logo

  • Counseling & Therapy Services
  • Residential Center for Healing & Resilience
  • Birth Parents
  • Adoptive Parents
  • Suicide Prevention
  • YOUTHWORKS!
  • Planned Giving
  • Appreciated Assets
  • Events & Galas
  • Careers & Volunteering
  • Leading Edge for Youth
  • For Employees

collaborative problem solving manual

Collaborative Problem Solving for Parents: A Step-by-Step Guide to Addressing Family Issues

Idaho Youth Ranch

Idaho Youth Ranch

Subscribe to our blog

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is an evidence-based approach that focuses on understanding and addressing the root causes of challenging behavior in children and adolescents. Developed by Dr. Ross Greene, CPS aims to foster empathy, communication, and collaboration between parents and their children to find effective and lasting solutions for family issues This resource guide provides an overview of the CPS model, outlines the key principles and steps involved, and offers practical tips and strategies for parents. Additionally, it includes three real-life family situations to demonstrate how to apply CPS in various contexts.  

Understanding the Collaborative Problem Solving Model 

1. The CPS Philosophy

CPS is grounded in the belief that children do well if they can. The approach posits that challenging behavior is not due to a lack of motivation, attention-seeking, or manipulation but rather a result of lagging skills and unsolved problems. By understanding and addressing these underlying factors, parents can develop more effective, compassionate, and sustainable solutions.  

2. Key Principles of CPS

Empathy: The foundation of the CPS model is empathic understanding, which involves recognizing and validating the feelings and perspectives of all family members.  

Collaboration: CPS emphasizes the importance of working together, rather than relying on unilateral decision-making or power-based approaches.  

Skill-building: The CPS approach focuses on identifying and addressing lagging skills, such as emotion regulation, problem-solving, and communication, to promote lasting change.  

Implementing the Collaborative Problem Solving Process 

1. Identifying Lagging Skills

The first step in the CPS process is to identify the specific skills that your child may be struggling with. This can be done through a combination of observation, communication, and reflection. Some common lagging skills include:  

Emotional regulation  

Flexibility  

Impulse control  

Problem-solving  

Communication

Once lagging skills have been identified, the next step is to determine the specific situations or problems that are causing difficulties for your child and family. Unsolved problems are often characterized by predictability and can be uncovered through discussions with your child.  

The Three Steps of Collaborative Problem Solving

The CPS process involves three primary steps, which can be adapted and tailored to the unique needs and circumstances of each family.  

Step 1: Empathy

Begin by gathering information and understanding your child’s perspective on the problem. This step involves active listening, validating emotions, and demonstrating genuine curiosity.  

Step 2: Define Adult Concerns 

Clearly articulate your concerns and needs regarding the situation. This step promotes mutual understanding and acknowledges the importance of addressing both your child’s and your concerns.  

Step 3: Invitation to Collaborate 

Invite your child to brainstorm possible solutions together. Encourage them to consider a range of ideas and evaluate each option based on its feasibility and effectiveness in addressing both your child’s and your concerns.  

Real-Life Examples of Collaborative Problem Solving 

Example 1: Homework Struggles 

Lagging Skills : time management, sustained attention, and frustration tolerance  

Unsolved Problem : difficulty completing homework independently and on time

Step 1: Empathy 

Ask your child about their perspective on the homework situation, and listen to their concerns and frustrations.  

Share your concerns about the importance of completing homework to support their learning and academic success.  

Brainstorm possible solutions together, such as creating a homework schedule, breaking tasks into smaller steps, and providing support as needed.  

Example 2: Sibling Conflicts 

Lagging Skills : emotion regulation, perspective-taking, and conflict resolution  

Unsolved Problem : frequent arguments and conflicts between siblings  

Talk to each child individually to understand their feelings and perspectives on the conflicts.  

Share your concerns about the impact of the conflicts on the family environment and the importance of fostering healthy sibling relationships.  

