 32 questions, adopted a five-point Likert scoring method, with “1” being representative of not being in complete conformity, and “5” being representative of character completely. The rational problem-solving style included 13 topics (i.e., when trying to solve problems, I often come up with a variety of methods and synthesize some of them to form better methods). There were six topics in the escaping from problem-solving style (i.e., when I encounter a problem in my life, I will delay solving it as much as possible) and the impulsive/negligent problem solving style consisted of four topics (i.e., when I need to make a decision, I will not consider the impact of each choice on others).

The social tasks: The same as in experiment 1.

Instruments : The same as in experiment 1.

5.2.3. Procedure

Experiment 2 followed the same procedure as Experiment 1.

5.2.4. Measurement

The measurement standard of CPS ability in experiment 2 was the same as that in experiment 1.

5.3. Results

5.3.1. descriptive statistics.

Experimental data were sorted and coded in Microsoft Excel. IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 was used for data analysis including descriptive statistics, t-test, and ANOVA. In Experiment 2, the dependent variable index was the CPS ability of the participants. The results are shown in Table 3 .

CPS scores under different problem-solving styles and group sizes (M ± SD).

As can be seen from Table 3 , whether it was a two-person group or a three-person group, the CPS ability scores of individuals with a rational problem-solving style were significantly higher than those with an impulsive/negligent problem-solving style and an evasive problem-solving style. Compared with those who evade the problem-solving style, individuals with an impulsive/negligent problem-solving style had higher CPS ability scores. For individuals with a rational problem-solving style and an evasive problem-solving style, the performance of individuals in the group-scale cooperative of two-person groups was higher than that of individuals in three-person groups. However, the impulsive/negligent problem-solving style was just the opposite; the performance of the individual in the group-scale cooperative of the three-person group was higher than that of the two-person group.

5.3.2. Interaction Analysis

A one-way ANOVA of participants’ gender with problem-solving styles and CPS found that when the gender of participants was taken as an independent variable, there were some significant differences in various dimensions of CPS scores ( F (1, 55) = 5.835, p = 0.019 < 0.05).

To control for the effect of gender on the results, a 3 (problem-solving styles: rational and impulsive/neglect and evasion) × 2 (sizes of groups: small and large) between-groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted, with problem-solving styles and group sizes as independent variables, CPS ability as the dependent variable, and gender as a covariate. The results of ANCOVA are presented in Table 4 .

Variance analysis of CPS scores under different problem-solving styles and team sizes.

Note. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

Table 4 shows that after controlling for the gender of the participants, the main effect of problem-solving styles on CPS ability was significant: F (1, 50) = 32.214, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.563. It suggests that problem-solving styles can significantly affect the individual’s CPS ability.

Based on Table 4 , the main effect of group sizes on CPS ability was significant: F (1, 50) = 4.634, p = 0.036 < 0.05, η 2 p = 0.085. This suggests that group size can also significantly affect the individual’s ability of CPS.

The interaction effect between problem-solving orientation and group sizes was not significant on effectiveness: F (1, 50) = 0.890, p = 0.094 > 0.05. This suggests that problem-solving style was not moderated by group size, and group size was not moderated by problem-solving style.

In sum, in Experiment 2, both problem-solving style and group size had an impact on the individual’s CPS ability, but one was not regulated by the other. In other words, problem-solving style was not regulated by group size, and group size was not regulated by problem-solving style.

Further analysis showed that the scores of rational-style individuals in CPS ability were much higher than those with an impulsive/negligent style and an evasive style. For individuals with a rational style and an evasive style, the three-person groups could produce better CPS scores than the two-person groups could, but this phenomenon was inconsistent in impulsive/negligent-style individuals. Therefore, in experiment 2, the problem-solving styles had a significant impact on the CPS ability scores of the subjects, and the group size could also significantly affect the CPS ability scores of individuals, but there was no moderating effect between them.

5.4. Discussion

Experiment 2 investigated the CPS ability of participants under experimental conditions with different group sizes and different problem-solving styles by controlling the size of groups presented in the experiment. We found that problem-solving styles had a significant effect on CPS ability. The scores of individuals with more rational problem-solving styles were much higher than those with irrational problem-solving styles. However, in experiment 2, there was no significant interactive effect of problem-solving styles and group sizes on CPS ability.

