problem solving team in schools

Evaluating problem-solving teams in K-12 schools: Do they work?

• School of Medicine

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Teams and other collaborative structures have become commonplace in American schools, although historically school staff members functioned more independently from one another. In this article, we describe the growing influence of collaboration and teaming in a variety of school contexts, but focus on the empirical literature on problem-solving teams as reflecting the state of research and practice in the schools. A review of the research on problem-solving teams, using an input-mediator- outcome-input framework, provides evidence for how teaming could become more effective and efficient in this context as well as sets an agenda for what additional research is needed. Key challenges to school teams are considered next, along with recommendations for change. The first challenge is the lack of training of school staff in the key components of teaming. A second issue is the difficulty in implementing teams in the organizational context of schools.

• Organizational factors impacting implementation
• Problem-solving teams
• Research on problemsolving teams
• Teams and collaboration in schools
• Training of team members

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• General Psychology

Access to Document

• 10.1037/amp0000254

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• staff Social Sciences 100%
• lack Social Sciences 42%
• evidence Social Sciences 34%
• literature Social Sciences 34%

T1 - Evaluating problem-solving teams in K-12 schools

T2 - Do they work?

AU - Rosenfield, Sylvia

AU - Newell, Markeda

AU - Zwolski, Scott

AU - Benishek, Lauren E.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2018 American Psychological Association.

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - Teams and other collaborative structures have become commonplace in American schools, although historically school staff members functioned more independently from one another. In this article, we describe the growing influence of collaboration and teaming in a variety of school contexts, but focus on the empirical literature on problem-solving teams as reflecting the state of research and practice in the schools. A review of the research on problem-solving teams, using an input-mediator- outcome-input framework, provides evidence for how teaming could become more effective and efficient in this context as well as sets an agenda for what additional research is needed. Key challenges to school teams are considered next, along with recommendations for change. The first challenge is the lack of training of school staff in the key components of teaming. A second issue is the difficulty in implementing teams in the organizational context of schools.

AB - Teams and other collaborative structures have become commonplace in American schools, although historically school staff members functioned more independently from one another. In this article, we describe the growing influence of collaboration and teaming in a variety of school contexts, but focus on the empirical literature on problem-solving teams as reflecting the state of research and practice in the schools. A review of the research on problem-solving teams, using an input-mediator- outcome-input framework, provides evidence for how teaming could become more effective and efficient in this context as well as sets an agenda for what additional research is needed. Key challenges to school teams are considered next, along with recommendations for change. The first challenge is the lack of training of school staff in the key components of teaming. A second issue is the difficulty in implementing teams in the organizational context of schools.

KW - Organizational factors impacting implementation

KW - Problem-solving teams

KW - Research on problemsolving teams

KW - Teams and collaboration in schools

KW - Training of team members

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047465318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047465318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/amp0000254

DO - 10.1037/amp0000254

M3 - Article

C2 - 29792457

AN - SCOPUS:85047465318

SN - 0003-066X

JO - American Psychologist

JF - American Psychologist

• Our Mission

A Protocol for Collaborative Problem-Solving

Some issues that educators face can be solved in a short time if school leaders use a collaborative protocol to improve staff dynamics.

My coaching work takes me to several schools to help school leaders and their teaching staffs solve instructional and logistical problems while improving their teamwork dynamics. While systemic problems require extensive work to solve, there are tactical problems that can be resolved through a single meeting or just a few.

Needing a simpler yet collaborative approach for some of my partner schools to work through issues that aren’t overwhelmingly complex but still challenging enough to require thoughtful consideration and creative thinking to solve, I developed an adaptation of the traditional plus-delta protocol . I call the updated version the plus-delta-solution (PDS) protocol. The PDS strategy emphasizes effective collaboration and communication as crucial aspects of problem-solving within teams and in a manner in which everyone on the teaching staff feels safe contributing.

I have implemented the PDS protocol with school and district leaders and achieved good results. Moreover, this protocol can help teaching teams identify challenges to student success , leverage strengths, and, most important, find solutions, all while promoting shared problem-solving, which is currently needed in many schools. The protocol can also be modified for use with kids during lessons and projects and to create social awareness for classroom problems such as internet safety, digital citizenship, bullying, and social exclusion.

4 Ways Using PDS Can Benefit Your Team

1. It promotes structured communication. Drawing structured communication between colleagues creates a platform for everyone to share their ideas, observations, concerns, and solutions while keeping discussions focused. For instance, teams can use this approach to solve instructional issues such as curriculum enhancements, behavior management, and technology integration.

Logistical problems such as resource allocation, timetabling and scheduling, and after-school event planning can also be tackled by teams through structured communication.

2. It encourages the promotion of diverse perspectives. Establishing norms and shared agreements within the protocol can guarantee that everyone who wants to will speak or contribute, ensuring that different viewpoints are considered. This deliberate attention to inclusivity helps explore various angles to a problem and prevents tunnel vision.

3. It creates documentation and review. Using the protocol to document discussions, ideas, and solutions aids in tracking the team’s suggestions, concerns, and decisions. Documented materials can also be reviewed later to continue aligning goals and solutions and to avoid revisiting previously discussed points.

4. It establishes feedback and reflection mechanisms. When the protocol incorporates mechanisms for both feedback and reflection, team members work together to refine thoughts, practices, and approaches to community problem-solving. Doing so promotes a culture of learning and improvement throughout the school that can be transferred to students and other staff members.

The four-step protocol outlined below can be carried out in approximately 25–40 minutes. Whether facilitating with colleagues or students, feel free to customize and adapt directions and timings to serve the needs of your intended audience. Additionally, here are some graphics you can use to guide implementation .

4-Step PDS Protocol

Step 1: Allow the teaching team or school staff to state the problem (5–7 minutes). The purpose here is to arrive at a consensus on the problem that the team will address in the subsequent steps of the protocol. Sometimes, everyone arrives knowing the issue that needs solving, and sometimes, the facilitator has to inquire. The PDS protocol can be opened up according to the team’s needs in one of two ways. If the problem is already agreed upon before commencing with the protocol, that’s fantastic. If not, provide question prompts that allow colleagues to speak freely.

I use some of these when introducing the protocol during faculty meetings or professional development.

• “It’s hard to focus on instruction when ____ behavior is a constant concern.”
• “I’m having difficulty with a specific management task.”
• “I’m struggling to keep up with the intended pacing in my lessons.”
• “I‘m overwhelmed by a constant challenge.”

Step 2: Individually identify pluses and deltas pertaining to the problem (4 minutes). To promote a positive mindset toward problem-solving while identifying the difficulties associated with the problem(s) and using small posted notes, each team member identifies pluses (what’s working well) and deltas (the drawbacks, challenges, or areas that need improvement). Request that the team members not focus on solutions in this step.

Step 3: Discuss the pluses and deltas within small groups (7 minutes). To get everyone comfortable discussing their reflections from step two, adapt and provide the following directions and time for folks to communicate with team members.

• Identify two grade-level colleagues to work with.
• Collaborate to develop and complete a PDS chart, which includes three columns—one labeled plus, one labeled delta, and one for solutions—using your posted notes from step 2. Avoid redundancy by discarding posted notes with similar text.
• Have the teams discuss their pluses and deltas without focusing on solutions. Everyone needs to be comfortable discussing the pluses as well as the deltas as they are.

Step 4: Begin to develop answers (10–20 minutes). This part of the protocol is intended to find appropriate solutions to the identified problems through thoughtful reflection and consideration. Sometimes the room isn’t able to find a solution, and it’s fine to bring in an outside expert to help. Further exploration by team members may be necessary. Display directions for this step using the following prompts:

• On a posted note, offer solutions and/or resources to address the problem. Do this independently, and don’t feel obliged to provide a solution if you don’t have one (5–10 minutes, depending on how many issues are being addressed).
• Reconvene with your thought partner from step 3 to discuss the solutions provided.
• Participate in reflection and open discussion with the entire team.

Problem-solving isn’t easy. It requires careful thought and consideration, but it doesn’t have to be stressful. Having a system like PDS, which focuses on solutions through collaboration, can really encourage a staff to see the value in working together to find answers.

• Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools »

Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools

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

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

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

Transform School Discipline

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

A Client’s Story

Collaborative Problem Solving and SEL

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

Collaborative Problem Solving and MTSS

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

The Results

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

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

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

Bring CPS to Your School

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

What Our Clients Say

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

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

16k Accesses

16 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

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

A guide to critical thinking: implications for dental education

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

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

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

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

• PowerSchool
• Intranet Login
• Infinite Visions

Translate/Traducir

• Facebook (opens in new window)
• Twitter (opens in new window)
• YouTube (opens in new window)
• Let's Talk
• Employee Service Portal
• Core Instruction

MTSS Problem-Solving Team

Roles and responsibilities.

Collaboration among members of a school problem-solving team is an essential component to ensuring the success of the MTSS processes. A successful problem-solving team will accurately identify student needs and challenges and—with successful collaboration—can design and implement solutions and measure the effectiveness of interventions. It is imperative that the team analyzes all interventions a classroom teacher has completed and reviews a child’s academic and behavioral history to design the most effective and intensive program. When problem-solving teams engage in successful collaboration, student success can be achieved and ultimately maintained.

The director of MTSS provides leadership and commitment to MTSS at all three tiers. Together with administrators, the director of MTSS leads implementation, participates on the MTSS team and provides relevant and focused professional development linked to MTSS, as well as supports to incorporate MTSS into the school improvement plans. Administrators also review universal screening data to ensure Tier 1 instruction is meeting the needs of a minimum of 80% of the school population. The director of MTSS and the MTSS Building Leadership team monitor the integrity of instruction at both the core and intervention levels.

Classroom teachers are the front line of MTSS. General education teachers have the best opportunity to enhance intervention and instruction in their classrooms by providing standards-based and differentiated core instruction for all students. Whether it is meeting the needs of students who are gifted, students who are learning English, or students who have IEPs, regular classroom teachers have the greatest daily impact on learning. Classroom teachers know and understand intervention plans for groups and individuals, allowing for follow-up and additional supports in the regular classroom. General education teachers and/or core subject teachers participate in data collection—both school-wide screening and progress monitoring. With this knowledge, these teachers are best able to change or adapt instructional strategies based upon information gained through the data collection process. Whether directly responsible for data collection or not, teachers review all their students’ data to understand performance levels and inform instruction.

Classroom teachers work with their MTSS team to identify and plan interventions for Tier 1 (in the classroom) and Tier 2. If a student demonstrates need for Tier 3 support, classroom teachers collaborate with the school’s MTSS Team.

Grade/Department-Level Teams (GLMs) serve a critical role in problem-solving at Tiers 1 and 2. They provide a collaborative learning environment to support effective differentiated instruction and classroom management strategies at all tiers. They plan for grouping, content, and delivery of instruction at Tiers 1 and 2. Professional Learning Committees (PLCs) review universal screening data and use this information to inform Tier 1 differentiated instruction.