Involve both siblings in brainstorming possible solutions, such as setting ground rules for communication, establishing a conflict resolution process, and practicing empathy and active listening.  

Example 3: Bedtime Resistance 

Lagging Skills: transitions, self-soothing, and sleep hygiene 

Unsolved Problem : difficulty settling down and falling asleep at bedtime 

Ask your child about their feelings and thoughts related to bedtime, and listen to any fears or concerns they may have.  

Share your concerns about the importance of a consistent bedtime routine for their health, well-being, and overall development. 

Work together to develop a bedtime routine that addresses both your child’s and your concerns, such as establishing a calming pre-bedtime activity, creating a comfortable sleep environment, and gradually adjusting the bedtime schedule.  

Collaborative Problem Solving offers a compassionate and effective approach to addressing challenging behaviors and family issues. By understanding the underlying causes of these difficulties and engaging in a collaborative, empathic problem-solving process, parents can help their children develop lasting solutions and strengthen their relationships. By following the principles and steps outlined in this resource guide and adapting your approach to meet the unique needs of your family, you can support your children in achieving positive, sustainable change.  

Share this article

Leave a Comment

Read more blogs.

collaborative problem solving manual

Creating Holiday Memories that Build Resilience in Adolescents: A Guide for Parents from Idaho Youth Ranch

The holiday season is a special time for families to create lasting...

collaborative problem solving manual

Teen Suicide Prevention: Warning Signs to Watch Out For

If you’re worried your teen is suicidal, reach out to the following 24/7...

collaborative problem solving manual

Unlocking Resilience: How Understanding Your Brain Can Help You Navigate Your Child’s Mental Health Journey

Parenting is a journey filled with joys, challenges, and unexpected turns....

  • Technical Support
  • Find My Rep

You are here

Collaborative Problem Solving

Collaborative Problem Solving A Step-by-Step Guide for School Leaders

  • Lawrence A. Machi - University of La Verne, USA
  • Brenda T. McEvoy - Independent Writer/ Researcher
  • Description

Engage your school communities in collaboratively solving your biggest problems

Schools are complex places where problems come in all shapes and sizes, and where decisions impact students’ lives. Leading groups in solving these problems sometimes can be a daunting task. Collaborative Problem-Solving in Schools outlines a process to help veteran and new leaders alike to create thoughtful, organized, and collaborative solutions for the simple to the most difficult problems they face.

Rooted in theory, this comprehensive guide presents a seven-step process that addresses all types of problems. Each chapter outlines the tasks and procedures required to successfully navigate each step, while providing helpful analogies and illustrations, alongside common foibles and fumbles leaders should avoid. Additional features include:

  • An explanation of participatory problem-solving
  • Prerequisites for successful collaboration and rules for collaborative leaders
  • “Task Cue Cards” that offer facilitation lesson plans to approach each step in the process
  • A “Problem Solver’s Toolbox” that covers meeting designs, roles, communication strategies, and more
  • An annotated guide for further reading, providing a wealth of additional information and resources

Practical and relevant, this book is a user-friendly manual for school leaders seeking to employ a problem-solving process that works so that they and their teams can feel confident their efforts will result in a successful resolution.

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

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

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

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

Jump to content

Home

  • Publication Order Form
  • Reach and Impact
  • Anita Engiles Keys to Access
  • Disagreement
  • Procedural Safeguards
  • Legal Review
  • Cultural & Linguistic Competence Self-Assessment
  • Assess Your System
  • Plan for Improvement
  • CADRE's Exemplar Collection
  • Systemwide Oversight
  • Program Access and Delivery
  • Standards and Professional Development
  • Public Awareness and Outreach
  • Evaluation and CQI
  • Main Library
  • CADRE Symposia
  • Archived Symposia
  • Literature Articles
  • Trainers & Consultants
  • Guide to Facilitation Programs
  • Data Resources
  • Equity and Cultural & Linguistic Competence - Resources to Consider
  • Online Learning Series
  • SEA Dispute Resolution Coordination & Leadership
  • Lead Agency Dispute Resolution Coordination & Leadership
  • Virtual Meetings: Strategies, Tips and Resources
  • For Families

Search form

  • Recursos en Español

You are here

Collaborative problem solving and dispute resolution in special education: a training manual.