Based on experiment 2, we found that problem-solving style had a significant effect on the individual’s CPS ability, which is in line with some expectations of experiment 2 and is also a confirmation supplement to previous research results. Compared with the escapist problem-solving teenagers and impulsive/negligent problem-solving teenagers, the CPS ability of rational problem-solving teenagers was higher. Cognitive behavioral theory can help explain the results of this study. A series of emotional and behavioral problems caused by people are not caused by events themselves, but by people’s interpretation and evaluation of events. That is to say, excluding things themselves, if individuals can look at problems from a more rational perspective when facing tasks, they are more willing to take actions in tasks and try their best to solve problems in tasks. However, if the individual’s cognition becomes unreasonable (for example, the cognition of evasion and negligence appears), the individual’s emotion will become negative and their behavior will deviate, and they will be unwilling to cooperate with other members to solve problems in cooperative tasks.

Consistent with previous research results, experiment 2 found that group size significantly affected the performance of an individual’s CPS ability. As Dennis and Valacich reported in their research in 1993, large groups have more positive effects on individuals than small groups [ 33 ]. The advantage of a group is that the ideas shared by different members can be used as the knowledge reserve put forward by individuals for their ideas [ 34 ]. In addition, the ideas of group members can stimulate individuals to produce ideas that were not previously available in related fields [ 35 ]. This means that in large groups, individuals are more likely to have access to other people’s ideas, strengthen their ability to cooperate and solve problems, and enjoy the process of cooperation more fully, thus promoting their personal performance in the group. Furthermore, the research of Paulus and Yang (2000) [ 36 ] also showed that if individuals are motivated to pay attention to shared ideas or viewpoints, the effect of these existing ideas and answers on individuals will be enhanced. This study emphasizes the importance of cooperation and requires the participants and group members to complete the CPS task together. In this process, individuals should constantly communicate with others and think about other people’s ideas and viewpoints; it is this process that strengthens the positive effect of shared ideas on individual performance.

6. General Discussion

The present study explored the effect of problem-solvers’ characteristics and group sizes and their interaction effect on the CPS ability of individuals through two online experiments. The experiments were intended to answer two major questions: (1) How do problem-solvers’ characteristics affect participants’ CPS ability in a social task? (2) What is the role of group sizes in such a relationship?

In our results, problem-solvers’ characteristics (problem-solving orientation and problem-solving styles) were found to be conducive to the CPS ability of individuals. In addition, group size was found to have some effect on the CPS ability of individuals. However, an interaction effect between intrinsic motivation and the quantity and novelty of cues on CPS ability was not found.

This paper verified that better problem-solvers’ characteristics can promote individuals to perform better in CPS. In experiment 1, it was found that problem-solving orientation significantly promoted the CPS core ability of individuals, and the score of the CPS core ability of individuals with a positive problem-solving orientation was much higher than that of individuals with a negative problem-solving orientation. The explanation of “positive problem-solving orientation” and “negative problem-solving orientation” by D’Zurilla and Nezu (2010) [ 37 ] can help us confirm this. Individuals with a positive problem-solving orientation believe that they can solve problems even if they feel those problems are difficult. They believe that group members can solve tasks together, and they have a stronger sense of self-efficacy and positive behavior cognition. When they encounter problems, their emotions are optimistic and clear, instead of being passive and choosing to avoid problems. On the contrary, individuals with a negative orientation are more “complaining” in their attitude when they encounter things. Most of the time, they think they cannot solve problems. Even if the group cooperates, everyone cannot solve problems through cooperation. Individuals with a negative problem-solving orientation are more likely to have negative emotions and cognitive behavioral deviations.

In experiment 2, the problem-solving style significantly promoted the ability of an individual’s CPS. Individuals with a rational problem-solving style scored much higher in the ability of CPS than those with an impulsive/negligent problem-solving style or an evasive problem-solving style. D’Zurilla and Nezu (2010) [ 37 ] pointed out in their theoretical interpretation of “rational problem-solving style” that individuals with a rational style are more willing to adopt a comprehensive and systematic way to solve problems, which can encourage individuals to think deliberately, only immerse themselves in problems and discussions with group members, and aspire to obtain correct solutions through effort. The research of McGuire (2005) [ 38 ] also confirmed this view. When D’Zurilla and Nezu (2010) [ 37 ] mentioned the “impulsive/negligent problem-solving style,” they explained that most of these individuals would not seriously consider problems when they encountered them, and usually only chose the first scheme and did not consider whether the scheme was really feasible, which was prone to “perfunctory things.” Those individuals who like to avoid problems are the opposite of rational individuals; when they encounter problems, their first reaction is to escape. They do not want to solve the problem, and they even turn a blind eye and pretend that they do not have a task [ 37 ].