Additionally, GLMs identify students who are not responding successfully to core instruction and supports, and utilize differentiated instruction to support them. GLMs make data-informed decisions to identify students in need of Tier 2 interventions. GLMs meet regularly for instructional planning, data review, intervention plan adjustment, paperwork completion and instructional decision-making (e.g., student movement between tiers). 

GLMs  work with the MTSS team to generate interventions based on individual problem-solving when students are considered for, or already receive, Tier 3 supports. MTSS teams review Tier 1 progress data to determine if Tier 3 targeted interventions are resulting in student success with core instruction and supports. Within an MTSS framework, it is recommended that classroom teachers manage students who are in Tier 1, while the MTSS team manage students in Tier 2 and Tier 3 (a teacher familiar with the student is generally a part of the MTSS team meeting).

Under the leadership and guidance of the site administrator, the MTSS team identifies key personnel to provide high-quality intervention and instruction, matches evidence-based instructional materials to student needs, and designs well-planned schedules to maximize the delivery of services within the three-tiered model. A critical resource in all schools is the highly-qualified support staff, who lend expertise to supporting student success. 

MTSS Problem-Solving Team Plan of Action

Monitoring core instruction.

• Are all students working with grade-level materials and standards? 
Are teachers well-supported in implementing adopted programs and items from the approved supplemental list?
 Is content for students appropriately paced?
• 
Does the movement through material attend to the developmental readiness of the student?
• Is there evidence of differentiated instruction?
• Is small-group, leveled instruction provided multiple days each week?

Monitoring Intervention Integrity

• Is the intervention plan implemented with integrity?
• Administrator signs off on integrity of instruction and intervention across tiers.

Establishing Feedback System Regarding Instructional Integrity

• Make quality instruction a part of the annual goals for all teachers.
• Acknowledge staff members who are delivering quality instruction and support those who are not to raise their level of performance. 
• 2020-21 Initiatives
• District Curriculum
• International Baccalaureate
• Common Assessments
• Middle School Grading Policies
• Elementary School Report Cards
• Illinois Learning Standards
• MTSS Overview
• MTSS Guidelines and Expectations
• Elementary Enrichment
• Second Step
• Early Childhood
• State Report Cards
• GTD Ad Hoc Committee
• Academic Acceleration
• Summer Launch
• Middle School Math Enrichment Program
• Newcomer EL Program
• Band and Orchestra Camp
• Bravo Summer Camp
• CAST Summer Camp
• Other Summer Programs
• Family-Teacher Conferences
• Middle School Math (6-8)
• Staff Contacts

This site provides information using PDF, visit this link to download the Adobe Acrobat Reader DC software .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Two Traits of the Best Problem-Solving Teams

• Alison Reynolds
• David Lewis

You need both diversity and safety.

An analysis of 150 senior teams showed that the ones who solve problems the fastest tend to be cognitively diverse. But this isn’t always true — sometimes, those teams still struggle. So what separates the best teams from the rest? It turns out that it’s a combination of cognitive diversity and psychological safety. Teams high in both traits show curious and encouraging behavior, and also the level of forcefulness and experimentation needed to keep their momentum. Teams low in either trait were either too combative (if they were high in cognitive diversity and low in psychological safety) or too prone to group-think (if the reverse was true).

Imagine you are a fly on the wall in a corporate training center where a management team of 12 is participating in a session on executing strategy. The team is midway through attempting to solve a new, uncertain, and complex problem. The facilitators look on as at first the exercise follows its usual path. But then activity grinds to a halt — people have no idea what to do. Suddenly, a more junior member of the team raises her hand and exclaims, “I think I know what we should do!” Relieved, the team follows her instructions enthusiastically. There is no doubt she has the answer — but as she directs her colleagues, she makes one mistake and the activity breaks down. Not a word is spoken but the entire group exude disappointment. Her confidence evaporates. Even though she has clearly learnt something important, she does not contribute again. The group gives up.

• AR Alison Reynolds  is a member of faculty at the UK’s Ashridge Business School where she works with executive groups in the field of leadership development, strategy execution and organization development. She has previously worked in the public sector and management consulting, and is an advisor to a number of small businesses and charities.
• DL David Lewis  is Director of London Business School’s Senior Executive Programme and teaches on strategy execution and leading in uncertainty. He is a consultant and works with global corporations, advising and coaching board teams.  He is co-founder of a research company focusing on developing tools to enhance individual, team and organization performance through better interaction.

Partner Center

Problem-Solving Practices and Complexity in School Psychology

• Published: 07 November 2016
• Volume 21 , pages 38–48, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• John Brady   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1065-0897 1 &
• William R. Espinosa 2  

427 Accesses

Explore all metrics

How do experienced school psychologists solve problems in their practice? What can trainers of school psychologists learn about how to structure training and mentoring of graduate students from what actually happens in schools, and how can this inform our teaching at the university? This qualitative multi-interview study explored the processes that five experienced school psychologist used to solve problems in their practice in the schools. The interviews described their problem-solving efforts as being imbedded in complex school contexts and reliant on a dynamic team process of searching for solutions. The paper suggests that these teams fit what the field of complexity theory calls complex adaptive systems (CAS) and outlines what the research on such systems tells us about enhancing their function. It concludes with suggestions that training programs include these concepts in their consultation training and ensure that all students experience case work that is ongoing and supervised.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Complexity and Systems Thinking Models in Education: Applications for Leaders

A Batesonian Perspective on Qualitative Research and Complex Human Systems

Anton-LaHart, J., & Rosenfield, S. (2004). A survey of preservice consultation training in school psychology programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15 (1), 41–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Athanasiou, M. S., Geil, M., Hazel, C. E., & Copeland, E. P. (2002). A look inside school-based consultation: a qualitative study of the beliefs and practices of school psychologists and teachers. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 (3), 258–298. doi: 10.1521/scpq.17.3.258.20884 .

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy . New York: Plenum Press.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., Wallingsford, L., & Hall, J. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in school psychology: a national survey of roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (3), 327.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

DiGregorio, S. (2000). Using NVivo for your literature review. In Strategies in Qualitative Research: Issues and Results from Analysis Using QSR, NVivo and NUD*IST. Conference at the Institute of Educatin, London (pp.29-30).

Donovan, L., McCoy, D., Denune, H., Barnett, D. W., Graden, J. L., & Carr, V. (2014). Preparing doctoral-level consultants for systems change: implementing and supervising multitiered practices in early childhood education . doi: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929957 .

Dowd-Eagle, S., & Eagle, J. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods design in consultation research. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 450–472). New York: Routledge.

Fishman, D. B. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology eBook Academic Collection on EBSCOhost. (pp. 1 online resource (xxvii, 387 p.)). Retrieved from http://libproxy.chapman.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=100438

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . Chicago: Aldine.

Gutkin, T. B. (2002). Training school-based consultants: some thoughts on grains of sand and building anthills. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13 (1/2), 133–146.

Hazel, C., Laviolette, G., & Lineman, J. (2010). Training professional psychologists in school-based consultation: what the syllabi suggest. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4 (4), 235–243. doi: 10.1037/a0020072 .

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005). Consensual qualitative research: an update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 196–205. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196 .

Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity a very short introduction . New York: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Illback, R. (2014). Organizational development and change facilitation in school settings. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (pp. 276–303). New York: Routledge.

Kennedy, E. K., Frederickson, N., & Monsen, J. (2008). Do educational psychologists “walk the talk” when consulting? Educational Psychology in Practice, 24 (3), 169–187. doi: 10.1080/02667360802256733 .

Kratochwill, T. R., Hoagwood, K. E., Kazak, A. E., Weisz, J. R., Hood, K., Vargas, L. A., & Banez, G. A. (2012). Practice-based evidence for children and adolescents: advancing the research agenda in schools. School Psychology Review, 41 (2), 215–235.

Lopez, E. C., & Nastasi, B. K. (2014). Process and outcome research in selected models of consultation. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education : Wiley Blackwell.

Meyers, J. (2002). A 30 year perspective on best practices for consultation training. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13 (1/2), 35–54.

Meyers, J., Truscott, S., Meyers, A., Varjas, K., & Kim, S. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods design in consultation research. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 103–137). New York: Routledge.

Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory . London: Routledge-Falmer.

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) (2010). Model for comprehensive and integrated school psychological services . Bethesda, Maryland: National Association of School Psychologists.

Newell, M., & Newman, D. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods design in consultation research. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 421–429). New York: Routledge.

Polkinghorne, D., & Gribbons, B. (1999). Applications of qualitative research strategies to school psychology research problems. In C. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 108–136). New York: Wiley.

Pryzwansky, W. B., & Noblit, G. W. (1990). Understanding and improving consultation practice: the qualitative case study approach. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1 (4), 293.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action . New York: Basic Books.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S., & Wilson, S. M. (2004). The wisdom of practice: essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: studying how things work . New York: Guilford Press.

Thornberg, R. (2014). Consultation barriers between teachers and external consultants: a grounded theory of change resistance in school consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 24 (3), 183–210. doi: 10.1080/10474412.2013.846188 .

Tilly, W., Niebling, B., & Rahn-Blakeslee, A. (2010). Making problem solving school psychology work in schools. In G. Peacock, R. Ervin, E. Daly, & K. Merrell (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology (pp. 579–596). New York: Guilford.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Studies, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA

23 Carpenteria, Irvine, CA, 92602, USA

William R. Espinosa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Brady .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

John Brady has a consulting position with the school system used in the study and was an instructor in the participants’ graduate programs. William Espinosa has declared that he has no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Interview Protocol

First interview: focused life history.

Tell me as much about yourself in relation to your becoming a school psychologist and your history with the aspect of problem solving.

How did you come to be a school psychologist?

What in your past led you to the profession?

In the first 5 years on the job as a school psychologist, how did you start off as a psychologist, and how does that compare to today?

From then on the following years?

What has the role of leadership influenced your practice?

Tell me about your leadership role.

How did you get into leadership?

Why did you get into it?

How did it go?

Helping other psychologists be successful.

Looking back, how do you think that experience influenced you in this regard?

Second Interview: the Details of the Psychologists’ Lived Experience of Consulting

The purpose of this interview is to concentrate on the concrete details of his/her experience as a consultant problem solver. This is not the time for opinions but for describing the day-to-day details of what is done, which form the foundation for later exploration of opinions/theories. We are striving to reconstruct the myriad details of our participants’ experiences.

Let us look at the two cases you made notes on; tell me about the first on in terms of your work on it.

What in your practice helps with this consulting?

What are the barriers to it?

What training have you gotten in these areas?

What do you like about this kind of work?

Let us look at your time sheets for the past few days. You marked off the time you were consulting. Tell me about some of that experience.

Third Interview: the Meaning/Theory/Understanding of the Experience of Consulting

The purpose of this interview is to address the intellectual and emotional connections between the participant’s work and life. This interview focuses on meaning making by them about consulting.