This manual is designed as an educational tool for understanding and resolving conflict. It offers state-of-the-art thinking in dispute resolution applied to special education situations. Written in an easy-to-understand, illustrated and jargon-free format, it is designed both for stand-alone reading and to be used as part of workshop groups. The manual is 135 pages and depending upon your internet speed may take a moment to load.

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Pat Evenson-Brady for her continuous support of this project, and Jim Melamed, J.D., whose gentle suggestions were pivotal in shaping this manual's final form.

This manual describes a methodology for resolving conflict in a collaborative manner, but does not refer to Dr. Ross Greene's Collaborative Problem Solving approach, as first described in his book The Explosive Child . For more information on Dr. Greene's Collaborative Problem Solving approach, visit the website of his non-profit organization, Lives in the Balance .

The CADRE Continuum

The CADRE Continuum offers a searchable database of dispute resolution practices in special education.

View the Continuum

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

9899 Accesses

7 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.

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.

figure 1

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.

figure 2

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.

figure 3

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

collaborative problem solving manual

Book cover

Collaborative Problem Solving pp 1–13 Cite as

What Is Collaborative Problem Solving and Why Use the Approach?

  • J. Stuart Ablon 5  
  • First Online: 07 June 2019

1452 Accesses

4 Citations

Part of the Current Clinical Psychiatry book series (CCPSY)

This chapter orients or reorients the reader to the fundamental philosophy and practice of Collaborative Problem Solving. It presents basic information about effectiveness of the approach across different settings and provides a rationale for this volume as a resource for individuals looking to implement CPS organization-wide.

  • Collaborative Problem Solving
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Fundamental philosophy

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

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Abel MH, Sewell J. Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. J Educ Res. 1999;92(5):287–93.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fixsen D, Naoom S, Blase K, Friedman R, Wallace F. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tamps: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network; 2005.

Google Scholar  

Greene RW. The explosive child: a new approach for understanding and parenting easily frustrated, chronically inflexible children. New York: Harper Collins; 1998.

Greene RW, Ablon JS. Treating explosive kids: the collaborative problem solving approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.

Greene RW, Ablon JS, Goring JC, Raezer-Blakely L, Markey J, Monuteaux MC, Rabbitt S. Effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in affectively dysregulated children with oppositional-defiant disorder: initial findings. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72(6):1157.

Greene RW, Ablon JS, Martin A. Use of collaborative problem solving to reduce seclusion and restraint in child and adolescent inpatient units. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(5):610–2.

Hone M, Tatartcheff-Quesnel N. System-wide implementation of collaborative problem solving: practical considerations for success. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Child, Adolescent & Young Adult Behavioral Health Research and Policy Conference, March, Tampa; 2017.

Loeber R, Burke JD, Lahey BB, Winters A, Zera M. Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: a review of the past 10 years, part I. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;39(12):1468–84.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Martin A, Krieg H, Esposito F, Stubbe D, Cardona L. Reduction of restraint and seclusion through collaborative problem solving: a five-year prospective inpatient study. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(12):1406–12.

Perry BD. The neurosequential model of therapeutics: applying principles of neuroscience to clinical work with traumatized and maltreated children. In: Working with traumatized youth in child welfare. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2006. p. 27–52.

Pollastri AR, Epstein LD, Heath GH, Ablon JS. The collaborative problem solving approach: outcomes across settings. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2013;21(4):188–99.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pollastri AR, Lieberman RE, Boldt SL, Ablon JS. Minimizing seclusion and restraint in youth residential and day treatment through site-wide implementation of collaborative problem solving. Resid Treat Child Youth. 2016;33(3–4):186–205.

Schaubman A, Stetson E, Plog A. Reducing teacher stress by implementing collaborative problem solving in a school setting. Sch Soc Work J. 2011;35(2):72–93.

Stetson EA, Plog AE. Collaborative problem solving in schools: results of a year-long consultation project. Sch Soc Work J. 2016;40(2):17–36.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Think:Kids Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

J. Stuart Ablon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Stuart Ablon .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Alisha R. Pollastri

Crossroads Children’s Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Michael J.G. Hone

Electronic Supplementary Material

Watch as Dr. J. Stuart Ablon, Director of Think:Kids, introduces the overarching philosophy behind Collaborative Problem Solving, which forms the foundation for the entire approach (MP4 509324 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Ablon, J.S. (2019). What Is Collaborative Problem Solving and Why Use the Approach?. In: Pollastri, A., Ablon, J., Hone, M. (eds) Collaborative Problem Solving. Current Clinical Psychiatry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12630-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12630-8_1

Published : 07 June 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-12629-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-12630-8

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

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

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

About this program.

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

For children/adolescents ages: 3 – 21

For parents/caregivers of children ages: 3 – 21

Program Overview

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

Program Goals

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

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

Logic Model

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

Essential Components

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

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

Program Delivery

Child/adolescent services.

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

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

Parent/Caregiver Services

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

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

Services Involve Family/Support Structures:

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

Recommended Intensity:

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

Recommended Duration:

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

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

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

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

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

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

Chinese, French, Spanish

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

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

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

Manuals and Training

Prerequisite/minimum provider qualifications.

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

Manual Information

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

Program Manual(s)

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

Training Information

There is training available for this program.

Training Contact:

Training Type/Location:

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

Number of days/hours:

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

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

Additional Resources:

There currently are additional qualified resources for training:

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

Implementation Information

Pre-implementation materials.

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

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

Formal Support for Implementation

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

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

Fidelity Measures

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

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

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

Implementation Guides or Manuals

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

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

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

Research on How to Implement the Program

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

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

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

Population:

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

Location/Institution: Massachusetts

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

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 4 months.

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

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

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

Location/Institution: Oregon

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

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: None.

Additional References

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

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

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

Contact Information

Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed by CEBC: July 2023

Date Program Content Last Reviewed by Program Staff: March 2020

Date Program Originally Loaded onto CEBC: May 2017

collaborative problem solving manual

Glossary | Sitemap | Limitations & Disclosures

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

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

collaborative problem solving manual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can help

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

Need to Download MindManager?

Try the full version of mindmanager free for 30 days.

share icon

Treating Explosive Kids

The collaborative problem-solving approach, ross w. greene and j. stuart ablon.

  • description T he first comprehensive presentation for clinicians of the groundbreaking approach popularized in Ross Greene's acclaimed parenting guide, The Explosive Child , this book provides a detailed framework for effective, individualized intervention with highly oppositional children and their families. Many vivid examples and Q&A sections show how to identify the specific cognitive factors that contribute to explosive and noncompliant behavior, remediate these factors, and teach children and their adult caregivers how to solve problems collaboratively. The book also describes challenges that may arise in implementing the model and provides clear and practical solutions. Two special chapters focus on intervention in schools and in therapeutic/restrictive facilities. -->
  • sample chapter
  • about the authors Ross W. Greene , PhD, is founder and director of Lives in the Balance and the originator of the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions approach, as described in his books The Explosive Child and Lost at School . He is also adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Virginia Tech. In addition to providing outpatient care, he consults to schools, inpatient units, and residential and juvenile detention facilities. Dr. Greene's research focuses on the classification and treatment of explosive children; long-term outcomes in socially impaired children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); and the impact of teacher characteristics on school outcome for elementary school students with ADHD. He has written extensively on behavioral assessment and social functioning; school- and home-based interventions for children with disruptive behavior disorders; and student-teacher compatibility. His research has been funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the U.S. Department of Education. Dr. Greene received his doctorate in clinical psychology from Virginia Tech after completing his predoctoral internship at Children's National Medical Center/George Washington University Medical Center in Washington, DC. J. Stuart Ablon , PhD, is the Director of Think:Kids in the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he specializes in the treatment of explosive children and adolescents and their families. He is also Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He consults extensively to schools, inpatient units, and residential and juvenile detention facilities. Dr Ablon's research focuses on the process and outcome of psychosocial interventions, particularly the treatment of explosive children. He has authored numerous articles, chapters, and scientific papers on behavioral assessment and psychosocial interventions for children with disruptive behavior disorders. Dr. Ablon's research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Psychological Association, the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Institute, and the Endowment for the Advancement of Psychotherapy. Dr. Ablon received his doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of California at Berkeley and completed his pre- and postdoctoral training at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. -->

enlarged cover

Save 15% + Free Shipping on Online Orders!

  • Offer does not apply to self-help & general interest titles.
  • Applies only to prepaid online orders from the US, Canada, and other non-distributed countries , using promotional code WINTER2024 .
  • Discount is applied to the suggested retail prices that we believe to be charged by retailers.
  • You can take advantage of other special offers by entering a different promotional code in the shopping cart.
  • You may return Guilford books (undamaged) within 30 days of receipt for a full refund.
  • Not applicable to journal renewals.
  • Offer expires February 29, 2024.

Free Shipping:

  • Offer available year-round!
  • Applies only to prepaid online orders from US customers.
  • Packages sent via USPS Media Mail. You may choose to pay for rush shipping instead.
  • Shipping charges to Canada are a flat $10.00 per order via CanPar.
  • TEA Website
  • Contact TEA
  • Sign Up For Updates

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions

  • Building Relationships, Managing Emotions, and Decision-Making Skills
  • Supplemental

What is the practice?  

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

Who is the practice for?  

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

What outcomes does the practice produce?  

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

What is the evidence?  

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

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

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

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

Greene, R. W., Ablon, J. S., Goring, J. C., Raezer-Blakely, L., Markey, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Henin, A., Edwards, G., & Rabbitt, S. (2004). Effectiveness of Collaborative Problem Solving in Affectively Dysregulated Children With Oppositional-Defiant Disorder: Initial Findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1157–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1157  

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

How is the practice implemented?  

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

Who can implement the practice?  

Clinicians, educators, and parents can implement CPS.  

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

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

What resources are useful for understanding or implementing the practice?  

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

Rating: Promising  

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

Site by Encore Multimedia .

Create an Effective Problem-Solving Manual at Work

rocket

Problems are an essential part of human existence. To grow, one must develop the capacity to solve problems. Companies must create teams with the skills to identify potential problems and find possible solutions. Understanding how to resolve challenges in the workplace increases employee and company value. This is where a problem-solving manual becomes an invaluable tool for productive work.

Problem-solving in an organisation enhances collaboration, which promotes collective thinking. This accounts for 80% of successful results from teams. Such collaboration engenders strong team development, excellent communication and a clear understanding of common challenges and potential solutions amongst teams.

What is a problem-solving manual?

Problem-solving is a technique that inspires parties in conflict to collaborate in defining problems, analysing their causes, proposing various solutions and selecting the best options for resolving the conflict.

The problem-solving manual should teach companies how to understand business challenges and the source of problems through a systematic process while providing clear direction on the best solution.

problem-solving-manual-timetrack-blog-article

Benefits of a problem-solving manual

Structuring your problem-solving manual

The manual should contain a minimum five-step process for providing lasting solutions to the problems. These processes include:

  • Conflict definition
  • Analysis of the problem’s causes
  • Brainstorming for resolution
  • Selection of a preferred solution
  • Implementation of the solution

Problem-solving is mostly applicable in small groups. It is important that people within a team learn analytical thinking. It must be made clear that agreeing on the causes of conflict is often difficult. The good thing about conflict management techniques is that they are positive approaches and appreciate existing capacities rather than the weaknesses of the teams.

Using a problem-solving manual for teamwork

Improves understanding.

One of the ways problem-solving assists teamwork is through the improvement of mutual understanding, thereby leading to an understanding of the context of the team’s operation and the responsibilities of the teammates. Collaborative techniques help members of the team appreciate each other’s efforts.

However, planning becomes difficult when team members work in shifts. TimeTrack Auto Scheduling provides a perfect overview for both management and the employees. Thus, managers can automatically personalise shifts based on projects and skills and employee availability.

problem-solving-manual-timetrack-blog-tips

TimeTrack Auto Scheduling

Enhances excellent communication

Working together in a team enhances the understanding of potential solutions and also creates opportunities for better communication. Each member brings a different context to the problem-solving scenario so good communication is a must for harmonious collaboration.

Effective handling of risks

A problem-solving manual equips a team to better anticipate risks. Because every team member comes with a different perspective, the team has more capacity to spot and mitigate risks in advance. A team must be willing to learn the requisite skills and have the confidence to accept the consequences of its choices.

Encourages smart working

A problem-solving manual streamlines processes to create a flexible work system that meets current needs. Smart working is the foundation of a seamless problem-solving environment, iterating processes to solve business challenges.

Highlights hidden potential

Compiling a problem-solving manual with the team’s input can uncover a hidden talent on the team. Or, you may realise that a certain employee has a natural aptitude for empathetic communication. When ideas and solutions for problem-solving flow, this broadens the potential for the company’s success. Keen problem-solving skills prepare team members to take on larger challenges and explore smart techniques for possible solutions.

Lower business failure

A problem-solving manual is essentially your back-up plan. All good leaders know that planning for failure is vital for any business. The problem-solving guide is a strategic preparation for learning opportunities, long-term growth and contingencies.

Low possibility of bias

In the same vein, each team member understands a fraction of the entire problem-solving process. The collective knowledge of the team fosters a better understanding of the problem and solution when the team engages in the search for the solution.

St

Tips to create an effective problem-solving manual

Define the problems.

Think big and think of any number of significant business challenges that your company could face. Review historical problems. Identify and clearly define the problem with substantial detail. The team saddled with devising problem-solving techniques must acknowledge the existence of the problem and, from divergent viewpoints, approach the issue with open-mindedness.

Evaluate the problems

After you have identified and named the problem, go into a process of reviews. This is process evaluation before suggesting a solution. To do this, analyse the issues from different perspectives for better understanding. To identify the root cause of your business problem, teams must ensure that the company’s approach is aligned with its goals.

Conduct a SWOT analysis

This approach involves pinpointing and acknowledging strengths , weaknesses , opportunities and threats to the company. This analysis allows businesses to become self-aware and identify challenges before they occur.

Conduct market research

Gathering and analysing data concerning your business should include regular customer surveys designed to gauge needs and reactions to your products. This helps identify customer pain points, buying habits and the demographics of the marketplace.

Gather team input

The input from a team will always be a substantial sticking point. Input from business advisors, your team or experts on the subject matter will unearth various ideas , solutions and challenges the organisation is facing. This is one of the most effective problem-solving techniques for long-term solutions.

Collate the problems and solutions

At this stage of the process, decide on the course of action to implement, based on the reviews and solutions people have suggested. This process involves weighing the pros and cons of the ideal solution. Take key actions after deciding on the best option.

collaborative problem solving manual

Gauge the results of solutions

Measure the results of problem-solving techniques and processes by tracking progress. This will help gauge if the particular issue is resolved. Due to the complex nature of solving business challenges, you need to take baseline reviews, decide on key performance indicators and set goals and timelines.

Take responsibility

Whatever choice you make is a choice, and it should be superior to others. This means you must live with the consequences of your choice. Two outcomes await you in solving business challenges. Either you escalate the problem or you solve it.

The bottom line

The ultimate outcome of your problem-solving manual is to provide a blueprint of solutions to common workplace and business challenges.

Applying the wrong technique could result in a waste of time and resources. This is why proactiveness and diverse consultation is vital. Work with your team to create an efficient guide of solutions.

valentine-author-bio

I am a researcher, writer, and self-published author. Over the last 9 years, I have dedicated my time to delivering unique content to startups and non-governmental organizations and have covered several topics, including wellness, technology, and entrepreneurship. I am now passionate about how time efficiency affects productivity, business performance, and profitability.

Time Tracking

  • Absence Management Software
  • Clock In System
  • Time Attendance System
  • Auto Scheduling
  • Duty Roster
  • Shift Planning
  • Appointment Planning
  • Task Planning
  • Info Center
  • Timesheet Templates
  • Rota Templates
  • Promotional Program
  • Affiliate Program
  • Success Stories

distributed-team-management

Privacy Overview

IMAGES

  1. Collaborative Problem Solving A Complete Guide

    collaborative problem solving manual

  2. Collaborative Problem Solving: A Guide to Improving your Workplace

    collaborative problem solving manual

  3. collaborative problem solving strategies

    collaborative problem solving manual

  4. what are the steps for collaborative problem solving

    collaborative problem solving manual

  5. Collaborative Problem Solving Steps/Guide (student/teacher tool included)

    collaborative problem solving manual

  6. Collaborative problem solving ...behaviour modification at its best

    collaborative problem solving manual

VIDEO

  1. Management of Challenging Situations

  2. Math Quest Problem Solving

  3. #ThinkMoment: Make a List

  4. MODULE 3 Collaborative Problem Solving Role Play

  5. Collaborative Problem Solving with Hanna AI Workshop

  6. What is a Hackathon and How Does It Encourage Collaborative Problem Solving?

COMMENTS

  1. Think:Kids : Collaborative Problem Solving®

    Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) At Think:Kids, we recognize that kids with challenging behavior don't lack the will to behave well. They lack the skills to behave well. Our CPS approach is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives.

  2. PDF Collaborative Problem Solving

    Chapter 1: Executive Summary 2 Defining Collaborative Problem Solving The term "collaboration" has different meanings in different environments. In K-12, collaboration almost always means an individual task can be solved by anyone in the group, but collaboration is also an instructional strategy to enable learning more efficiently or effectively.

  3. PDF PLAN B CHEAT SHEET Collaborative & Proactive Solutions

    • Maybe he needs the problem broken down into its component parts ... Collaborative & Proactive Solutions THIS IS HOW PROBLEMS GET SOLVED livesinthebalance.org REV 102020. Created Date: 10/30/2020 10:02:48 AM ...

  4. PDF Home

    Home - Center for Collaborative Conservation

  5. PDF Pisa 2015 Collaborative Problem-solving Framework July 2017

    Collaborative problem solving (CPS) is a critical and necessary skill used in education and in the workforce. While problem solving as defined in PISA 2012 (OECD, 2010) relates to individuals working alone on resolving problems where a method of solution is not immediately obvious, in CPS, individuals

  6. Collaborative Problem Solving: A Resource Guide for Counselors

    1. Understanding the CPS Philosophy CPS is grounded in the belief that children do well if they can. The approach posits that challenging behavior is not due to a lack of motivation, attention-seeking, or manipulation but rather a result of lagging skills and unsolved problems.

  7. Collaborative Problem Solving for Parents: A Step-by-Step Guide to

    Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is an evidence-based approach that focuses on understanding and addressing the root causes of challenging behavior in children and adolescents. Developed by Dr. Ross Greene, CPS aims to foster empathy, communication, and collaboration between parents and their children to find effective and lasting solutions ...

  8. Collaborative Problem Solving

    Collaborative Problem-Solving in Schools outlines a process to help veteran and new leaders alike to create thoughtful, ... this book is a user-friendly manual for school leaders seeking to employ a problem-solving process that works so that they and their teams can feel confident their efforts will result in a successful resolution.

  9. Collaborative Problem Solving and Dispute Resolution in Special

    Collaborative Problem Solving and Dispute Resolution in Special Education: A Training Manual Authors: Rod Windle, Ph.D. and Suzanne Warren, M.S. This manual is designed as an educational tool for understanding and resolving conflict. It offers state-of-the-art thinking in dispute resolution applied to special education situations.

  10. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting

    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 ...

  11. What Is Collaborative Problem Solving and Why Use the Approach?

    The Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach represents a novel, practical, compassionate, and highly effective model for helping challenging children and those who work and live with them. The CPS approach was first articulated in the widely read book, The Explosive Child [ 3 ], and subsequently in the treatment manual for the approach ...

  12. CEBC » Program › Collaborative Problem Solving

    Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) directly provides services to children/adolescents and addresses the following: ... Manual Information. There is a manual that describes how to deliver this program. Program Manual(s) Treatment Manual: Greene, R. W., & Ablon, J. S. (2005).

  13. Collaborative Problem Solving: The Ultimate Guide

    How to solve problems as a team Because collaborative problem solving involves multiple people and ideas, there are some techniques that can help you stay on track, engage efficiently, and communicate effectively during collaboration. Set Expectations.

  14. Full article: Measuring collaborative problem solving: research agenda

    Defining collaborative problem solving. Collaborative problem solving refers to "problem-solving activities that involve interactions among a group of individuals" (O'Neil et al., Citation 2003, p. 4; Zhang, Citation 1998, p. 1).In a more detailed definition, "CPS in educational setting is a process in which two or more collaborative parties interact with each other to share and ...

  15. Treating Explosive Kids

    The first comprehensive, clinical guide for the groundbreaking Collaborative Problem Solving approach, this book provides a detailed framework for effective, individualized intervention with highly oppositional children and their families.

  16. PDF EPA's Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model

    Collaborative problem-solving seeks to move beyond identifying environmental and/or pub­ lic health problems to formulating viable strategies to address and resolve them. This goal is realized by: 1) creating a vision that articulates the desired outcomes to be achieved, 6 EPA's Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model

  17. PDF Plan B

    Instructions: Complete solid boxes before Plan B, and dotted boxes during Plan B. PLAN B PREPARATION WHAT is the problem (not behavior) to focus on? WHO will have the conversation? WHEN, WHERE and WHILE DOING WHAT? Have the conversation at a time and in a place where everyone can be calm.

  18. Collaborative Problem Solving® in Pediatric Primary Care

    Collaborative Problem Solving® is an evidence-based approach that provides caregivers with the skills to respond to challenging behavior. It promotes the understanding that children and youth with behavioral challenges lack the skill—not the will—to behave; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance.

  19. Treating Explosive Kids: The Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach

    More than 50,000 in print. Treating Explosive Kids. The Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach. Ross W. Greene and J. Stuart Ablon. The first comprehensive presentation for clinicians of the groundbreaking approach popularized in Ross Greene's acclaimed parenting guide, The Explosive Child, this book provides a detailed framework for effective ...

  20. Collaborative and Proactive Solutions

    Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) is an evidence-based, trauma-responsive approach to working with children who are experiencing social, emotional, and behavioral challenges in families, schools, and treatment facilities. CPS helps children and caregivers solve the problems that are causing the concerning behaviors.

  21. Problem-solving manual: Tips, advice and techniques

    Problem-solving is a technique that inspires parties in conflict to collaborate in defining problems, analysing their causes, proposing various solutions and selecting the best options for resolving the conflict.. The problem-solving manual should teach companies how to understand business challenges and the source of problems through a systematic process while providing clear direction on the ...

  22. ERIC

    This training manual provides materials for conducting a workshop on problem solving and creating good agreements in special education. The first section of the manual provides a brief introduction to the world of special education and discusses why special education law is complex.