Although the effect of group size on individual CPS ability was not found in experiment 1, the main effect of group size on individual CPS ability was significant in experiment 2. When an individual is in a multi-crew group, their CPS ability is better. This is because the number of ideas members have increase in larger group sizes, and the ideas of other members can stimulate the remote nodes in the original semantic network of individuals [ 39 ]. According to the activation diffusion model, when an individual node is activated, other closely connected nodes will be activated accordingly [ 40 ]. In short, the more ideas the group members have, the more active the individual nodes will be, and the better their performance will be.

In summary, this study conducted two online experiments on CPS. The results show that better problem-solvers’ characteristics can result in individuals’ better CPS performance, and group size can also affect individuals’ CPS ability.

The above conclusions are of great practical significance to the improvement of middle school students’ CPS ability, especially the change in CPS attitude and thinking mode. In the future, educators can set different forms of cooperation for individuals with different problem-solvers’ characteristics and improve their CPS ability through training and practice.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

This research has a few limitations. First, the CPS task was conducted online, and the performance of CPS ability may be reduced due to “evaluation concerns.” In addition, the participants could only complete the experimental tasks through online cooperation instead of communication in real situations, which may lead to the phenomenon of “words fail to reach the meaning.” Compared with laboratory experiments, this experiment is closer to the real CPS task and has higher ecological validity, but future research needs to further balance the effect of ecological validity and interference factors on the experiment by perfecting experimental rules.

Second, this study divided the group sizes into two-person groups and three-person groups. Although it refers to the paradigm provided in previous research, no significant effect of group size on cooperative problem-solving ability was found in the first study, indicating that there may be other criteria for the division of group sizes. Group size has been a regular focus of research. In the research of the creative field, most researchers divide groups into three-person groups and nine-person groups. Previous studies found that the larger the number of participants in the group, the more creative ideas the participants produced [ 35 , 41 , 42 ]. Similarly, the number of members can affect the performance of an individual’s CPS, and group size and group type can be the focus of future research.

Third, this study refers to the age choice of participants in PISA, so only 15-year-old teenagers were selected as the research object. Due to the limitation of sampling, this study only conducted experiments from senior students in a certain area, so it may not be extended to other grades or sections. Future research can explore the effect of social problem solving and team size on adolescents’ cooperative problem-solving ability from multiple sections.

Finally, this study comprehensively provided an understanding of the effect of problem-solvers’ characteristics and group size on CPS ability. However, because of the relative independence of each index, we ultimately received the overall evaluation of CPS ability rather than a complete understanding of the cooperative process and the problem-solving process. Future research can consider a variety of task types or set different task difficulties in similar tasks. “Cooperation” and “problem solving” are two dimensions of CPS, and the thinking process of participants in these two processes and the generation of “cooperation” and “problem solving” can also be the focus of future research.

8. Conclusions

This study found that different groups have a different effect on CPS ability. Although this study only found the role of group size in the effect of problem-solving style and group size on teenagers’ CPS ability, it is probable that the larger the group size is for an individual, the better their performance of CPS will be. This study also enriches the research results of group size in the field of CPS. It provides a research direction on how to promote the improvement of an individual’s CPS ability, and underlines the necessity to cultivate an individual’s problem-solving characteristics. Educators can set different types of cooperation forms for individuals with different characteristics of problem solvers, and improve their CPS ability through training and practice.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by “Effects of Individual and Situational Characteristics on Creativity in Online Interaction” of National Education Science Planning Grant of China (grant number: BBA180080).

Author Contributions

Investigation, Q.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.G.; writing—review and editing, X.M.; project administration, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Qingdao University (protocol code QDU-IRB-202103-009 of approval).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

How Managers Can Improve Team Problem-Solving

Teaching good problem-solving means learning from previous solutions..