Given what you have said about your life before you became a psychologist and your practice of consulting now, how do you understand consulting in your life?

What sense does it make to you?

Where do you see yourself going in the future with this?

What factors in your life interacted to bring you to your present situation/practice?

We have talked about your practice of consulting/problem solving/helping as part of being a school psychologist starting with your early life experiences and things that got you into the field and then on some specific cases you are working on now and looking at what you do daily for a 3-day period. Now let us focus on what you think of all this. What meaning do you make of this part of your practice as a school psychologist?

What theories or rules or processes do you use to help in this?

Do you see any patterns in what you do?

Where have you gotten help to do this?

What in your life and work environment facilitates your problem solving?

What in your life, work environment is a barrier to problem solving? Have you been able to overcome barriers and how did you do that?

How do you rate yourself in this area?

What could you do to get better?

Is there anything else you want to say about this?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Brady, J., Espinosa, W.R. Problem-Solving Practices and Complexity in School Psychology. Contemp School Psychol 21 , 38–48 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0103-0

Download citation

Published : 07 November 2016

Issue Date : March 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0103-0

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

• Problem solving
• School psychologist
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Data Integrations

NEW: SRSS-IE Integration

• Improve Academic Achievement
• Whole Child Support & Wellness
• Communication, Collaboration, & Engagement
• Teacher Satisfaction & Retention
• Cost-Effective & Efficient Systems
• Professional Learning Series
• Customized Coaching
• The MTSS Learning Hub
• The MTSS Success Package
• Success Stories
• Testimonials
• MTSS Hall of Fame
• Pathfinders Community
• Schoolin' Around Podcast
• Quick Access to Guides & Toolkits
• MTSS Quizzes
• Funding & Grants
• Sign Up for Our Newsletter
• MTSS Summit 2024 [new!]
• MTSS Summit 2023
• MTSS Summit 2022
• Summer 2024 MTSS Mini-Summit
• 2023 Professional Learning Retreat
• Our Approach
• Data Privacy Practices
• Meet Our Team
• Awards & Accolades

What Is MTSS?

The multi-tiered system of supports ultimate guide.

Everything you need to know about the Multi-Tiered System of Supports and how to implement it successfully

Get your PDF

The Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a framework that helps educators identify students’ academic, behavioral, and social-emotional strengths and challenges and provide differentiated support for students based on their needs. MTSS grew out of the integration of two other intervention-based frameworks: Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS).

Given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing need to bring the whole child lens to our classrooms and provide both academic and social-emotional support to all students. MTSS is gaining great momentum as a solution to overcoming the challenges associated with instructional loss and as a way to drive equity in education. 

In this guide, we explore definitions and essential elements of MTSS and provide best practice recommendations and requirements for implementing an effective MTSS framework. The guide also outlines instructions for gathering accurate and reliable data, using data to make meaningful instructional changes for students, and establishing effective MTSS teams and system-level practices.

What Is the Purpose of MTSS?

What are the benefits of mtss, mtss vs rti, what are the essential components of mtss, what are the guiding principles of mtss, problem-solving in mtss, data systems in mtss: what are the different assessment types within mtss, intervention planning in mtss, the three different types of meetings in mtss, how to build the right mtss team, how can i improve my mtss, improve mtss with branching minds, what is mtss .

The Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a collaborative, evidence-based approach to differentiating and personalizing instruction and intervention, across academics, social-emotional learning, and behavior for all students—so that every student can achieve academic and life success.

MTSS aims to provide an equitable educational experience by leveraging collective knowledge and expertise to help teachers understand their learners' needs and make informed and strategic decisions that best support them.

MTSS begins with teachers assessing the skills of everyone in the class to proactively identify who may need additional support in an area (e.g., reading, math, behavior). Students receive support (research-based, targeted instruction or intervention) matched both to their skills and level of need. Student progress is monitored closely to ensure that the additional support is helping.

MTSS is not new. Many academic experts and learning scientists are ready to share the dos and don’ts of supporting the diversity of student learning need s. There are 1000s of research-backed, evidence-based interventions to choose from, tons of best practices to keep in mind, and many data points to inform our data-driven decision-making.

The 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) r ecognizes the effectiveness of the MTSS framework. The goal of ESSA is to help increase the impact of educational investments by ensuring that interventions being implemented have proven to be effective in leading to desired outcomes, namely improving student achievement. ESSA defines a Multi-Tiered System of Supports as “A comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students’ needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision making. ( Sec 8101(33) )

There is tremendous evidence su pporting the power of an effective MTSS system to improve student outcomes for struggling learners, but there is also solidly convincing research that it improves student outcomes for ALL learners. A rising tide raises all boats.

The purpose of MTSS is to provide adequate and equitable tiered support for all students— while also supporting educators and administrators to more effectively and efficiently help students. MTSS intentionally encompasses the whole child—supporting students academically, social-emotionally, and behaviorally.

MTSS is a system-level initiative that helps districts across the country improve student outcomes through the use of screeners, a continuum of tiered support, progress monitoring, and data-based decision-making. And as a system-level solution, MTSS is collaborative, involving all stakeholders in data-driven decision-making to best support students. 

1. MTSS is Designed To Help Every Student Succeed & for Every Teacher To Know How To Help Their Students

MTSS provides targeted support for the whole student academically, social-emotionally, and behaviorally. With an ongoing problem-solving process, all students are assessed in each domain to identify students who need additional support or intervention. To implement this framework, educators use data analysis tools, such as universal screening assessments, to identify the specific skills that need to be addressed. These assessment tools also help educators determine if the Tier 1 core instruction is meeting the needs of their current population of students. Research-based interventions help guide educators on how to deliver interventions, including frequency and duration.  

2. With MTSS, Teachers Are Able to Better Evaluate Student Needs and Match Instruction, Resources, and Interventions Accordingly

MTSS depends on a continuous process of data collection that utilizes data assessment tools, such as universal screening assessments, progress monitor assessment tools, and diagnostic assessment tools. The data gained from this process provides data insights into adjustments needed for Tier 1 core instruction delivery and intervention needs. This data also aids educators in selecting appropriate research-based interventions that target the specific skill needed to help a student meet grade-level expectations. 

3. MTSS Places a Strong Priority on Prevention

When implemented correctly, MTSS is a systemic solution. MTSS is not just used for identifying “at-risk” students needing support and providing them with support, it’s also looking at the comprehensive system of the district and/or school to identify systemic obstacles and to point out “what’s not working” as a preventative measure. 

For example, a cornerstone of MTSS is a strong Tier 1 core instruction. Core instruction should aim to meet the needs of 100% of students, and an effective core instruction needs to meet the needs of at least 80% of students. By identifying areas in need of improvement in core instruction, MTSS is able to prevent more and more students from needing additional tier-level support.  

4. MTSS Improves Student Outcomes Using Research

MTSS as a framework is driven by research. To read more about MTSS research, visit t he American Institutes for Research’s (AIR) research on MTSS. Additionally, check out these research articles:

Better Together: Using MTSS as a Structure for Building School–Family Partnerships

Research Brief: Multi-tier System of Supports (MTSS)

Integration of Academic and Behavioral MTSS at the District Level using Implementation Science

Applying an MTSS framework to address racism and promote mental health for racial/ethnic minoritized youth

Implementing MTSS in Beginning Reading: Tools and Systems to Support Schools and Teachers

The role of school improvement planning in the implementation of MTSS in secondary schools

A Model of MTSS: Integrating Precision Teaching of Mathematics and a Multi-Level Assessment System in a Generative Classroom

5. MTSS Integrates Academic, Behavioral, and Social-Emotional Supports

MTSS encompasses the whole child, and through the use of universal screeners and diagnostic assessments, the student’s academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs are able to be identified. Additionally, MTSS goes beyond this to provide learning supports, enrichment opportunities, and interventions for the students identified as needing the appropriate tiered level support. Through its incorporation of academic, behavioral, and social-emotional supports, MTSS is able to look at the full picture so it can provide maximum support for students, not just components of it.

6. MTSS Strengthens Capacity Among Educators & Administrators

Through its comprehensive framework, MTSS requires strong leadership, a solid cohesive foundation of resources, knowledge, and organizational structures to be implemented with fidelity. Educators and administrators grow their instructional skills when they are included in the “ science of improvement ,” which is a big part of MTSS. For example, their observation and diagnostic skills are sharpened as they evaluate the impact of applying focused evidence-based strategies to specific student needs.

The experience gained from analyzing MTSS data with colleagues translates back to the classroom, where those educators can then recognize skill and knowledge gaps more quickly and apply support within core instruction. The more educators and administrators study through the MTSS process, the more they strengthen their capacity .

7. MTSS Examines Systems-level Data To Identify Variables That are Producing Current Results

One component of MTSS is utilizing the MTSS model to complete the student-level, problem-solving process. However, MTSS is also used to complete a system-level, problem-solving process to establish the necessary infrastructure needed to support student success. 

With readily available data collected through MTSS practice, district leaders can look at system-level problems , such as the percent of students who are meeting grade-level expectations with core instruction or the equity of instruction across demographic groups. This data can highlight areas of concern at the school, grade, and subject level. This allows education leaders to make proactive decisions to support challenge areas quickly and actively respond to key areas that impact student success. 

It’s important to understand the similarities and differences between MTSS and RTI because there is an overlap between the two but there are also distinct differences worth noting. To understand the similarities and differences between MTSS and RTI, it can be helpful to go over their definitions. 

A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) wraps around an entire school. As a system-level structure, it provides academic, behavioral, social-emotional, and attendance support for all students. In MTSS, data is gathered and utilized to address academic and non-academic needs, such as attendance and social-emotional concerns, ensuring a holistic proactive approach to support. 

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tier approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs. The RTI process begins with high-quality instruction and universal screening of all children in the general education classroom. 

MTSS emerged from RTI and problem-solving models that were designed to identify and provide interventions to students at-risk of failing, determine interventions that might address their needs, and provide pre-referral information for students demonstrating a need for special education services. 

How Are MTSS and RTI Similar?

MTSS is similar to RTI because it provides a continuum of supports for students based on the severity of their needs. Both models provide a tiered system of supports, starting with less intense interventions and moving towards more intensive ones in Tier 2 and Tier 3. Both RTI and MTSS utilize:

A multi-tiered system approach

Universal screening to identify students in need of support

Frequent progress monitoring to track student performance

Data-driven decision-making to guide the selection of evidence-based interventions

How Is MTSS Different From RTI?

MTSS offers a broader scope of services than RTI. MTSS looks at the whole child, and seeks to involve all important stakeholders for the success of the student, including family and community members. It also encompasses the entire school or district by incorporating and taking into account teacher professional development and school culture.

MTSS is different from RTI because it emphasizes quality instruction at all levels. RTI places most of its focus on providing intervention to students in need of support, and MTSS places emphasis on high-quality differentiated core instruction and focuses on prevention in addition to intervention. MTSS also requires a higher degree of intensity in intervention and support in Tier 2 and Tier 3.

MTSS is an umbrella and under that umbrella are RTI, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), collaboration and learning amongst educators, as well as collaboration with family and community members as part of the problem-solving process. MTSS seeks to enact systemic change at the macro and micro levels within a district and school.

According to the Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports , at the American Institute for Research, a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) is a proactive and preventative framework that integrates data and xx instruction to maximize student achievement and support students' social, emotional, and behavior needs from a strengths-based perspective.

MTSS offers a framework for educators to engage in data-based decision-making related to program improvement, high-quality instruction and intervention, social and emotional learning, and positive behavioral supports necessary to ensure positive outcomes for districts, schools, teachers, and students. 

The MTSS framework is comprised of four essential components: 1) screening, 2) progress monitoring, 3) multi-level prevention system, and 4) data-based decision-making. Depending on state law, MTSS data may also support the identification of students with learning disabilities or other special education needs.

Screening is generally conducted three times a year, to identify students who may be at risk for poor outcomes, and need additional academic, social, emotional, and behavioral support. Screening is also used to identify patterns and trends of learning and achievement at the school and grade levels.

Multi-Level Prevention System

A multi-level prevention system includes a continuum (Tier 1, 2, and 3) of integrated academic, social-emotional, behavioral, instructional, and intervention supports that are evidence-based and culturally and linguistically responsive.

Progress Monitoring

Progress monitoring uses valid and reliable tools and processes, to assess performance, quantify the improvement of responsiveness to intervention and instruction, and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, interventions, and support.

Data-Based Decision Making

Data-based decision-making includes data analysis and problem-solving through team meetings to make decisions about instruction, intervention, implementation, and disability identification (in accordance with state law).

What Does an MTSS Framework Look Like? 

Tier 1: whole class data-driven differentiated core instruction,

Tier 2: whole-class differentiated instruction + small group targeted instruction (in addition to core instruction), and

Tier 3: whole class core differentiated instruction + additional targeted instruction (often small group in addition to core instruction) + intensive support.

The framework takes the whole child into consideration and encompasses academics, social-emotional learning, and behavioral health & attendance. Through the use of universal screeners and diagnostic screeners, student needs are identified, and through collaboration, a SMART goal is established, and an intervention plan is created to ensure the student receives the appropriate learning supports and/or interventions. Progress monitoring assessments—standardized assessments used to assess a student’s progress towards a SMART goal and determine the effectiveness of support provided—are utilized, and the student’s intervention plan is adjusted accordingly using data-based decision making.

A student is only moved to Tier 2 when they demonstrate a need that differentiated core instruction can not meet, and a student is only moved to Tier 3 if sufficient progress is not met in Tier 2 and they’re demonstrating a need for intensive support. 

It’s important to note that MTSS is a system-level framework. MTSS does not just support students but also teachers, administrators, and education leaders in providing the right tier-level support to students through its structured, systemic approach.

There are 7 Guiding Principles of MTSS:

MTSS is for ALL students.

• Educators must work proactively to support students’ learning needs. 
• ALL students can learn.
• ALL available resources are accessible to teach all students.

Leadership is vital .

• Strong administrative support ensures clarity around protocol and commitment to time and resources.
• Administration supports teachers by sharing the common goal of improving instruction (core, supplemental, and intervention).
• MTSS team builds internal capacity and sustainability over time.

Scientific, research-based core instruction and intervention are the foundation for success.

• Core Curriculum: To ensure students have the best chance at success, use strategies with a scientific research base. 
• Core curriculum and instructional approaches must have a high probability of success for most students (80%).
• Implementation of core curriculum must be verifiably implemented with fidelity.
• Tiered Levels of Support: Beyond the core curriculum, match students’ instruction/support to the level and intensity of their needs. The levels of support provided to students are based on the increasing level of student needs, which is organized through a tiered framework: 
• Tier 1 is whole class core instruction
• Tier 2 is whole class core instruction + additional targeted instruction (often small group)
• Tier 3 is whole class core instruction + additional targeted instruction + intensive intervention

Instructionally relevant, valid, and reliable assessments are critical for providing proactive and reactive support.

There are 3 types of assessments, which vary in administration and use: 

• Summative assessments are administered to all students annually to determine students’ mastery of grade-level standards and provide educators with information about adequate yearly progress at site and district levels.
• Universal screening assessments are administered to all students three times per year to proactively and objectively identify which students are potentially in need of educational supports/enhancements to supplement the core curriculum.  Furthermore, evaluation of universal screening data is conducted to ensure the core curriculum is resulting in success for a sufficient percentage of students. These assessments should be nationally or state-normed and predictive of performance on summative assessments.
• Progress monitoring assessments are given to students receiving intervention support and are administered weekly or every other week, depending on the intensity of need. These data should come from Curriculum-Based Measurements (CBMs) because they provide a reliable and valid measure of students’ growth in a particular skill area. 

A Response Protocol is used to make support decisions for students on a continuum of needs.

• A Response Protocol refers to the method and approach used when determining student needs and how to address them--it defines, “who gets what and when.” 
• The Response Protocol outlines a plan for using research-based, targeted interventions and enrichment services with increasing levels of cumulative support.
• The Response Protocol outlines the roles and responsibilities of staff and clarifies the procedures and processes within the model (e.g., requirements to intensify to a Tier 3 level of support for a student, procedures for notifying parents, etc.).

There are three types of Response Protocols:

A Standard-Treatment Protocol (STP) is used when all students struggling with a similar area receive the same support plan.

• A Problem-Solving Protocol (PSP) is used when a student receives an individual plan designed for their specific needs.
• A combined approach (ST/PSP) uses elements from both protocols to design additional support. 

Data guide instructional decisions.

• Data are used to align curriculum and instruction to assessment.
• Data are used to allocate resources. 
• Data drive professional development decisions.

Educators are also respected as diverse learners.

• Educators require professional development to ensure effectiveness and integrity at all levels of instruction. 
• Educators receive ongoing training and support to assimilate new knowledge and skills in a diversity of ways.
• This support can be in the form of follow-up modeling and coaching.
• This support can be provided in person, via webinar, in groups, one-on-one, through tutorials, articles, etc.
• Educators anticipate and are willing to meet newly emerging needs based on student performance. 

MTSS Implementation Fidelity Reference Guide

MTSS/RTI fidelity assessments review the most critical features of MTSS/RTI school-wide practices and help identify the critical missing steps to inform what schools should do next.

Use this MTSS/RTI Implementation Fidelity Reference Guide to figure out where your school is at in its implementation, and keep track of your infrastructural growth towards fidelity. 

Sign up for our weekly resources roundup and access these synopses. 

MTSS has a methodological way of problem-solving, utilizing a Response Protocol to make support decisions for students based on a continuum of needs.

As mentioned in the section above, a Response Protocol refers to the method and approach used when determining student needs and how to address them—it defines, “who gets what and when.” It outlines a plan for using research-based, targeted interventions and enrichment services with increasing levels of cumulative support. It also outlines the roles and responsibilities of staff and clarifies the procedures and processes within the model (e.g., requirements to intensify to a Tier 3 level of support for a student, procedures for notifying parents, etc.).

3 Types of Response Protocols

A Problem-Solving Protocol (PSP) is used when students receive an individual plan designed for their specific needs.

A combined approach (ST/PSP) uses elements from both protocols to design additional support.

4-Step MTSS Problem Solving Model

• Problem Identification (“Who and what are we concerned about?”): the difference between what learning and/or behavior is expected and what actually occurs is clearly defined.
• Problem Analysis (“Why do we think the problem is occurring?”): multiple sources of data are used (e.g., formative and summative assessments, attendance data, the BRM Insight Surveys, etc.) to generate possible cause(s) of the problem. 
• Plan Implementation (“What can we do about it?”): using the BRM platform, an intervention plan is developed collaboratively and implemented. The plan contains learning goals, support activities that are research-based strategies from the BRM library that maximize the likelihood of success, and a plan for monitoring progress.
• Plan Evaluation (“Was our support successful?”): Progress data are reviewed to determine if the plan was delivered with fidelity and the extent of impact in closing the gap toward expected performance. If a positive impact is not evident, the problem-solving process begins again.

It’s critical to understand that MTSS is based on this premise: the earlier we can identify a problem, analyze it so we can best understand our learners’ needs, implement a plan providing each student the level of support they need using research-backed interventions matched to their specific challenges, and frequently monitor for fidelity and effectiveness, the higher the likelihood we can help our students achieve success more easily, more quickly, and more commonly within the general education setting. MTSS is how we provide an equitable and successful education for ALL students.

Instructionally relevant, valid, and reliable assessments are critical for providing proactive and reactive support. There are 3 types of assessments, which vary in administration and use: 

Summative Assessments

Universal screening assessments, progress monitoring assessments.

A three-tiered service delivery system is necessary to efficiently and effectively support all children, not just those who struggle in school. The three-tiered system of service delivery is crucial in the attempt to ensure all students achieve at high levels and all students achieve college and career readiness.

The first step in building an MTSS system involves examining system effectiveness, which must occur prior to examining students individually. This section describes each tier in detail, and how to examine the effectiveness of a school’s service delivery system.

Tier 1: Core Instruction

• Standards-Based Curriculum : a curriculum based upon state standards.
• Systematic Explicit Instruction: Skills are taught from less to more complex using direct, clear, and concise instructional language. 
• Differentiated Instruction: Students have different levels of background knowledge and school readiness; differentiated instruction engages each student in active learning according to his/her needs. The content of instruction, delivery of instruction, an d targeted level of instruction can be differentiated. (For more information, check out this blog: The Differentiation Deal: Making a Case for Differentiation in the Classroom .)
• Flexible Grouping: A combination of whole group, small group, and individual instruction allows teachers to create fluid groups that meet the needs of all students. 
• Active Student Engagement: Ensuring all students are actively involved during instruction and are not passive recipi ents; this can be accomplished with high rates of opportunities to respond, ample time to practice skills, and prompt corrective feedback. ( Want Tier 1 Engagement Strategies? Check out : Top 10 Student Engagement Practices For Tier 1 in MTSS )
• Classroom Behavior Strategies: Proactively and explicitly teaching the expected behaviors and routines, frequent use of reinforcement and praise (4:1 positive to negative feedback loop), quick and efficient transition times, and consistent instructional response to misbehavior. 

A solid Tier 1 should be sufficient to help 80% of students meet or exceed grade level expectations as measured by a standardized summative assessment. If Tier 1 instruction is not successful in meeting the needs of 80% of the school’s population, the school team should evaluate the quality of the curriculum and its delivery and also consider possible solutions to create a better match between students’ needs and the core curriculum and instruction (e.g., improving explicit instruction, differentiation strategies, use of flexible grouping, and maximizing active student engagement). 

Tier 2: Targeted Group Intervention

Targeted group interventions typically involve an additional 60-90 minutes of instruction (outside of core instruction) provided each week (e.g., two to three 30-minute intervention periods). Targeted group interventions must be more explicit: more intensive than core instruction; more supportive in the form of encouragement, feedback, and positive reinforcement; carefully scaffolded; and ideally occur in groups of approximately 3 to 5 students, for elementary, and 6 to 8 students or tier 2 support classes broken into a few groups of 6 to 8 students, for middle and high schools. 

➡️ Check out: What You Need To Know About Utilizing Tier 2 in MTSS

Tier 3: Intensive Individualized Intervention

Tier 3 intervention plans include more than what occurs during intervention time. They also include strategies for maximizing student outcomes during core instruction or Tier 1, as well as supports to use at home or in the community.

➡️ Check out: Building an Engaging Tier 3 Support in MTSS

Teachers spend a lot of time and effort discussing student needs, creating plans, providing differentiated support, and documenting the work; however, without the right intervention plan, the work becomes a documentation process instead of the intended problem-solving practice.

The key components of successful intervention plans are

Interventions

Intervention plans always need to include the actual intervention that will be used to help students reach their goals. In MTSS/RTI, interventions are targeted instructional programs, activities, lessons, strategies, or tools used to improve a specific skill.

Therefore, when planning these intervention activities it is important to again think about what information will be needed for future problem-solving meetings. For example, what was done? What skill was it trying to target? How long, how frequent, and where? Many of these key pieces of information for problem-solving are not only important when developing the plan, but are also critical when selecting interventions.

PRACTICE SPOTLIGHT

How the practice of MTSS intervention planning has evolved in Mineola UFSD, with the support of Branching Minds

Request a demo to learn about How to select and document evidence-based supports for struggling students on the Branching Minds platform.

An effective MTSS practice is comprised of three different types of meetings that have three different functions and agendas:

The School Level MTSS Meeting

This meeting is conducted three times a year following the administration of universal screening assessments. The goal of this meeting is to understand the health of school-level MTSS practice by looking at the percent of students who are adequately being served by the core, the equity of instruction across demographics, grades, and classrooms, and improvement in student outcome measures since the last meeting. These metrics are used to evaluate the quality of practice across tier 1, 2, and 3 levels of support and guide school-level improvement plans. 

The Grade/Content Team MTSS Meeting

The individual problem-solving mtss meeting.

This meeting provides the time and space for individualized deep dive problem-solving for students not making sufficient progress when supported by the Grade/Content Team, e.g. students not making progress after receiving tier 2 and tier 3 level support

The MTSS team is a school-based, problem-solving team; it is the engine that drives the MTSS system. The MTSS team proactively addresses system needs by reviewing school-wide data (within grade levels and classrooms) and supports individual student growth by helping to monitor progress and make decisions for students at Tier 3. The site administrator designates the composition of the MTSS team. MTSS team membership is determined both by standing members who contribute expertise from their respective disciplines and those who may be invited to address a specific concern. Examples of standing members on the MTSS team include: administrator, general education teacher, school psychologist/counselor, dean, content area specialist, ELL teacher, special education teacher, and grade-level or department representatives.

MTSS Team Duties Are as Follows: 

Meet regularly with a structured agenda that varies throughout the month to: 

Review universal screening data;

Review school-wide data, consider feedback and concerns from PLCs, and make data-based decisions; 

Provide input on professional development as it relates to the school’s MTSS system and Tier 1 needs; 

Provide input regarding school site intervention/enrichment schedule, curriculum, and/or course offerings; 

Support grade levels/departments in serving students during intervention blocks in collaboration with general education teachers; 

Discuss and communicate with the site administrator on issues relevant to the MTSS process; 

Consult and collaborate with administrators, counselors, teachers, and parents about MTSS, problem-solving process, and procedural integrity; 

Hold problem-solving meetings (that include parents) for individual students; 

Refer students for comprehensive special education evaluations when data indicate this step is warranted. 

The MTSS Teams: Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities 

Critical to the functioning of an effective MTSS team is communication and collaboration between all school personnel. It is important to remember as we identify roles within an MTSS system that, as educators first, we all own the success of all students.

It’s no secret that MTSS has many components, and with the many components, it can be challenging to implement MTSS with fidelity. Because MTSS is a comprehensive continuum of supports, there are various areas that may need improvement. So the shorter answer to this question is it depends on where a district or school is at, where they want to go, and what components need to be improved for them to get there. There may only be a few, there may be many, and each district may be unique. But let's break down a few challenge areas Branching Minds often see as areas for improvement.

Challenge #1: Analyzing Current Core Curriculum Practices

The core curriculum is the collection of strategies used routinely with ALL students in a general education setting. Schools and districts implementing MTSS look to their core curriculum to meet the needs of at least 80% of their students. To tackle this challenge and understand if the core curriculum is serving the student body, ask the following questions:

Is there a core curriculum in place, and if so, is it being used with fidelity? 

Are instructional best practices such as differentiated instruction being used consistently? 

Are universal screeners being used routinely?

Challenge #2: Creating New MTSS Processes

As we work to create new MTSS processes to meet all student's needs (and concurrently reduce fatigue and create efficiency for teachers), it’s essential to analyze all current meetings teachers are required to attend. Many current meetings can be trimmed (or removed) to reduce redundancy by moving to the following three student support MTSS meeting types . 

The Grade/Content Team MTSS Meetings: These meetings are facilitated by grade level/content level teams and can be held monthly to create intervention group plans, identify patterns of need within the grade and/or content area, and monitor student progress. 

The Individual Problem-Solving MTSS Meetings: These meetings are facilitated by assigned teachers and can be held weekly or biweekly (depending upon the number of students with needs) and used to create and evaluate plans for individual students.  

The School Level Meetings: These meetings are facilitated by leadership and can be held three times a year after each benchmark screening period. The leadership team should use these meetings to discuss the evaluation of tier movement, growth, and equity of tiers across the school. 

By transitioning to this streamlined approach, leadership can remove extraneous meetings as the above meeting types should cover all student needs.

Challenge #3: Infrastructure Alignment

Infrastructure alignment is an overlooked yet vital step in setting the stage for successful MTSS foundations. The clarity that the alignment process brings, offers a path to maximize overall effectiveness, both within the MTSS adoption itself, as well as its integration with schoolwide functionality. The objective of bringing resources to help every student meet their goals is most successful when schools have aligned the multiple layers of resources and programs that schools employ to support their students. 

Alignment, by definition, considers movement in a straight line, which we all know is the shortest distance between two points. But, alignment can also be seen as holding and honoring positions of agreement; arguably the most effective way to implement any systemic change, including moving forward with consent from all parties.

When there is a successful adoption of MTSS, each component cohesively works in a symphony; the universal pre-screen is administered and analyzed, needs analysis are completed and utilized, student strengths and growth edges are assessed, data is used to create interventions, support plans are delivered, and progress monitored with fidelity and finally plan adjustments are made to achieve success for students. When there is complete alignment, all the parties involved benefit, including the student, school community, and all initiative stakeholders.

Here are some tried and tested steps to launch the alignment of MTSS at the school and district leve l:

• Name the resistance
• Create a plan
• Identify and name all school efforts, programs, and processes
• Identify the stakeholders
• Align assessment and other required data
• Communicate concisely, and more often than you think necessary

Read more in this article: Infrastructural Alignment for MTSS

Challenge #4: Efficiently Find and Implement Effective Interventions and Tracking Their Progress

I ntervention strategies can be easily googled and subsequently taught; however, how do teachers know if they will actually work? Interventions can have varying levels of evidence behind them—some are robust and research-based, and others may have very little evidence of success. When educators use strategies with little or no research base, valuable instructional time gets lost waiting for the support to impact student progress over time. 

To determine if a favored intervention is research-based, educators can search for ESSA (the Every Student Succeeds Act) curated interventions. ESSA was developed to help educators select interventions that are grounded in research. The duration and frequency of intervention support are based upon students’ needs and the research-driven recommendations. 

Additionally, progress monitoring assessments to measure intervention effectiveness should be administered weekly or biweekly, depending upon the students’ needs. It is critical to regularly create the time and space for reviewing progress monitoring data to determine if the intervention(s) provided needs to be adjusted/changed.

The Branching Minds platform helps educators and administrators find the best evidence-based interventions for each learner, streamline documentation, and quickly understand student progress .

"Branching Minds is a comprehensive MTSS intervention platform. It offers the scaffolding, thought partnership, tools, and resources we need to support all educators in CPS in meeting students' individual needs.”

- Sherly Chavarria , Chief of Teaching and Learning, Chicago Public Schools (IL)

Challenge #5: Managing the Change Management Processes

Successfully managing the challenge of the change management process is critical in transitioning from a traditional support model to MTSS. You may have heard the old phrase "...if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've got." To avoid this from happening and ensure success, leadership must thoroughly think through and plan the change management process. The following tips are essential when engaging in change management in schools:

Find exemplars for modeling best practices and collaboration;

Concisely and frequently communicate policy changes;

Explain the "why" behind the change (e.g., for MTSS);

Check-in regularly through quick surveys and questionnaires to see how the new policies are going; and

Create individual touchpoints with those that may be resistant to change

When change occurs, some may feel overwhelmed or tempted to slip back into old patterns. As a result, thoroughly thinking through the above bullets can help avoid this from happening and instead create excitement about providing a wraparound foundation to meet all students' needs.

School leaders report improved quality and consistency with the Branching Minds platform. 

Across all district partners, 91% of school leaders report that BRM has increased the consistency of their intervention practice, and 96% report that BRM has improved the quality of their intervention meetings.

MTSS is not a new process, but it is an ever-improving & evolving research-backed process with the goal of providing adequate and equitable tiered support for all students— while also supporting educators and administrators to more effectively and efficiently help students. MTSS is a system-level initiative that helps districts across the country improve student outcomes through the use of screeners, a continuum of tiered support, progress monitoring, and data-based decision-making. And as a system-level solution, MTSS is collaborative, involving all stakeholders in data-driven decision-making to best support students. 

MTSS can help districts:

Support every student to succeed & for every teacher to know how to help their students

Better evaluate student needs and match instruction, resources, and interventions accordingly

Place a strong priority on prevention

Improve student outcomes using research

Integrate academic, behavioral, and social-emotional supports

Strengthen capacity among educators & administrators

Examine systems-level data to identify variables that are producing current results

The Branching Minds MTSS/RTI system-level education platform brings together innovative, easy-to-use technology with the latest insights from the learning sciences to help drive student and school success, while making teachers' and administrators' work easier and more effective. Branching Minds connects data, systems, interventions, and stakeholders so that educators, administrators, and families can work better together to support students' holistic needs. Learn more about Branching Minds' MTSS software platform .

Make MTSS Easy, Efficient, and Effective With the Branching Minds Web Platform 

Transform your district's MTSS solution with personalized intervention plans, powerful collaboration tools, and easy-to-understand reporting. We are more than just a platform, we are a system-level partner.

What Are Some Examples of MTSS?

MTSS acts as an umbrella that includes a few other tiered systems of support such as Response to Intervention (RTI)—a multi-tier approach to the early identification and support of students with learning and behavior needs; and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)—a preventative framework for supporting the development of positive and prosocial behaviors in schools and classrooms. 

What Is an MTSS Intervention?

A n MTSS intervention is an intentional, research, or evidence-based program, instructional activity, or strategy to target a specific academic/social-emotional/behavioral skill.

Interventions are delivered with a specific frequency and duration over a defined number of weeks, depending on the level of need. Interventions may be delivered in a variety of contexts such as small groups, one on one, afterschool, and tutoring.

For more information about the MTSS intervention process, check out the MTSS Intervention Flowchart & Guide .

What Are the 3 Tiers of RTI?

These RTI tiers provide levels of support for students demonstrating need. The three tiers of RTI are:

Tier 1: Whole class instruction/core instruction

This tier includes all students in the general education classroom. Students in Tier 1 may work in small groups, and have learning supports that suit their needs. If a student is demonstrating a need greater than the everyday classroom can address, then this student moves onto Tier 2.

  Tier 2: Small group interventions 

Students demonstrating a need for Tier 2 will receive small group instruction/intervention outside of the everyday classroom 2-3 times a week. It’s important to note that students still continue to receive everyday core instruction in the classroom.

Educators will monitor the student’s progress in this tier and if the student shows improvement, they may move back to Tier 1. But if the student does not show improvement, educators may see a need for the student to move to Tier 3 to receive additional support.

Tier 3: Intensive interventions

Tier 3 is the most intensive level of support in RTI. Students demonstrating a need for Tier 3 support will continue to receive core instruction in the classroom and small group instruction/intervention. Additionally, they will receive a more intuitive intervention, often in the form of 1-1 lessons with an educator. 

How Do You Explain MTSS to Parents?

During the implementation of MTSS, creating a plan to share information with families and community members about the school's approach to MTSS in a clear and accessible format is essential. Make sure to define key terms needed to level-set an understanding of MTSS. Visuals such as graphs, flowcharts , and easy-to-understand flyers are great tools to get the word out on why MTSS is necessary, how MTSS will impact students, and the schedule of expected timelines/communications. The goal is to help families understand that MTSS encourages schools to plan and allocate resources so that ALL students receive the instruction they need.

Here are a few essential MTSS resources to share with families and parents:

MTSS Glossary of Key Terms

Download this MTSS Guide to share with them

A few guiding points to touch on when communicating with families and parents about MTSS are the student's tiered needs, curriculum and academics, MTSS data, and social-emotional learning (SEL) support for the whole child. 

For more information, check out these resources:

MTSS Guide for Families and Community Members

How To Speak With Families and Communities About MTSS

What Is an MTSS Assessment?

MTSS uses assessments to identify students’ needs and monitor progress. It’s important to note that there are no “MTSS assessments,” but there are many types of assessments used in the MTSS framework. The types of assessments that MTSS utilizes are below. 

Universal Screeners

Universal screeners are standardized assessments used to identify students’ areas of strength and need, and offer a snapshot of progress over time.

Diagnostic Assessments

Diagnostic assessments are assessment tools used to identify a student’s specific skills and knowledge.

Progress Monitors

Progress Monitors are standardized assessments used to assess a student’s progress towards a SMART goal, and determine the effectiveness of support provided.  

Intervention Embedded Assessments

Intervention Embedded Assessments are progress monitoring tools embedded into an intervention program. These only assess a student’s progress in the intervention, not towards a SMART goal (these are NOT progress monitors). 

Summative assessments are used to measure a student’s standard proficiency. 

Formative Assessments

Formative Assessments are periodic “check-in” assessments, such as “pop quizzes” or “exit tickets'' used to guide Tier 1 instruction and measure students’ understanding of standards. These assessments determine if the instruction is effective or needs to be adjusted during the instructional period.

Learn more in this article .

What Is the Process of MTSS?

The MTSS process consists of students receiving strong differentiated core instruction in the everyday general education classroom, consistent universal screening to identify students’ needs, and if students’ needs are identified then the creation of student support plans and intervention plans are created, while a student is receiving intervention progress is frequently monitored, and decision-makers interpret and data and adjust instruction and support plans according to a student’s need. 

What Are the Essential Elements of an Effective Intervention Program?

In MTSS, an effective intervention should be targeted, research-based, and chosen based on alignment with core instruction; be specific for individuals or students in small groups, and be coupled with an intervention plan which accounts for scheduled progress monitoring. Interventions should also be used in conjunction with SMART goals and progress monitoring.

About the Branching Minds Solution

Branching minds is an mtss/rti system-level education platform that brings together innovative, easy to use technology with the latest insights from the learning sciences to help drive student and school success, while making teachers and administrators work easier and more effective. branching minds connects data, systems, interventions, and stakeholders so that educators, administrators, and families can work better together to support students' holistic needs. , want us to email you a copy fill out the form, and we will send you a pdf version of this guide.

Problem-Solving Olympiad Puts Power Skills to the Test

• Share article

The inaugural NXTLVL Problem-Solving Olympiad brought students together online for a day of spirited competition, pushing them to their true potential. Middle school problem-solvers from four continents, including three of the top ten virtual schools ranked by World Schools, navigated complex challenges in teams. These challenges tested timeless Power Skills like creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, communication, emotional intelligence, and resilience.

NXTLVL is a pioneering edtech program that helps students develop Power Skills, preparing them for a rapidly evolving world driven by AI advancements and scientific innovations. Our game-based learning approach combines team challenges with expert coaching, equipping students with the skills needed to take on anything.

Many progressive schools, like those attending the Olympiad, are integrating competency-based education into their curricula, focusing on Power Skills to prepare their students for school, work and life.

Gabriel Hernandez, Director of Technology at our champion school Alverno Heights Academy believes “participation in such interactive activities not only enriches students’ learning experiences but also helps them develop essential skills that are beneficial for their personal and academic growth.”

The new Problem-Solving Olympiad offers an extraordinary learning environment for tomorrow’s problem-solvers to stretch their Power Skills by collaborating under pressure.

Power Skill award winners

To emphasize the importance of Power Skills, we rewarded exceptional examples.

The Emotional Intelligence Award went to Minerva’s Virtual Academy, a globally recognized online school based in the UK, for “anticipating the needs and strategies of allies and opponents to navigate conflicts.”

Williamsburg Academy of Colorado picked up the Resilience Award for “perseverance in pushing through setbacks without losing momentum.”

Laurel Springs School earned the Critical Thinking Award for “demonstrating exceptional analytical thinking, decoding complex problems with logical and strategically sound solutions.”

The Communication and Creativity Awards went to the Prisma Online School for “mastering divergent thinking, consistently generating and synthesizing innovative ideas, while communicating them clearly.”

The Champions

We witnessed the peak of escalating intensity in the Championship Level as four teams battled it out for the main prize. Fourth place went to Prisma Online School, third place to Hill Top Preparatory School, and second place to Minerva’s Virtual Academy.

Our overall champions were a team from Alverno Heights Academy, an independent Catholic school from California. They epitomized teamwork, securing the Power Skill Award for collaboration. With a perfect balance of leadership and emotional intelligence, they leveraged each other’s diverse skills and perspectives. Their dynamism and synchronicity were evident from start to finish. Worthy winners indeed.

Hernandez added, “This Olympiad provides a unique platform for students to engage in communication and critical thinking skills, which are essential in today’s educational landscape. While traditional sports often focus on teamwork and collaboration, this competition allows educators to reach a broader spectrum of students and foster these important skills collectively.”

One of the Alverno Heights Academy students emphasized the importance of “teamwork, communication, and lots of planning before each round,” which was key to their success.

The ultimate contest of wits

The Olympiad was a breathtaking experience. The speed at which all teams adapted to the surmounting challenges reminded us of what students are capable of when given the right platform. In just five hours, students transformed from being curious but uncertain to astute problem-solving teams.

Initially, they dove in without knowing the rules, requiring them to decode the game, develop hypotheses, and fine-tune their tactics. As the game evolved, they had to rework their strategies and adapt on the fly. This journey through failure, setbacks, and upended strategies led them to a finish line where the sweetness of victory was palpable.

The next level

Building on the success of the May event, we’re excited to announce the November Olympiad, which promises to be even more spectacular, expanding over multiple days to welcome more schools.

With early bird access, it’s free for the first four teams until July 1st.

Click here to register and give your students a head start on the future.

We extend a heartfelt thank you to the Elite Academic Academy for their invaluable support in hosting the event and the other schools that made it possible.

Alverno Heights Academy Boston College High School Colégio Bento Benedini Hill Top Preparatory School Laurel Springs School Leadership Academy of Utah Mesa Public Schools Minerva’s Virtual Academy Prisma Online School Repton Abu Dhabi Repton Al Barsha Repton Dubai Williamsburg Academy Williamsburg Academy of Colorado

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Cookie preferences

Discover and empower student innovators - desi in public schools.

Nurture problem-solving capacity in the next generation of students in India’s underserved schools

Future-readiness (i.e creativity, innovation & problem solving) is currently not prioritized but is essential for students’ success as thriving individuals and meaningful contributors to their surroundings. Over the course of our intervention, we build these skills that are core to inculcating problem solving capacity. We work with government institutions for foundational and advanced programs.

HundrED shortlisted this innovation

HundrED has shortlisted this innovation to one of its innovation collections. The information on this page has been checked by HundrED.

About the innovation

Problem-solving, creativity and innovation are crucial skills and abilities which our students need to develop to thrive in this volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. The OECD Report, the pandemic and India’s own National Education Policy recognize that while these skills are important, they are not prioritized by our schools. We developed a scalable model to address this crucial need.

Through our foundational programs based on Human Centred Design (Design Thinking), we enable the students to work on ideas of their choice, by practising important Problem Solving skills and mindsets. Over the course of our intervention (25 hours spread across the year), we build these skills that are core to inculcating problem solving capacity. Through bootcamps and mentorship, they turn these solutions into prototypes that are showcased to their peers and members from their community. To realise this, we run programs that are developed for in-person and online deployment. Since our inception 6 years ago, we have reached more than 400,000 students, generating over 100,000 ideas

The advanced programs encourage select students to further develop their prototypes into products that can bring about a change in the lives of people around them. We focus on advanced skills and mindsets and connect the students with experts from the field to mentor them further.

Our model has an in person and a hybrid model of intervention. The in-person model started with a pilot in 2 schools in 2017 and is presently active in 74 schools in Telangana, India. This has been in partnership with the Dept of Social and Tribal Welfare, Government of Telangana. The hybrid model was piloted in 4000 schools in 2020 and has currently been implemented in over 41,000 schools, reaching more than 500,000 students in three countries. This program is in partnership with YuWaah, state governments and the Central Government’s Atal Innovation Mission in India and with UNICEF and the Ministries of Education in Maldives and Bhutan.

Our innovation is a curriculum that works with schools and has a system level model. We can make it available on request to explore.

Implementation steps

Spread of the innovation, similar innovations.

Don’t miss news and opportunities to engage with HundrED

Do you want to save changes.

Evaluating problem-solving teams in K-12 schools: Do they work?

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland.
• 2 School Psychology, Loyola University-Chicago.
• 3 Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
• PMID: 29792457
• DOI: 10.1037/amp0000254

Teams and other collaborative structures have become commonplace in American schools, although historically school staff members functioned more independently from one another. In this article, we describe the growing influence of collaboration and teaming in a variety of school contexts, but focus on the empirical literature on problem-solving teams as reflecting the state of research and practice in the schools. A review of the research on problem-solving teams, using an input-mediator-outcome-input framework, provides evidence for how teaming could become more effective and efficient in this context as well as sets an agenda for what additional research is needed. Key challenges to school teams are considered next, along with recommendations for change. The first challenge is the lack of training of school staff in the key components of teaming. A second issue is the difficulty in implementing teams in the organizational context of schools. (PsycINFO Database Record

(c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Publication types

• Cooperative Behavior*
• Group Processes*
• Problem Solving*
• School Teachers*

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team
• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Online Business Certificate Courses
• Business Strategy
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability

Design Thinking and Innovation

Key concepts, who will benefit, aspiring or current innovation managers, entrepreneurs, product managers, developers, and marketers.

What You Earn

Certificate of Completion

Boost your resume with a Certificate of Completion from HBS Online

Earn by: completing this course

Certificate of Specialization

Prove your mastery of entrepreneurship and innovation

Earn by: completing any three courses within this subject area to earn a Certificate of Specialization

Content Week - Clarify: Empathy and Understanding

• An Introduction to Innovation
• Clarify Through Observation
• Insights and Problem Framing
• The Right Enviroment for Creativity

Featured Exercises

Project week – clarify.

• Project Instructions

Content Week - Ideate, Part 1: Tools for Generating Ideas

• Establishing Focus with Design Principles
• The Ideation Process: Getting Started with SIT
• More SIT Tools for Ideation
• Open-Ended Approaches to Generating Ideas
• Review of Project Work

Content Week - Ideate, Part 2: User Values and Behaviors

• Design Heuristics for Generating and Refining Ideas
• Designing for Behavior Change

Project Week - Ideate

Content Week - Develop: An Experimentation Mindset

• Idea Selection and Evaluation
• Defining and Refining Your Prototype Plan
• Prototyping: From Exploration to Validation
• Leading Concept Development

Content Week - Implement: Communication and Structure

• Overcoming Developer and User Bias
• Strategies for Communicating Value
• Managing an Innovation Culture

So You Want to Be an Entrepreneur: How to Get Started

Our difference, about the professor.

Srikant Datar Design Thinking and Innovation

Dates & eligibility.

No current course offerings for this selection.

All applicants must be at least 18 years of age, proficient in English, and committed to learning and engaging with fellow participants throughout the course.

Learn about bringing this course to your organization .

Learner Stories

Design Thinking and Innovation FAQs

Could you tell me a little more about the ai course assistant chat bot.

You can think of the beta version of the Design Thinking and Innovation AI Course Assistant chat bot in two ways: like a virtual Teaching Assistant who can help you consolidate and confirm your understanding of course concepts, and as a virtual Learner Success Assistant who can help you stay on track with completing the coursework in a timely fashion. When you are finding a particular concept difficult to master, or would like additional examples of a theory, try asking the bot your question in the same way you would phrase it to a human TA. If you have a question pertaining to where or how to submit certain assignments, or one relating to deadlines or time estimates, you can also express those in a similar fashion. Please note that no preexisting familiarity or experience with generative AI is necessary or assumed to use the bot and, while we encourage you to engage with the bot and share your candid feedback on your experience, a lack of engagement with the bot will not adversely impact your eligibility for a certificate of completion.

What are the learning requirements in order to successfully complete the course, and how are grades assigned?

Participants in Design Thinking and Innovation are eligible for a Certificate of Completion from Harvard Business School Online.

Participants are expected to fully complete all coursework in a thoughtful and timely manner. This will mean meeting each week’s course module deadlines and fully answering questions posed therein. This helps ensure participants proceed through the course at a similar pace and can take full advantage of social learning opportunities. In addition to module and assignment completion, we expect you to offer feedback on others’ reflections and contribute to conversations on the platform. Participants who fail to complete the course requirements will not receive a certificate and will not be eligible to retake the course.

More detailed information on course requirements will be communicated at the start of the course. No grades are assigned for Design Thinking and Innovation. Participants will either be evaluated as complete or not complete.

What materials will I have access to after completing Design Thinking and Innovation?

You will have access to the materials in every prior module as you progress through the program. Access to course materials and the course platform ends 60 days after the final deadline in the program.

At the end of each course module, you will be able to download a PDF summary highlighting key concepts used throughout the course. At the end of the program, you will receive a PDF compilation of all of the module summary documents. We hope the module summary documents will serve as a helpful resource after you finish the course.

How should I list my certificate on my resume?

Once you've earned your Certificate of Completion, list it on your resume along with the date of completion:

Harvard Business School Online Certificate in Design Thinking and Innovation [Cohort Start Month and Year]

List your certificate on your LinkedIn profile under "Education" with the language from the Credential Verification page:

School: Harvard Business School Online Dates Attended: [The year you participated in the program] Degree: Other; Certificate in Design Thinking and Innovation Field of Study: Leave blank Grade: "Complete" Activities and Societies: Leave blank

Description: Design Thinking and Innovation is a 7-week, 40-hour online certificate program from Harvard Business School. Design Thinking and Innovation will teach you how to leverage fundamental design thinking principles and innovative problem-solving tools to address business challenges and build products, strategies, teams, and environments for optimal use and performance.

The program was developed by leading Harvard Business School faculty and is delivered in an active learning environment based on the HBS signature case-based learning model.

What is the project?

Beginning in Module 2 of Design Thinking and Innovation, you will apply the tools you learn in the course to an innovation problem that is important or interesting to you, or you can use a provided scenario. In subsequent modules, you will use your earlier responses to build on your innovation project and make each phase of design thinking relevant to your own work.

Do I need to collaborate with others to complete the project?

No, each individual submits their own work in Design Thinking and Innovation, and all project work can be submitted without sharing it with others in the course. You are encouraged to share with others and ask for feedback, but collaboration isn’t necessary to advance through the course.

Related Programs

Negotiation Mastery

Secure maximum value for your organization through a mastery of negotiation techniques.

Entrepreneurship Essentials

Master a proven framework for building and financing new ventures, and make your entrepreneurial dreams a reality.

Disruptive Strategy

Strengthen your capacity to create winning strategies and bring innovations to market by discovering customer jobs to be done and aligning your business’s resources, processes, and profit formula.

• Classifieds
• Public Notices
• e-Newspaper App

Flagler Palm Coast High School Future Problem Solving team ready to tackle a global issue

Ava mello, victoria dasilva-carvalheira, arianna slaughter and liam lafferty won in global issues team writing at state and now they're heading to the international competition..

• By Brent Woronoff
• | 8:12 p.m. May 28, 2024
• Leave a comment

• Palm Coast Observer

Four Flagler Palm Coast High School sophomores solved the autonomous vehicle problem at the Future Problem Solving state competition. Now they will try their hand at solving the air quality conundrum.

Ava Mello, Victoria DaSilva-Carvalheira, Arianna Slaughter and Liam Lafferty won first place at state in the Global Issues Team Writing Senior Division and are heading to the International Conference on June 5-9 at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.

The International Competition will bring together over 2,000 champion problem solvers from over 14 countries, including 40 competitors from four Flagler County schools. This is the third in a series on the Flagler students who were invited to Internationals.

The Global Issues team, coached by Melissa Castaneda, will have two hours to come up with a solution to a future scenario involving air quality, this year’s international topic, using the problem solvers’ six-step process.

“We just go through the process where we identify challenges and then find a main one,” Mello said. “And then we identify solutions and we rank (them). We write a whole action plan based on the solution that scored the highest.”

Their solution to the autonomous vehicle problem? Magnet brakes.

“The magnet brakes would be installed on every autonomous vehicle on the road,” DaSilva-Carvalheira said. “And then if a collision was inevitable, the magnets would be activated to repel the cars away from one another.”

The team members admit they don’t take the competition too seriously. They just enjoy the process.

“Honestly, before states we didn't do much research,” Slaughter said. “We did some the day before, but I think that kind of helps us because we can figure it out while we're doing it. You could research everything and still not have a good solution, because it's really about problem solving skills and working together as a team.”

Slaughter and Mello have been working together on FPS teams since they were fifth graders at Old Kings Elementary School.

“In the beginning, we started with Community Problem Solving. But in middle school we transitioned to writing Global Issues,” Mello said.

As they work to come up with their action plan, the four throw out ideas. 

“We take them like, there’s no stupid ideas,” Mello said.

“Our group is just full of giggles,” DaSilva-Carvalheira said. “I think we're probably one of the louder groups when we're in competition. We just have to quiet each other down, because we don't want to get in trouble.”

Lafferty was absent from the interview for this article. DaSilva-Carvalheira said he is very creative when they bounce around ideas. He is the only one of the team who has been to the International Conference before.

“He's told us that he really wants to do the talent show and sing Buddy Holly,” DaSilva-Carvalheira said. “That's about all he's giving us, but he went for Scenario Writing last year, so he doesn't have much advice pertaining to Global Issues.”

Other activities the group is looking forward to, outside of the competition, are the dance and gift trading. Each state or country in the competition brings a gift to trade. The Florida teams, they said, are bringing plastic and rubber-ducky flamingos, sunglasses and pens and pencils.

“I’m looking forward to meeting people,” Mello said. “I've never really gone this far away for a competition. So, I think it's going to be a fun experience, and we're probably going to learn a lot, and hopefully it'll help us improve, because this won't be our last time going.”

Brent Woronoff

Brent Woronoff is the associate editor of the Palm Coast and Ormond Beach Observers. He has been in the business more than 41 years, nearly 30 with the Daytona Beach News-Journal. He is a former assistant sports editor at the News-Journal and former sports editor at the St. Augustine Record.

Latest News

• June 5, 2024

Volusia County institutes countywide burn ban amid drought conditions

Report finds Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond metro area as one of nation's deadliest for pedestrians

Flagler County leans toward special assessment tax to fund beach renourishment program

Forsythe Lane closed as Flagler Sheriff's Office deals with suspect barricaded in home

Your free article limit has been reached this month. Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning local news.

5 Articles Remaining!

Not a subscriber.

Click here to Subscribe

Already a Subscriber?

Click here to Login

What is decision making?

Decisions, decisions. When was the last time you struggled with a choice? Maybe it was this morning, when you decided to hit the snooze button—again. Perhaps it was at a restaurant, with a miles-long menu and the server standing over you. Or maybe it was when you left your closet in a shambles after trying on seven different outfits before a big presentation. Often, making a decision—even a seemingly simple one—can be difficult. And people will go to great lengths—and pay serious sums of money—to avoid having to make a choice. The expensive tasting menu at the restaurant, for example. Or limiting your closet choices to black turtlenecks, à la Steve Jobs.

Get to know and directly engage with senior McKinsey experts on decision making

Aaron De Smet is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Eileen Kelly Rinaudo  is McKinsey’s global director of advancing women executives and is based in the New York office, Frithjof Lund is a senior partner in the Oslo office, and Leigh Weiss is a senior adviser in the Boston office.

If you’ve ever wrestled with a decision at work, you’re definitely not alone. According to McKinsey research, executives spend a significant portion of their time— nearly 40 percent , on average—making decisions. Worse, they believe most of that time is poorly used. People struggle with decisions so much so that we actually get exhausted from having to decide too much, a phenomenon called decision fatigue.

But decision fatigue isn’t the only cost of ineffective decision making. According to a McKinsey survey of more than 1,200 global business leaders, inefficient decision making costs a typical Fortune 500 company 530,000 days  of managers’ time each year, equivalent to about $250 million in annual wages. That’s a lot of turtlenecks.

How can business leaders ease the burden of decision making and put this time and money to better use? Read on to learn the ins and outs of smart decision making—and how to put it to work.

Learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice .

How can organizations untangle ineffective decision-making processes?

McKinsey research has shown that agile is the ultimate solution for many organizations looking to streamline their decision making . Agile organizations are more likely to put decision making in the right hands, are faster at reacting to (or anticipating) shifts in the business environment, and often attract top talent who prefer working at companies with greater empowerment and fewer layers of management.

For organizations looking to become more agile, it’s possible to quickly boost decision-making efficiency by categorizing the type of decision to be made and adjusting the approach accordingly. In the next section, we review three types of decision making and how to optimize the process for each.

What are three keys to faster, better decisions?

Business leaders today have access to more sophisticated data than ever before. But it hasn’t necessarily made decision making any easier. For one thing, organizational dynamics—such as unclear roles, overreliance on consensus, and death by committee—can get in the way of straightforward decision making. And more data often means more decisions to be taken, which can become too much for one person, team, or department. This can make it more difficult for leaders to cleanly delegate, which in turn can lead to a decline in productivity.

Leaders are growing increasingly frustrated with broken decision-making processes, slow deliberations, and uneven decision-making outcomes. Fewer than half  of the 1,200 respondents of a McKinsey survey report that decisions are timely, and 61 percent say that at least half the time they spend making decisions is ineffective.

What’s the solution? According to McKinsey research, effective solutions center around categorizing decision types and organizing different processes to support each type. Further, each decision category should be assigned its own practice—stimulating debate, for example, or empowering employees—to yield improvements in effectiveness.

Here are the three decision categories  that matter most to senior leaders, and the standout practice that makes the biggest difference for each type of decision.

• Big-bet decisions are infrequent but high risk, such as acquisitions. These decisions carry the potential to shape the future of the company, and as a result are generally made by top leaders and the board. Spurring productive debate by assigning someone to argue the case for and against a potential decision can improve big-bet decision making.
• Cross-cutting decisions, such as pricing, can be frequent and high risk. These are usually made by business unit heads, in cross-functional forums as part of a collaborative process. These types of decisions can be improved by doubling down on process refinement. The ideal process should be one that helps clarify objectives, measures, and targets.
• Delegated decisions are frequent but low risk and are handled by an individual or working team with some input from others. Delegated decision making can be improved by ensuring that the responsibility for the decision is firmly in the hands of those closest to the work. This approach also enhances engagement and accountability.

In addition, business leaders can take the following four actions to help sustain rapid decision making :

• Focus on the game-changing decisions, ones that will help an organization create value and serve its purpose.
• Convene only necessary meetings, and eliminate lengthy reports. Turn unnecessary meetings into emails, and watch productivity bloom. For necessary meetings, provide short, well-prepared prereads to aid in decision making.
• Clarify the roles of decision makers and other voices. Who has a vote, and who has a voice?
• Push decision-making authority to the front line—and tolerate mistakes.

Introducing McKinsey Explainers : Direct answers to complex questions

How can business leaders effectively delegate decision making.

Business is more complex and dynamic than ever, meaning business leaders are faced with needing to make more decisions in less time. Decision making takes up an inordinate amount of management’s time—up to 70 percent for some executives—which leads to inefficiencies and opportunity costs.

As discussed above, organizations should treat different types of decisions differently . Decisions should be classified  according to their frequency, risk, and importance. Delegated decisions are the most mysterious for many organizations: they are the most frequent, and yet the least understood. Only about a quarter of survey respondents  report that their organizations make high-quality and speedy delegated decisions. And yet delegated decisions, because they happen so often, can have a big impact on organizational culture.

The key to better delegated decisions is to empower employees by giving them the authority and confidence to act. That means not simply telling employees which decisions they can or can’t make; it means giving employees the tools they need to make high-quality decisions and the right level of guidance as they do so.

Here’s how to support delegation and employee empowerment:

• Ensure that your organization has a well-defined, universally understood strategy. When the strategic intent of an organization is clear, empowerment is much easier because it allows teams to pull in the same direction.
• Clearly define roles and responsibilities. At the foundation of all empowerment efforts is a clear understanding of who is responsible for what, including who has input and who doesn’t.
• Invest in capability building (and coaching) up front. To help managers spend meaningful coaching time, organizations should also invest in managers’ leadership skills.
• Build an empowerment-oriented culture. Leaders should role model mindsets that promote empowerment, and managers should build the coaching skills they want to see. Managers and employees, in particular, will need to get comfortable with failure as a necessary step to success.
• Decide when to get involved. Managers should spend effort up front to decide what is worth their focused attention. They should know when it’s appropriate to provide close guidance and when not to.

How can you guard against bias in decision making?

Cognitive bias is real. We all fall prey, no matter how we try to guard ourselves against it. And cognitive and organizational bias undermines good decision making, whether you’re choosing what to have for lunch or whether to put in a bid to acquire another company.

Here are some of the most common cognitive biases and strategies for how to avoid them:

• Confirmation bias. Often, when we already believe something, our minds seek out information to support that belief—whether or not it is actually true. Confirmation bias  involves overweighting evidence that supports our belief, underweighting evidence against our belief, or even failing to search impartially for evidence in the first place. Confirmation bias is one of the most common traps organizational decision makers fall into. One famous—and painful—example of confirmation bias is when Blockbuster passed up the opportunity  to buy a fledgling Netflix for $50 million in 2000. (Actually, that’s putting it politely. Netflix executives remember being “laughed out” of Blockbuster’s offices.) Fresh off the dot-com bubble burst of 2000, Blockbuster executives likely concluded that Netflix had approached them out of desperation—not that Netflix actually had a baby unicorn on its hands.
• Herd mentality. First observed by Charles Mackay in his 1841 study of crowd psychology, herd mentality happens when information that’s available to the group is determined to be more useful than privately held knowledge. Individuals buy into this bias because there’s safety in the herd. But ignoring competing viewpoints might ultimately be costly. To counter this, try a teardown exercise , wherein two teams use scenarios, advanced analytics, and role-playing to identify how a herd might react to a decision, and to ensure they can refute public perceptions.
• Sunk-cost fallacy. Executives frequently hold onto underperforming business units or projects because of emotional or legacy attachment . Equally, business leaders hate shutting projects down . This, researchers say, is due to the ingrained belief that if everyone works hard enough, anything can be turned into gold. McKinsey research indicates two techniques for understanding when to hold on and when to let go. First, change the burden of proof from why an asset should be cut to why it should be retained. Next, categorize business investments according to whether they should be grown, maintained, or disposed of—and follow clearly differentiated investment rules  for each group.
• Ignoring unpleasant information. Researchers call this the “ostrich effect”—when people figuratively bury their heads in the sand , ignoring information that will make their lives more difficult. One study, for example, found that investors were more likely to check the value of their portfolios when the markets overall were rising, and less likely to do so when the markets were flat or falling. One way to help get around this is to engage in a readout process, where individuals or teams summarize discussions as they happen. This increases the likelihood that everyone leaves a meeting with the same understanding of what was said.
• Halo effect. Important personal and professional choices are frequently affected by people’s tendency to make specific judgments based on general impressions . Humans are tempted to use simple mental frames to understand complicated ideas, which means we frequently draw conclusions faster than we should. The halo effect is particularly common in hiring decisions. To avoid this bias, structured interviews can help mitigate the essentializing tendency. When candidates are measured against indicators, intuition is less likely to play a role.

For more common biases and how to beat them, check out McKinsey’s Bias Busters Collection .

Learn more about Strategy & Corporate Finance consulting  at McKinsey—and check out job opportunities related to decision making if you’re interested in working at McKinsey.

Articles referenced include:

• “ Bias busters: When the crowd isn’t necessarily wise ,” McKinsey Quarterly , May 23, 2022, Eileen Kelly Rinaudo , Tim Koller , and Derek Schatz
• “ Boards and decision making ,” April 8, 2021, Aaron De Smet , Frithjof Lund , Suzanne Nimocks, and Leigh Weiss
• “ To unlock better decision making, plan better meetings ,” November 9, 2020, Aaron De Smet , Simon London, and Leigh Weiss
• “ Reimagine decision making to improve speed and quality ,” September 14, 2020, Julie Hughes , J. R. Maxwell , and Leigh Weiss
• “ For smarter decisions, empower your employees ,” September 9, 2020, Aaron De Smet , Caitlin Hewes, and Leigh Weiss
• “ Bias busters: Lifting your head from the sand ,” McKinsey Quarterly , August 18, 2020, Eileen Kelly Rinaudo
• “ Decision making in uncertain times ,” March 24, 2020, Andrea Alexander, Aaron De Smet , and Leigh Weiss
• “ Bias busters: Avoiding snap judgments ,” McKinsey Quarterly , November 6, 2019, Tim Koller , Dan Lovallo, and Phil Rosenzweig
• “ Three keys to faster, better decisions ,” McKinsey Quarterly , May 1, 2019, Aaron De Smet , Gregor Jost , and Leigh Weiss
• “ Decision making in the age of urgency ,” April 30, 2019, Iskandar Aminov, Aaron De Smet , Gregor Jost , and David Mendelsohn
• “ Bias busters: Pruning projects proactively ,” McKinsey Quarterly , February 6, 2019, Tim Koller , Dan Lovallo, and Zane Williams
• “ Decision making in your organization: Cutting through the clutter ,” McKinsey Quarterly , January 16, 2018, Aaron De Smet , Simon London, and Leigh Weiss
• “ Untangling your organization’s decision making ,” McKinsey Quarterly , June 21, 2017, Aaron De Smet , Gerald Lackey, and Leigh Weiss
• “ Are you ready to decide? ,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 1, 2015, Philip Meissner, Olivier Sibony, and Torsten Wulf.

Want to know more about decision making?

Related articles.

What is productivity?

What is the future of work?

What is leadership?