Posted March 28, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• What Is a Career
• Find a career counsellor near me
• We can access vast information online, but critical thinking skills are still essential.
• The key to improving team problem-solving is providing reliable resources you trust.
• Build a library of problem-solving resources, including creating step-by-step instructions and checklists.

By now, it is a hackneyed truth about today’s world that we all have endless amounts of information at our fingertips, available instantly, all the time. We have multiple competing answers to any question on any subject—more answers than an entire team, let alone an individual, could possibly master in a lifetime. The not quite as obvious punchline is this: There has been a radical change in how much information a person needs to keep inside their head versus accessible through their fingertips.

Nobody should be so short-sighted or so old-fashioned as to write off the power of being able to fill knowledge gaps on demand. Yet this phenomenon is often attributed to a growing critical thinking skills gap experienced in many organizations today.

Many people today are simply not in the habit of really thinking on their feet. Without a lot of experience puzzling through problems, it should be no surprise that so many people are often puzzled when they encounter unanticipated problems.

Here’s the thing: Nine out of ten times, you don’t need to make important decisions on the basis of your own judgment at the moment. You are much better off if you can rely on the accumulated experience of the organization in which you are working, much like we rely on the accumulated information available online.

The key is ensuring that your direct reports are pulling from sources of information and experience they and the organization can trust.

The first step to teaching anybody the basics of problem-solving is to anticipate the most common recurring problems and prepare with ready-made solutions. It may seem counterintuitive, but problem-solving skills aren’t built by reinventing the wheel: From learning and implementing ready-made solutions, employees will learn a lot about the anatomy of a good solution. This will put them in a much better position to improvise when they encounter a truly unanticipated problem.

The trick is to capture best practices, turn them into standard operating procedures, and deploy them to your team for use as job aids. This can be as simple as an “if, then” checklist:

• If A happens, then do B.
• If C happens, then do D.
• If E happens, then do F.

Here are seven tips to help you build a library of problem-solving resources for your team:

1. Break things down and write them out. Start with what you know. Break down the task or project into a list of step-by-step instructions, incorporating any resources or job aids you currently use. Then, take each step further by breaking it down into a series of concrete actions. Get as granular as you possibly can—maybe even go overboard a little. It will always be easier to remove unnecessary steps from your checklist than to add in necessary steps later.

2. Follow your instructions as if you were a newbie. Once you have a detailed, step-by-step outline, try using it as though you were totally new to the task or project. Follow the instructions exactly as you have written them: Avoid subconsciously filling in any gaps with your own expertise. Don't assume that anything goes without saying, especially if the task or project is especially technical or complex. As you follow your instructions, make corrections and additions as you go. Don't make the mistake of assuming you will remember to make necessary corrections or additions later.

3. Make final edits. Follow your updated and improved instructions one final time. Make any further corrections or additions as necessary. Include as many details as possible for and between each step.

4. Turn it into a checklist. Now, it's time to translate your instructions into a checklist format. Checklists are primarily tools of mindfulness : They slow us down and focus us on the present actions under our control. Consider whether the checklist will be more helpful if it is phrased in past or present tense. Who will be using the checklist? What information do they need to know? How much of the checklist can be understood at a glance?

5. Get outside input. Ask someone to try and use your checklist to see if it works for them. Get their feedback about what was clear, what was unclear, and why it was clear or unclear. Ask about any questions they had that weren't answered by the checklist. Solicit other suggestions, thoughts, or improvements you may not have considered. Incorporate their input and then repeat the process with another tester.

6. Use your checklist. Don't simply create your checklist for others and then abandon it. Use it in your own work going forward, and treat it as a living document. Make clarifying notes, additions, and improvements as the work naturally changes over time. Remember, checklists are tools of mindfulness. Use them to tune in to the work you already do and identify opportunities for growth and improvement.

7. Establish a system for saving drafts, templates, and examples of work that can be shared with others . Of course, checklists are just one type of shareable job aid. Sharing examples of your previous work or another team member is another useful way to help someone jumpstart a new task or project. This can be anything from final products to drafts, sketches, templates, or even videos.

Bruce Tulgan, JD, is the founder and CEO of RainmakerThinking and the author of The Art of Being Indispensable at Work.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Support Group
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience