CPS MATERIALS AND PAPERWORK
All the resources you need to implement the CPS Model are here.
CPS MATERIALS/PAPERWORK
Here’s all the paperwork — the resources and instruments — and research related to the CPS model.
Assessment of Skills and Unsolved Problems (ASUP 2024)
The recently revised is Assessment of Skills and Unsolved Problems (ASUP 2024) used to identify the skills that may be making it difficult for a kid to respond adaptively to problems and frustrations or meet certain expectations, and the unsolved problems that need to be solved. It’s printable/editable/fillable, or you can access it as a Google Doc (directions for making a copy can be found here ).
The ASUP Guide provides helpful guidelines for completing the ASUP 2024.
DRILLING CHEAT SHEET
The Drilling Cheat Sheet provides an overview of the drilling strategies that can be used to gather information in the Empathy step of Plan B.
PLAN B CHEAT SHEET
The Plan B Cheat Sheet provides a graphic overview of the key components you’ll want to keep in mind when you’re doing Plan B.
PROBLEM SOLVING PLAN
The Problem Solving Plan helps you keep track of the high-priority unsolved problems you’re currently working on and the progress you’re making in solving them, and it’s printable/editable/fillable too.
PROBLEM SOLVING REFERRAL FORM
The Problem Solving Referral Form was created to help schools shift from discipline referrals to referrals that prompt scheduling time for Plan B. You can tailor it to the needs of your school.
MEETING CHECKLISTS
This is where to find the Plan-B-Checklist and ALSUP Meeting Checklist …so you can self-assess how you did.
PLAN B TRAINING SKILLS INFOGRAPHIC
Want to know what skills are being built by Plan B? Check out this graphic (with thanks to certified provider Linda Oberg for creating).
FIVE FINGERS METHOD
If you’re trying to solve a problem with a child or adolescent who’s having difficulty providing you with information in the Empathy step, you may find that five fingers can help you get the information you’re seeking (with thanks to certified provider Jodell Allinger for creating).
CPS-INFLUENCED IEP & FBA SAMPLES
You can find a CPS-flavored sample IEP for the US here , and one for Canada here . And here’s our original CPS-flavored Functional Behavior Assessment , along with a new hybrid FBA (created in collaboration with Abigail Wallman, Ph.D., school psychologist in the Farmington [CT] Public Schools).
CPS MODEL ONE-PAGER
And here’s a one-page description of the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions approach.
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN PICTURES
LENS CHANGER APP
Our Lens Changer app sure does make it easy to apply the CPS model. For iOS, click here . For Android, click here .
The Collaborative & Proactive Solutions* model is recognized as an empirically-supported, evidence-based treatment by the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC). The research base supporting the effectiveness of the CPS model continues to grow, and this page is updated continuously. Learn more .
CPS MATERIALS IN OTHER LANGUAGES
Many of these materials have been translated into other languages, and we’re in the midst of updating them so they reflect the most current renditions:
15 Main Street, Suite 200, Freeport, Maine 04032
Lives In the Balance All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Disclaimer Gift Acceptance Policy
Sign up for our Newsletter CPS Methodology Podcasts about the CPS Model Connect with our Community Research
Why We’re Here Meet the Team Our Board of Directors Higher Ed Advisory Board
Get in Touch Make a Donation
- PARENTS & FAMILIES
- EDUCATORS & SCHOOLS
- PEDIATRICIANS & FAMILY PHYSICIANS
- CPS WITH YOUNG KIDS
- WORKSHOPS & TRAININGS
- CPS PAPERWORK
- WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
- PUBLIC AWARENESS
- SCHOLARSHIPS
- BECOME AN ADVOCATOR
- RESOURCES FOR ADVOCATORS
- TAKE ACTION
NASP: The National Association of School Psychologists
A Closer Look
In this section.
- Supporting Mental Health of Autistic Individuals
- Five Tips for BIPs
- What’s the New Shiny Thing? Making Data-Based Decisions About Technology Use
- Transitional Planning: Is Guardianship the Answer?
- 5 Things I Wish I Knew About Writing Consumer-Friendly Psychoeducational Reports
- Addressing the Needs of Immigrant and Refugee Students: Inclusive Mental Health Interventions in Diverse School Settings
- Effective Responses to Challenging Behaviors: Building Student Connection and Improving Behavioral Health
- Specialized Assessments for Special Populations: Use of Teleassessments for Rural and Multilingual Children
- Family–School Partnerships: Five Tips for Successful Problem Solving With Parents
- Seven Habits of Highly Effective Schools: How School Psychologists Can Promote School Change
- Five Considerations for Developing Suicide Prevention Supports in the Schools
- Pitfalls of Using Translation and Interpretation Services in Schools
- How to Prepare for an Evaluation for a Student With Visual Impairments
- Advocacy in the Face of Adversity
- Postsecondary Transition for Autistic Adults
- Working With Spoken Language Interpreters in Educational Settings
- Mission MTSS: Two Easy Ways to Use Statistics to Analyze Data
- Simple, Summative Skills: Incorporating Brief Positive Psychology Practice Into Your Day
- Creating the Psychologically Safe Learning Environment
- Get Out of the Testing Rut: Expanding Your School Psychology Role by Understanding Your District's Needs
- Oral Reporting of Assessment Results for Maximum Impact
- Culturally Responsive Interviewing: Proactive Strategies for BIPOC Students
- Beyond Self-Care Sunday: Four Surprising Ways to Prevent School Psychologist Burnout
- Five Clues in Your Data: Identifying Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders
- Five Questions Intern Supervisors Should Ask New Interns
Restorative, Collaborative Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior Intervention Plans
- School Psychologists Should Embrace Telecounseling as an Option in the Post COVID-19 World
- Stress and Anxiety: I’m Not Just the Presenter, I’m Also a Client
- Social Media and Crisis Intervention: Opportunity and Danger
- Self-Care Lessons From the Field
- Thinking Versus Knowing: The Key to Measuring Intelligence
- Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)
- Testing Accommodations: From the 2019 Admissions Scandal to the Bigger Scandal of Poor Decision-Making
- Trauma, Stress, and the Postpandemic Opening of School: Let’s Not Pathologize Students’ Emotional Needs
- Science-Based Case Conceptualization
- How to Prevent Students From Experiencing Psychosis
- Promoting School Psychological Service Delivery Through Active Self-Care
- Problem-Solving the Complexities of Reading Comprehension
In 2020, multiple overlapping environmental, health, political, and social crises meant that school psychologists nationwide began the process of questioning best practices. Perhaps most importantly, school psychologists focused on working to include the power inherent in the voices of students and their families. This restorative strategy—the inclusion of voice—is particularly important for students’ families, who are disproportionately affected by the systemic bias inherent in any school system. KIPP NYC worked to address this systemic bias against families during the 2020–2021 school year by incorporating a power-sharing approach, one that is required to invest persons from historically marginalized communities as equal partners in defining assessment questions, implementing behavior plans, and progress monitoring effectiveness. Using existing functional behavior assessments (FBA) and behavior intervention plans (BIP), we felt that revisions to these existing materials can include therapeutic, restorative strategies that give voice to historically marginalized children and their families when working within K–12 American education. The main goal is to provide school psychologists a new paradigm for conducting these two assessments.
Restorative, collaborative functional behavior assessments (RC-FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (RC-BIPs) are a potentially powerful method for students and their families. RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs work to incorporate critical cultural and racial perspectives not included in traditional FBAs and BIPs. By rethinking the traditional interview process, school psychologists can acquire information to ensure the assessment reflects cultural and personal values, identity, and traditions in concert with the collaborative identification of target behaviors and potential motivating operations.
Mutually Defining the Target Behavior
To understand student and family perceptions, it is imperative that we update traditional methods of indirect measurement, focusing on the process of obtaining information from students and families. The primary aim of this revised initial interview with families and students is to conduct the behavior assessment using restorative practices with our students, not for them or to their families.
Working Towards Culturally Responsive Implementation
RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs create a balance of control and support to ensure this process is restorative and collaborative. Within this process, the educator shares data collected with the team, including the family and the student, and the team makes the decisions based on those data and any additional indirect data reported by the student and family. Decisions are made with all stakeholders and not solely determined by the traditional seat of authority (the school psychologists and related constellations of professionals).
Antiracist Approaches With Black Families and Children
We particularly feel that RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs are essential practices when working with Black families and children. An antiracist approach to those who have been on the receiving end of more discipline, harsher punishment, and lengthier punishments than their White counterparts is essential to reframe the lens through which we view behavior. We have strategically included questions to ask of families and their children to ensure that we account for cultural, ethnic, and identity markers that will help educators understand the root of children’s behaviors. For example, when we begin working with students, we ask them “You are the expert on you, so I need to know what you think is most important for me to understand about you. This will help you tell all the adults in your life what you need. First I want to know: What puzzles or questions do you have about yourself?” During the course of this school year, we have been dazzled and impressed with several children who help define their own behavior assessment, such as one child who replied “Why am I so angry all the time?” and “Why am I so distracted all the time?” By empowering children to help guide the behavior assessment process, we share expertise with children who collectively have not had agency and voice in determining target behaviors and interventions.
School psychologists must be willing to accept proactive actions that promote justice and fairness for all students, particularly those who are at risk of being marginalized because of their identities. There is a particular critical need to address the historical injustices wrought upon Black males within school settings. We recommend that school psychologists begin or continue to reflect on current practices and identify those that cause harm to all marginalized students, are punitive, or are rooted in educators holding the sole authority. This includes the inner work of reflection and self-awareness of intersecting identities, knowledge development, and education that is focused on gaining knowledge about the diverse populations being served. Furthermore, school psychologists should acknowledge how diverse students’ intersecting identities can place them at greater risk for discrimination and marginalizing experiences, encourage systems change, and be social justice advocates who require action to enforce equality and fairness for all students.
About the Author
Matthew James Graziano, MSW, PhD; Anya Morales, MsEd; Kelsie Morales, BA; Craig Varsa, MA
The Basics of Functional Behavioral Assessment
- First Online: 29 October 2015
Cite this chapter
- Stephanie M. Hadaway Ed.S. 4 &
- Alan W. Brue Ph.D. 5
Part of the book series: Autism and Child Psychopathology Series ((ACPS))
2819 Accesses
This chapter introduces the reader to the basics of functional behavioral assessment (FBA). Since this book will take a methodological approach to the FBA, Chap. 2 provides an overview, highlighting generalized steps necessary to create a thorough FBA and a behavior intervention plan. Historical information will be reviewed to help the reader understand the origins of behavior conditioning. Along with this, the reader will be given key vocabulary definitions to demystify the language used for behavioral planning. The chapter gives a cursory review of the two more common approaches used in the development of FBA and notes the steps of the actual process for developing an effective FBA.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
- Durable hardcover edition
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Becker, S. P., Paternite, C. E., Evans, S. W., Andrews, C., Christensen, O. A., Kraan, E. M., & Weist, M. D. (2011). Eligibility, assessment, and educational placement issues for students classified with emotional disturbance: Federal and state-level analyses. School Mental Health, 3 (1), 24–34.
Article Google Scholar
Bradley, R., Doolittle, J., & Bartolotta, R. (2008). Building on the data and adding to the discussion: The experiences and outcomes of students with emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17 (1), 4–23.
Dixon, D. R., Vogel, T., & Tarbox, J. (2012). A brief history of functional analysis and applied behavior analysis. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Functional assessment for challenging behaviors (pp. 3–24). New York: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2 (1), 3–20.
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S. W., Lindber, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181–194.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Jolivette, K., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). The link between functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). ERIC Digest , E592, EDO-00-1.
Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. V. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex . London: Oxford University Press.
Sanford, C., Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Knokey, A.-M., & Shaver, D. (2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school: Key findings from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011–3004) . Menlo Park: SRI International.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Smith, C. R., Katsiyannis, A., & Ryan, J. B. (2011). Challenges of serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Legal and policy considerations. Behavioral Disorders, 36 (3), 185–194.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence . New York: Macmillan.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.
Wilmshurst, L., & Brue, A. W. (2010). The complete guide to special education: Expert advice on evaluations, IEPs, and helping kids succeed (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Book Google Scholar
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Bartow County School System, CARTERSVILLE, Georgia, USA
Stephanie M. Hadaway Ed.S.
Bartow County School System, EUHARLEE, Georgia, USA
Alan W. Brue Ph.D.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Hadaway, S., Brue, A. (2016). The Basics of Functional Behavioral Assessment. In: Practitioner’s Guide to Functional Behavioral Assessment. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23721-3_2
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23721-3_2
Published : 29 October 2015
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-23720-6
Online ISBN : 978-3-319-23721-3
eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
PROVIDER MENU
Collaborative and Proactive Solutions™
- CPS With Kids (and Adults)
- Trauma-Informed FBA
- HeartMath Services
- Our Clients
Events & Training
View our trauma-informed care, "resilience & self-regulation," and collaborative problem solving events and training schedule below..
This [Trauma-Informed FBA/BSP] is THE training that you will want to attend this school year! If you want to become a better professional, effectively teach the students who are considered the most challenging, and enjoy your work, enroll in this course. Although the information and suggested practices are based on brain science that can be found in other places, there is no substitute for the way Doris and Rick demonstrate the manner in which to approach students. The guided practice they provide allows one to use these skills the very next day. I continue to hear Doris and Rick in my head, allowing me to use their wording for responding to students that is natural and genuine. Doris and Rick have extensive experience with the students who are typically described as “difficult, challenging, hard, unteachable.” Their experience helps them to teach others in a powerful way, and their humor and kindness keeps the learning fun.
“I’m a Teacher, Not a Therapist!”
Decreasing Overwhelm & Empowering Educators in Their Appropriate Role in Serving Students with Impacts of Trauma, Neurodiversity or Attachment Issues
“Revolutionary Resilience for Staff & Students” / “The Resilience Advantage”® HeartMath Institute
Proactive Evidence-Based Tools & Strategies for Educators & Mental Health Providers Serving Youth or Adults with Trauma Impacts, Challenging Behavior or Neurodiversity
“Your FBA is a Fantasy!”
Creating Trauma-Informed, Brain-Based, Skill-Focused Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior Support Plans that Improve Emotional, Behavioral & Academic Performance, and Build Resilience!!
Truly Trauma-Informed?
Assessment and Design of Actionable Systems and Practices on the Journey to Becoming a Trauma-Informed School or Agency
COMING SOON!
Bring healing home for vets.
Equipping Families and Friends of Veterans with Skills and Tools to Help Veteran Loved Ones Heal From Post-War Trauma within the context of home & community
Collaborative Problem Solving®MGH Introductory Overview / Tier 1 Intensive
Collaborative Problem Solving®(MGH): A 3-Day Intensive on this Innovative, Trauma-Informed, Skill-Based Approach for Teaching, Treating, Parenting/Caregiving Youth (& Adults) with Challenging Behavior
Rick & Doris Bowman (Bowman Consulting) have literally transformed the way we work with children. Rather than relying on consequences and punishments, we are consciously building lagging skills and neural pathways in every interaction we have with students and parents. With the support of the Bowmans, we’ve implemented multiple trauma-informed practices and are genuinely making a difference and seeing progress with our students with the greatest challenges. As someone with multiple levels of CPS training, I highly recommend any training or resources the Bowmans have to offer. You will not be disappointed!
Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems and Practices on the Journey to Becoming Trauma-informed
8:00am – 4:00pm PST
This event is hosted by Sunburst Youth Academy of Orange County Dept of Education (OCDE) and is restricted to organization staff only.
Los Alamitos, CA
Effective Intervention for Challenging Behavior: Collaborative Problem Solving Introductory Overview (®MGH, Think:Kids)
6:00 – 8:00pm PST
This event is hosted by Hope International University and has in-person seats open to the public, as well as a virtual option!
Fullerton, CA
or Virtual Option
Truly Trauma-Informed? Effective Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems and Practices on the Journey to Becoming a Trauma-Informed School or Agency
8:00a – 4:00p PST
11:00a – 7:00p EST
This event is hosted by Baker School District and has VIRTUAL seats open to the public!
Virtual via ZOOM
Making Trauma-Informed Care Actionable: Powerful Mindset & Tools to Make Your Job Easier!
9:00a – 1:00p PST
This event is hosted by McKinley of Southern California and has VIRTUAL seats open to the public!
Rethinking Challenging Behavior: Collaborative Problem Solving Level 1 Essential Foundations (®MGH, Think:Kids)
2/13 – 2/25/24
8:00a – 4:00p PST daily
This event is hosted by Bowman Consulting Group and is open to the public! (In-building secure parking is available at the training site.)
200 SW Market St., Portland, OR
ACADEMY DAY – “I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! Decreasing Overwhelm & Empowering Educators in Serving Students with Impacts of Trauma, Neurodiversity, and other Causes of Chronic Challenging Behavior” STANDARD SESSION – “The Coherence Advantage: Emotional, Cognitive, Mental & Physical Health Impacts of HRV Coherence , and Benefits for Staff & Student Self-Regulation”
2/18 & 2/20/24
Session times TBD
These sessions are “Academy Day PreCon” and Regular Conference sessions for the Annual Attachment & Trauma Network’s “ Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference 2024 ” and has seats available to the public .
Dallas, Texas
2/22, 2/29, 3/5/24
This VIRTUAL training event is hosted by Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) & Bowman Consulting and has VIRTUAL seats open to attendees from SoCal Region & those with direct connections to HBCC or Hope International University ( HIU )!
Virtual via Zoom
12:00p – 4:00p PST
Conference Session: “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices on the Journey to Becoming Trauma-Informed”
Session Times TBA
This session is part of the Annual Knowledge Center at Chaddock “Trauma-Informed Relationship-Focused Schools Conference” and has seats available to the public .
Quincy, Illinois
Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBA’s & Behavior Support Plans That Improve Emotional, Behavioral & Academic Performance, and Build Resilience!
8:00a – 3:30p PST
11:00 – 6:30 EST
This event is hosted by Bowman Consulting Group and has VIRTUAL seats open to the public .
Virtual Training
Rethinking Challenging Kids: Collaborative Problem Solving Tier 1 (®MGH, Think:Kids)
3/20 – 22/2024
This event is hosted by Oregon Alliance in partnership with Bowman Consulting Group (BCG), and is a closed training to staff of Alliance member agencies only.
10:00a – 2:00p PST
7:30a – 3:00p PST
10:30a – 6:00p EST
This event is hosted by Eddyville Charter School and has VIRTUAL seats open to the public!
Eddyville, OR
CAAEYC 2024 Annual Conference and Expo
Session: 4/20
Time: 8:00am
This event is hosted by California Association for the Education of Young Children
Pasadena, CA
4/24 & 4/25/24
12:30 – 4:00pm PST Both Days
This event is hosted by Harbor Learning Center North of Orange County Dept of Education (OCDE) and is restricted to organization staff only.
Anaheim, CA
“Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems and Practices on the Journey to Becoming Trauma-Informed”
Session 2:00-3:15pm
This session is part of the Annual Mental Health Association of Orange County “Meeting of the Minds 2024 Conference” and has seats available to the public .
HANDOUT DOWNLOAD – 4-26-24 Truly Trauma-Responsive – MHAOC MOM Conf HANDOUT
HANDOUT DOWNLOAD – Trauma-Informed Principles Table – Traditional vs. Trauma Informed V.9-2020
HANDOUT DOWNLOAD – Trauma-Informed Principles Table – Mental Health – Traditional vs. Trauma Informed V.8.2021
Professional Development Sessions: “I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! Decreasing Overwhelm & Empowering Educators”
Session Time TBA
This session is part of the Annual Opening Professional Development for Educators hosted by the Big Sandy Area Community Action Program of Paintsville Kentucky , and is restricted to staff of serving agencies only.
Paintsville, KY
Professional Development Sessions: “I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist” and “Truly Trauma-Informed?
This session is part of the Annual Opening Professional Development for Educators hosted by the Mental Health & Recovery Board of Union County , Ohio, and is restricted to staff of serving agencies only.
Marysville, OH
Professional Development Sessions: “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems and Practices for Becoming a Trauma-Informed School”
8/5 & 8/6/24
This session is part of the Annual Opening Professional Development for Educators hosted by Fullerton School District in Orange County, CA and is restricted to staff of FSD only.
8/28 – 8/30/24
8:00a – 3:30p PST daily
This event is hosted by Tempe Union High School District in partnership with Bowman Consulting Group and has limited seats open to the public!
Tempe, AZ – School District Location TBD
9/10 – 9/12/24
Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators and Providers & Youth They Serve: Optimal Personal Wellness & Performance for Educators & Providers Serving Youth With Impacts of Trauma, Neurodiversity, Attachment Issues or Chronic Challenging Behavior
9/16 & 9/18/24
9:00a – 12:30p both days
This event is hosted by the Oregon Child & Family Center for Excellence and has in-person seats open to the public!
8:00a – 3:30p CST
6:00a – 1:30 PST
9:00a – 4:30p EST
This event is hosted by West Central Illinois Special Education Cooperative and has limited IN-PERSON and VIRTUAL seats open to the public!
Macomb, Illinois
I know I have thanked you both so many times, but for real…thank you for everything! Every single time I listen to you and have the opportunity to learn from you, the fire inside of me reignites. I have found such a passion and desire to find each of these kids, whether on my caseload or not, and help them in our school… This is all because of the work you’ve done with us and the collaboration we have had together. I hope you understand how much the two of you have changed my perspective of teaching and my approach to each child individually. Working with you has been such a joy and a true privilege. Seriously, THANK YOU!
Recent Speaking Events & Trainings
Previous trainings / presentations in 2023:.
12/14/23 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Effective Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems and Practices · InterMountain ESD Pendleton, OR
11/20/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids: Collaborative Problem Solving Level 1 · Heights Christian Schools La Mirada, CA
11/16/23 – 1) “I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist!”, 2) “Your FBA is a Fantasy! Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs and Behavior Plans”, 3) Expert Panel Discussion · Trauma-Informed Schools Institute 2023 Rochester, Minnesota
11/7/23 – Your FBA is a Fantasy · ESSDACK Bridging to Resilience Conference 2023 Wichita, Kansas
10/17/23 – Truly Trauma-Responsive? Actionable System Design · Ohio Children’s Alliance Fall Conference 2023 Columbus/Westerville, OH
10/13/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Lafayette Elementary School Albany, Oregon
10/13/23 – Making Trauma-Informed Practices Actionable · Salem-Keizer School District Albany, Oregon
10/9 – 10/11/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Williamette Educational Service District Salem, Oregon
10/6/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Nixya’awii Community School Pendleton, Oregon
10/5/23 – Self-Regulation · Journeys with PDA Missoula,Montana
10/5/23 – Truly Trauma-Informed · Coalition of Oregon Schools Administrators Eugene, Oregon
9/29/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Amity School District Amity, Oregon
9/19 – 21/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance Virtual
8/31 – 9/1/23 – Truly Trauma Informed · Dallas School District Dallas, Oregon
8/30/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Salem-Keizer School District Salem, Oregon
8/29/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Salem-Keizer School District Salem, Oregon
8/28/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Lake County Education Service District Lakeview, Oregon
8/26/23 – Revolutionary Resilience for Educators, Providers & Youth They Serve · Heights Christian School La Miranda, California
8/25, 10/2, 10/3/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Heights Christian School La Miranda, California
8/22/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Dickinson Public Schools Dickinson, North Dakota
8/21/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Dickinson Public Schools Dickinson, North Dakota
8/16 – 18/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Bowman Consulting Group Portland, Oregon
8/14 – 15/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Crane School District Crane, Oregon
7/12 – 14/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance Virtual
7/10 – 12/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Villages of California Tustin, California
6/26 – 28/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Orange County Department of Education Orange, California
6/19 – 21/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Lafayette Elementary Schools in Greater Albany Public Schools Albany, Oregon
6/14 – 16/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · InterMountain ESD Pendleton, Oregon
6/7/23 – Revolutionary Resilience for Educators, Providers & Youth They Serve · Heights Christian Schools La Miranda, California
6/1/23 – Revolutionary Resilience for Educators, Providers & Youth They Serve · Stowell Learning Center Stowell Center, Chino, CA
5/23 – 25/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance Virtual
5/16/2023 – Truly-Trauma Informed · Housing Authority of Jackson County Medford, Oregon
5/5/2023 – Meeting of the Minds · Mental Health Association of Orange County Anaheim (Marriott), California
4/20/2023 – Your FBA is a Fantasy · Bowman Consulting Group Virtual Training
4/19/2023 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Bowman Consulting Group Virtual Training
4/12 – 4/14/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Williamette Educational Service District Salem. Oregon
3/15 – 17/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance Virtual
2/20 – 21/2023 – Creating Trauma-Sensitive School Conference 2023 · Creating Trauma-Sensitive School Conference 2023 Houston, Texas
2/15 – 17/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Bowman Consulting Group Portland, Oregon
1/21/2023 – Your FBA is Fantasy · Bowman Consulting Group Virtual Training
1/17 – 19/23 – Collaborative Problem Solving · Bowman Consulting Group Virtual Training
Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2022:
12/2/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Coos Bay School District – Coos Bay, OR (Virtual)
11/16 – 18/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon Alliance – Oregon Statewide (Virtual)
10/27/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)
10/21 – 24/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child – Orange County, CA (Virtual)
8/30 – 11/4/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Central Linn School District – Halsey, OR
8/31/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Central Linn School District – Halsey, OR
8/15 – 8/17/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Forest Grove School District – Forest Grove, OR
8/15 – 16/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Orange County Dept of Education (OCDE) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)
8/10/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Resilience Impact Summer Workshop Series – Minnesota (Virtual)
8/3 – 5/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Albany School District – Albany, OR (Virtual)
7/14 – 7/28/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon DHS Resource Family Retention Program – Oregon Districts 13 & 14 (Virtual)
6/22 – 6/24/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon Alliance – Oregon Statewide (Virtual)
6/21/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)
6/13 – 16/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)
6/8/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)
6/7/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)
6/2/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Special Education District of Lake County (SEDOL) – Gages Lake, IL (Virtual)
5/6/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Resilience Impact Annual Conference 2022 – Brainerd, Minnesota
5/5/22 – Keynote Address: I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! Decreasing Overwhelm and Empowering Educators · Resilience Impact Annual Conference 2022 – Brainerd, Minnesota
5/4/22 – Pre-Conference Day: Your FBA is a Fantasy! Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Resilience Impact Annual Conference 2022 – Brainerd, Minnesota
4/13 – 4/27/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Forest Grove & Hillsboro School Districts – Oregon (Virtual)
3/14/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Lake Region Special Education – Devil’s Lake, ND (Virtual)
3/11 – 5/20/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Central Linn School District – Halsey, OR
3/10 – 4/7/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Rockbridge County Schools – Rockbridge, VA (Virtual)
3/3/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)
2/20 – 22/22 – “Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators, Providers and the Kids They Serve” · Attachment & Trauma Network: Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference 2022 – Houston, TX
1/21 & 2/11/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Coos Bay School District – Coos Bay, OR (Virtual)
1/5 – 7/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Idaho Youth Ranch – Boise, ID (Virtual)
I was able to use the CPS model the very next day in my classroom, and it has been life-changing for me and for the students that I have used it with!
The most well-run, well-presented, and most valuable training I’ve been to in 27 years in education! Thank you for your passion and commitment to both children and staff!
It was amazing! …it was the first time I ever attended a workshop and WANTED a fourth day!
Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2021:
12/13/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Bismarck Early Childhood Education Program – Bismarck, ND (Virtual)
12/9/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)
11/5/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Central Linn Elementary – Halsey, OR
10/28/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Milford Exempted Village Schools – Milford, OH (Virtual)
10/30 – 11/20/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · In Focus of Cleveland – Cleveland, OH (Virtual)
10/13 – 15/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon Alliance – Oregon Statewide (Virtual)
10/8/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Yamhill-Carlton School District – Yamhill, OR
10/2/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans [Conference Session] · ATTACH Conference – Minneapolis, MN (Virtual)
9/28 – 30/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Family Solutions – Medford, OR (Virtual)
9/15/21 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Monte Vista Elementary (Creighton SD) – Phoenix, AZ (Virtual)
8/31 – 9/2/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Serendipity Center – Portland, OR (Virtual)
8/25 – 27/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Capital Region ESD 113 – Olympia, WA (Virtual)
8/3 – 5/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Waverly Elementary – Albany, OR (Virtual)
7/27 – 29/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)
7/13/21 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Homewood-Flossmoor H.S. – Flossmoor, IL (Virtual)
6/16 – 18/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Jefferson County ESD – Madras, OR (Virtual)
5/19 – 21/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
5/12/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Homewood Flossmoor High School – Flossmoor, IL (Virtual)
5/5/21 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Homewood-Flossmoor H.S. – Flossmoor, IL (Virtual)
4/28/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Peace Garden Special Services Consortium – Bottineau, ND (Virtual)
4/26 – 5/10/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
4/21 – 23/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Douglas County ESD / Southern Oregon ESD (Postponed) – Roseburg, OR
4/19/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
4/14/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) – Prince George, VA (Virtual)
4/12/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Staunton Schools – Staunton, VA (Virtual)
4/7 – 4/9/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Serendipity Center – Portland, OR (Virtual)
3/3 – 5/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
2/25/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Douglas Education Service District (ESD) – Roseburg, OR (Virtual)
2/23 – 3/9/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
2/16/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
2/15 – 18/21 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Revolutionary Resilience for Educators & Providers” – Attachment & Trauma Network: Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference (Virtual)
2/9/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Beach Elementary, Portland Public Schools – Portland, OR (Virtual)
2/1/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)
1/27/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)
1/8/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
Amazing presenters! Depth of knowledge surpassed my expectations!
The passion of the presenters was OUTSTANDING! Clearly it matters to them that transformation occur, not merely improvement.
Most valuable to me was the depth that Rick & Doris went into about the CPS process – WHY it works and HOW to make it work!
Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2020:
12/4/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
11/20/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
11/18 – 19/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)
11/13/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Harney Education Service District (ESD) – Burns, OR (Virtual)
11/12/20 – “Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans” · Kansas ESSDACK Bridging to Resilience Conference 2020 – Virtual
11/7/20 – “Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans”– Ohio Trauma-Informed Schools Conference 2020 – Virtual
11/6 – 8/20 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Revolutionary Resilience for Educators & Providers” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Innovative Schools Summit 2020 – Las Vegas, NV
10/30/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
10/26 – 11/10/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
10/28/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)
10/19 – 21/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
10/16/2020 – Trauma-Informed Care Principles & Strategies Follow-Up Training · Harney Education Service District (ESD) – Burns, OR (Virtual)
10/14/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)
10/12 – 13/20 – Pacific NW Institute for Special Education and Law 2020 · Seattle, WA (Virtual)
10/9/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
9/30 – 10/2/20 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Revolutionary Resilience for Educators & Providers” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Conference of Oregon School Administrators Special Education Conference 2020 – Eugene, OR (Virtual)
9/29/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · D.C. Public Schools – Washington D.C. (Virtual)
9/24 – 25/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Alamance-Burlington Schools – Burlington, NC (Virtual)
9/18/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
9/8/20 – Managing Your Emotions Helps Kids to Manage Theirs: 3 Strategies for Parents & Teachers to Build Resilience and Emotional Control · “LD Expert Live” Stowell Learning Center – Orange County, CA (Virtual via Facebook)
9/3/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)
9/2/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)
9/1/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)
8/27/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Beach Elementary, Portland Public Schools – Portland, OR (Virtual)
8/17 – 19/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Bowman Consulting Group (Postponed due to Covid-related restrictions) – Portland, OR (Virtual)
8/7/20 – From Surviving to Thriving in Classrooms & Families in Turbulent Times · Bowman Consulting Group (Virtual)
8/3 – 5/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Harney Education service District (ESD) – Burns, OR (Virtual)
7/28 – 30/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Family Solutions – Medford, OR (Virtual)
7/16 – 17/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)
7/14/20 – Managing Your Emotions Helps Kids to Manage Theirs: 3 Strategies for Parents & Teachers to Build Resilience and Emotional Control · “LD Expert Live” Stowell Learning Center – Orange County, CA (Virtual via Facebook)
6/29/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)
6/24 – 26/20 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators Annual Conference 2020 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Seaside, OR (Virtual)
6/15 – 18/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Family Solutions – Medford, OR (Virtual)
6/8 – 10/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Youth Homes and Seneca Family of Agencies – East Bay Area – Oakland, Walnut Creek (Virtual)
6/4/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Fusion Academy – Orange County, CA (Virtual)
5/26 – 29/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Baker School District – Baker City, OR (Virtual)
5/23/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)
5/19 – 20/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)
5/26 – 29/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · McAdams Academy – Wichita, KS (Virtual) – Postponed due to Covid
4/25/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · McAdams Academy – Wichita, KS – Postponed due to Covid
4/24/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · McAdams Academy – Wichita, KS – Postponed due to Covid
4/20/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Bowman Consulting Group – Baker City, OR – Postponed due to Covid
4/16 – 18/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Baker School District – Baker City, OR – Postponed due to Covid
4/9 – 10/20 – Oregon Response to Instruction & Intervention Conference: “Neuroscience of Trauma, Regulation & Learning: Preparing the Brain to Learn” / 2 Sessions “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices” · Oregon RTIi – Portland, OR – Cancelled due to Covid
3/27/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Sponsored by Alpha Mortgage – Wilmington, NC – Cancelled due to Covid
3/26/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Sponsored by Alpha Mortgage – Jacksonville, NC – Cancelled due to Covid
3/25/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Sponsored by Alpha Mortgage – Wilmington, NC – Cancelled due to Covid
3/16/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Clermont County ESC – Clermont, OH – Cancelled due to Covid
3/12 – 13/20 – Introduction to Neuroscience of Trauma & Trauma-Informed Practices / Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Housing Authority of Jackson County – Medford, OR
3/6/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Harney Education Service District (ESD) – Burns, OR
2/16 – 18/20 – Attachment & Trauma Network: Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference 2020 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Atlanta, GA
1/29 – 31/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Hosted by Cambia / Blue Cross Blue Shield – Portland, OR
Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2019:
12/9 – 11/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Hosted by Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA
11/18/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Warren County ESC – Lebanon, OH
11/14 – 15/19 – Innovative Schools Summit – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – San Antonio, TX
11/8/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker School District – Baker City, OR
11/7/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker School District – Baker City, OR
10/28 – 30/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Hosted by Cambia / Blue Cross Blue Shield – Portland, OR
10/21/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – Portland, OR
10/18/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Madison Elementary School District – Phoenix, AZ
10/15/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child – Orange County, CA
10/14/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child – Orange County, CA
10/11/19 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Olive Crest Academy – Orange County, CA
10/3/19 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Special Educators Conference 2019 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Eugene, OR
9/30/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Montgomery County ESC – Dayton, OH
9/23 – 25/19 – Pacific NW Institute for Special Education and the Law 2019 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” / “Rethinking Challenging Kids: Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach” – Seattle, WA
9/7/19 – HELP Inclusion Conference 2019 “Stop Chasing Compliance & Start Building Skills: Rethinking Challenging Behavior with the Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach” – Orange County, CA
8/26 – 27/19 – Trauma-Informed Care Principles & Strategies / Collaborative Problem solving Introductory Overview · Rogue River Elementary School – Rogue River, OR
8/23/19 – Trauma-Informed Care Principles & Strategies / Collaborative Problem solving Introductory Overview · Beach Elementary, Portland Public Schools – Portland, OR
8/22/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Olive Crest Academy – Orange County, CA
8/19 – 21/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Sherwood School District – Sherwood, OR
8/14 – 16/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Southern Oregon Education Service District (ESD) – Phoenix, OR
7/25 – 27/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Powerful Change Group – Scottsdale, AZ
7/15 – 17/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Madison Elementary School District – Phoenix, AZ
6/20/19 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Annual conference 2019 – “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Seaside, OR
6/19/19 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Annual Conference 2019 – Pre-Conference Full-Day “Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans”
5/17 – 19/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Bowman Consulting Group – Salem, OR
4/29 – 5/1/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Southern Oregon Education service District (ESD) – Medford, OR
4/26/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Multnomah Education Service District (ESD) – Portland, OR
4/8/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Baker School District – Baker City, OR
4/4 – 6/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Baker School District – Baker City, OR
3/18/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Cambia / Blue Cross Blue Shield – Portland, OR
3/1 – 3/15/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Marcola School District – Eugene, OR
1/11/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Linn-Benton Lincoln Education Service District (ESD) – Albany, OR
The Bowmans have partnered with our school to bring transformation to the approach we use to help the children with the most serious behavior challenges in the county. They have provided countless hours of time to assist us in developing new ways to reach our students that are based in empathy and compassion. We used to be reactive to the behaviors that occurred and now we are working to get upstream and solve the problems that are getting in the way of the student being able to meet the necessary expectations in order to be successful in school and in their life. Not only are their trainings informative, practical and inspiring, but their hearts and the experience they bring are their greatest asset. We will be forever grateful for the impact they have had on our staff and students!
Resources for Previous Attendees of BCG
Trauma-informed fba & behavior plan trainings, “i’m a teacher, not a therapist” training, “truly trauma-informed” trainings, “revolutionary resilience & self-regulation (full-day) “ training, collaborative problem solving tier 1 trainings, collaborative problem-solving intro training, foundational & actionable concepts in applying trauma-informed practices, “bring healing home for couples” training, “bring healing home for vets” training for veterans & families.
Making Trauma-Informed Care Actionable
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
15k Accesses
15 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
Dr. Ross Greene
Originator of the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Approach
Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is the model of care Dr. Greene originated and describes in his various books.
The CPS model is based on the premise that challenging behavior occurs when the demands and expectations being placed on a kid exceed the kid’s capacity to respond adaptively…and that some kids are better equipped (i.e., have the skills) to handle certain demands and expectations. So the emphasis of the model isn’t on kids' challenging behavior, which is – whether it’s whining, pouting, sulking, withdrawing, crying, screaming, swearing, hitting, spitting, biting, or worse – just the manner in which they’re expressing the fact that there are expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. Nor does the model focus on psychiatric diagnoses, which are simply categories of challenging behaviors. Rather the model focuses on identifying the skills a person is lacking and the expectations they’re having difficulty meeting. (In the CPS model, those unmet expectations are referred to as unsolved problems.) Then the goal is to help them solve those problems, rather than trying to modify their behavior through application of rewards and punishments.
In the CPS model, the problem solving is of the collaborative and proactive variety. This is in contrast to many of the interventions that are commonly applied to kids, which are of the unilateral and emergent variety. The goal is to foster a problem-solving, collaborative partnership between adults and kids and to engage kids in solving the problems that affect their lives. As such, the CPS model is non-punitive and non-adversarial, decreases the likelihood of conflict, enhances relationships, improves communication, and helps kids and adults learn and display the skills on the more positive side of human nature: empathy, appreciating how one’s behavior is affecting others, resolving disagreements in ways that do not involve conflict, taking another’s perspective, and honesty.
All content © Dr. Ross Greene
Next Parent Course Starts 6/11/2024
Signed in as:
- What is CPS in A Nutshell
- Board of Directors
- Mental Health Giving Day
- Testimonials
- Calendar of Events
- All Classes
- Morning Parent Class
- Evening Parent Class
- Saturday Parent Class
- Chino Hills Parent Class
- Spanish Parenting Class
- Parent Support Club
- Parent Behavior Coaching
- Group Behavior Coaching
- Educational Advocacy
- HBCC Book Club
- All Trainings
- CPS Essential Training
- 2-hour CPS Overview
- Your FBA is a Fantasy!
- Revolutionary Resilience
- I'm a Teacher Not Ther...
- Truly Trauma-Informed
- Newsletter / Photos
HELPING THE BEHAVIORALLY CHALLENGING CHILD
Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) is the only organization in Orange County focused exclusively on a system of care around Collaborative Problem Solving®(CPS) . This exciting evidence-based approach helps with parenting, teaching and treating, children, teens, and young adults, with difficult-to-manage behaviors who are having trouble meeting the demands of home life, school and work expectations.
Since 2007 HBCC in Orange County, California has been a leader in this innovative model that has proven its efficacy at all levels of caregiver support. Both locally and nationally since 2002 this approach has realized improved outcomes in treatment and ultimately has improved relationships between children and their parents, their teachers, families, caregivers and their employers.
Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation that is composed of individuals who are committed to helping behaviorally challenging children, teens and young adults lead more productive and inclusive lives.
To transform children's lives by deepening the world's understanding of their behaviors, and promoting effective interventions that focus on connectedness, collaboration, and inclusion.
PHILOSOPHY - KIDS DO WELL IF THEY CAN...
Adult/Child power struggles can leave both parties frustrated, with adults wondering how it could have gone differently. HBCC's CPS trainings are derived from the Collaborative Problem Solving® concepts outlined in the books:
- "Treating Explosive Kids" by Greene, PhD & Ablon, PhD
- “The Explosive Child” by Greene, PhD
- “Lost at School” by Greene, PhD
- "The School Discipline Fix" by Ablon, PhD
- "Change-able" Ablon, PhD
Trainings are designed for parents, caregivers, educators, and mental health service providers to learn how to effectively support and teach lagging skills to children, teens, & young adults with complex behavioral challenges. Participants in the trainings will receive exposure into the assessment of behaviors to answer the question “what’s getting in the way of this child/teen/young adult meeting the daily demands of life?” as well as Certificates of Completion and in some trainings, CEUs.
The Parent classes, Support Club, Parent Coaching and 2-hour Parent Overview are exclusively for parents/caregivers which includes grandparents, stepparents, foster parents - addressing challenging behaviors - all are welcome.
HBCC hosts trainings for Educators, Mental Health Professionals and Service Providers, which are listed under EDUCATORS/CLINICANS tab .
TRAINING OBJECTIVES
- Consideration of philosophical underpinnings of the Collaborative Problem Solving®(CPS) approach.
- Discussions on how traditional approaches to address maladaptive behavior have been ineffective for people with moderate to severe social, emotional, behavioral, and life challenges.
- Identify how the Collaborative Problem Solving®(CPS) approach assesses challenges in living.
- Begin to see challenging behavior as a by-product of lagging skills vs. willful.
- Begin identifying a highly specific list of problems to be solved in living.
- Identify key cognitive skills necessary for handling demands that life puts in front of us.
- Identify expectations that address the needs of the person based on an accurate Collaborative Problem Solving®(CPS) assessment.
- Identify the steps necessary to be effective at Collaborative Problem Solving® and what goals the Collaborative Problem Solving® process accomplishes.
- Identify where cognitive skills are taught in the Collaborative Problem Solving® process.
SCHEDULE AVAILABLE
CPS PARENT/CAREGIVER/GRANDPARENT TRAININGS
- 6-week on-going course (weekday mornings, weeknights, Saturdays)
- 2-hour Parent Overview
- Womens Support Club
- Men's Support Club
- Individual Parent Behavior Coaching
- Group Parent Behavior Coaching
- CPS Parent Behavior Educational Advocacy
- The Language of Advocacy
- Parents and Educators Together as Allies
- Navigating the Sea of Options
CPS EDUCATOR/CLINICIAN TRAININGS
- 2-hour Educator Overview
- 6-hour Educator Advanced Overview
- 3-day Essential Foundations Level 1 CPS Training
- Educators and Parents Together as Allies
- I'm a Teacher not a Therapist
- Truly Trauma-Informed?
- Certificate of completion is awarded to those who complete trainings.
- Completion of training qualifies, in some instances, for CEUs.
- Completion of Advanced Level 1 is a prerequisite for an Advanced Concepts Level 2 Training.
- Completion of an Essential Foundation Level 1 & an Advanced Concepts Level 2 qualifies participant for CPS certification through Think:Kids.
- Once CPS Certified, participants qualify to be Trainer of Trainers.
For more information on Certification/Trainer Track www.thinkkids.org
CPS Program Overview
Trainings in cps.
CPS is an approach to understanding and helping those 3-25 years old with concerning and behavioral challenges who may or may not carry a psychiatric diagnoses such as, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), pathological demand avoidance (PDA), conduct disorder (CD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mood disorders (DMDD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), etc, or a developmental disability such as, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), down-syndrome, intellectually challenged, etc.
Typically, a child with concerning and challenging behaviors will have a diagnosis or a developmental disability; however, HBCC is not in the business of a diagnosis, HBCC is here to help adults in understand challenging behaviors and help parents and educators understand what has conventionally been done about them and what neuroscience has learned to do about them to build skills and break the cycle of stressors causing challenging behaviors.
CPS uses a structured problem solving process to help adults pursue their expectations while reducing challenging behavior and building helping relationships and thinking skills. Specifically, the CPS approach focuses on teaching the neurocognitive skills that challenging kids lack related to problem solving, flexibility, and frustration tolerance. Unlike traditional models of discipline, this approach avoids the use of power, control, and motivational procedures and instead focuses on teaching at-risk kids the skills they need to succeed. CPS provides a common philosophy, language and process with clear guideposts that can be used across settings. In addition, CPS operationalizes principles of trauma-informed care.
Lagging thinking skills are identified in five primary areas:
- Language and Communication Skills
- Attention and Working Memory Skills
- Emotional and Self-Regulation Skills
- Cognitive Flexibility Skills
- Social Thinking Skills
Three options to respond to predictable difficulties:
- Plan A - Unilateral Imposition of Adult Will
- Plan B - Solve the problem collaboratively and proactively
- Plan C - Drop or setting aside the expectation (for now)
CPS materials can be provided in English & Spanish
Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation whose mission is to enable children experiencing behavioral health challenges to lead more productive and inclusive lives. We work to transform these children's lives by deepening adults’ understanding of their behaviors, and promoting effective interventions that focus on connectedness, collaboration, and inclusion.
© 2024 Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child 501(c)(3)
Non-Profit I.D. #46-3240447 - All Rights Reserved.
Contact Us @ (714) 695-1057 or [email protected]
Search Utah State University:
Collaborative learning.
Collaborative learning is a broad strategy that can range from students working in pairs to working in groups of various sizes. The concept is based in sociocultural learning theory and constructivism and focuses on how people learn within social interactions by respecting knowledge held within the group (Ertmer & Newby, 2018; Panitz, 1999; Yang, 2023). Students can use the perspectives of other students and the shared experience of learning together to improve critical thinking skills (Kaddoura, 2013), experience deeper learning (Sembert et al., 2021), and connecting by negotiating boundaries of knowledge with peers (Yang, 2023).
On This Page
Alternative Plans
Collaborative problem solving, think-pair-share, considerations.
The purpose of collaborative learning is to allow students to:
- build knowledge within social groups through activities,
- test out that understanding with the whole class as groups share what they have learned with each other,
- then confirm the accuracy of their knowledge against the broader knowledge of the field by getting feedback from the instructor. (Bruffee, 1995)
Collaborative learning is not just for task division or coming to agreement, but enables students to “develop, compare, and understand multiple perspectives on an issue” (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2011, p. 21). The classroom culture should enable groups to develop theories and refine these theories together.
Individual performance can put a lot of undo pressure on students, which is not helpful to maximize learning potential. By focusing on achieving a common goal, students are able to participate in socialization (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006, p. 78). Students are more likely to communicate a lack of understanding to a peer than to an instructor (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006).
In collaborative learning “group rewards (instead of individual rewards) and individual accountability (achieved by task specialization and division of labor) are critical to improving students’ achievement.” (Slavin, 1983 as referenced in Yang, 2023, p. 723)
There is distinction made in the literature between the processes of collaborative learning and cooperative learning (Bruffee, 1995; Panitz, 1999; Yang, 2023) that discusses the purpose of the interaction and distinguishes the process of learning from the product created because of working with members of a group. However, the terms have more similarities than differences. For brevity, the two terms are used interchangeably here.
Types of Collaborative Learning Activities
As previously mentioned, Collaborative Learning is a broad strategy that has a broad range of implementation strategies. Below explain some of these strategies.
Good collaborative learning tasks encourage individuals within groups to bring compelling ideas to the group to help other members of the group think about the task differently. For example, the task might be to come up with three alternative plans, pick the best, and describe the reasoning behind why the selection is preferable within the defined context. (Bruffee, 1995)
With this method the instructor provides a loosly structured problem to the student groups and the students decide how they are going to proceed in solving the problem. The following criteria must be present:
- a novel problem to be solved (i.e., as opposed to completing a routine task)
- objective accountability(i.e., the quality of the solution is visible to team members),
- differentiation of roles (i.e., team members complete different tasks), and
- interdependency (i.e., a single person cannot solve the problem alone) (Graesser et al., 2018, p. 60)
These requirements can quite easily be met for various disciplines and skill levels.
Another well documented strategy Think-Pair-Share was developed by Dr. Frank Lyman in 1981. The strategy is to have students 1) reflect on a question or idea presented in class, 2) discuss their ideas with someone else in the class, then 3) share their own —more refined— thoughts or their peer’s thoughts with the rest of the class. In Sembert et al. (2021) Dr. Lyman provides insight into how he came up with the idea when observing a student teacher. The student teacher was having problems with the class participation with the model where only one person could talk at a time. Lyman connected the need for students to have a pause to collect their thoughts before sharing with a need for more students to be able to participate. So, he grouped the students together to share with each other before sharing their thoughts with the whole class. The Think-Pair-Share method was born.
Teaching Format Modifications
At Utah State University, courses can be taught in one of five different delivery formats, each having their own unique challenges and benefits. Below expounds on how to modify Collaborative Learning Techniques for some of those teaching formats that might not already be explicitly obvious.
Collaborative learning activities are possible in Connect and Online courses, but they require some technological mediation. For the Think-Pair-Share method, that might look something like the following:
Assign students to work with a buddy for the semester. Pairing each student with someone who is different from them can make it possible for the pair to have varying perspectives for discussion. When students work with the same partner for the duration of the course it gives them a chance to get to know each other. Allow them to pick with their partner what format of communication will work best for them (i.e. phone call, text messaging, instant messaging app, etc.). In each class period, provide at least one opportunity for students to stop and think, then connect with their buddy, then share their group perspectives with the class.
Sembert et al. (2021) used the Think-Pair-Share approach in a virtual course with live instruction via online video conferencing. Students were assigned a buddy based on their answers to a pre-course “All About Me” survey to maximize diversity, where possible. Buddies reported sharing insights with each other, asking for clarification, or getting professional support. Two of the students shared their experience in the class by noting feelings of socialization, camaraderie, and safety within the virtual environment. One of the students expressed a desire to have all his instructors use the Think-Pair-Share or buddy system.
Working in collaborative groups introduces the possibilities that students might not manage time efficiently and get off task, some students in the group may choose not participate fully or may not be able to do so for various reasons (a.k.a. “social loafing”), and lack of social skills might result in conflict or disruption to group productivity (Graesser et al., 2018, p. 62). Some structural or task ground rules and instructor coaching can help to alleviate these issues.
Collaborative inhibition is when the group that has collaborated doesn’t do as well on a recall task as a group who hasn’t worked together. Graesser et al. (2018) referenced a couple of studies (Andersson, Hitch, & Meudell, 2006; Weldon & Bellinger, 1997) which have identified this effect.
Ideas for additional collaborative learning activities can be found on the USU Teach website:
- Think-Pair-Share (Kaddoura, 2013; Sembert et al., 2021)
- Three-Step Interview (Yang, 2023)
- Case Study (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
- Team-Based Learning (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
- Jigsaw (strategy first developed by Elliot Aronson (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006)
- Fishbowl Debate (Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation, 2024)
Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning Versus Collaborative Learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722
Cornell University Center for Teaching Innovation. (2024). Examples of Collaborative Learning or Group Work Activities. https://teaching.cornell.edu/resource/examples-collaborative-learning-or-group-work-activities
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). Available at https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem Solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students’ critical thinking. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(4), 3–24.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2011). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations.
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers (Twelfth Edition). Houghton Mifflin Company.
Panitz, T. (1999, December). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443
Sembert, P. J., Vermette, P. J., Lyman, F., Bardsley, M. E., & Snell, C. (2021). Think-Pair-Share as a Springboard for Study Buddies in a Virtual Environment. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14305/jn.19440413.2021.14.1.04
Yang, X. (2023). A Historical Review of Collaborative Learning and Cooperative Learning. TechTrends, 67(4), 718–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00823-9
Kids with challenging behavior are tragically misunderstood. It’s time for a more compassionate and effective approach.
About Collaborative Problem Solving ®
At Think:Kids, we recognize that kids with challenging behavior don’t lack the will to behave well. They lack the skills to behave well.
Our Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) approach is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives.
Anyone can learn Collaborative Problem Solving, and we’re here to show you how.
73% reduction in oppositional behaviors during school.
Parents report improvements in parent-child interactions.
86% average reduction in physical restraint.
reduction in school office referrals.
Significant improvements in children’s executive functioning skills.
71% fewer self-inflicted injuries.
6 out of 10 teachers report reduced stress.
Significant reductions in parents’ stress.
60% of children exhibited improved behavior
Subscribe to our newsletter, privacy overview.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The Problem Solving Plan helps you keep track of the high-priority unsolved problems you're currently working on and the progress you're making in solving them, ... along with a new hybrid FBA (created in collaboration with Abigail Wallman, Ph.D., ... The Collaborative & Proactive Solutions* model is recognized as an empirically-supported, ...
The main goal is to provide school psychologists a new paradigm for conducting these two assessments. Restorative, collaborative functional behavior assessments (RC-FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (RC-BIPs) are a potentially powerful method for students and their families. RC-FBAs and RC-BIPs work to incorporate critical cultural and ...
an effective process, a Functional Behavior Assessment utilizing a function(FBA) and -based Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), to address serious problem behaviors. ... assessment and intervention within a collaborative problem-solving frameworkand development of a support team with requisite skillsthe to assess, identify interventions, and plan for
The manual begins by providing background information on FBAs including: (1) the four-stage model of collaborative problem solving that is used to conduct FBAs and develop subsequent BIPs, including problem definition, problem analysis, development of a BIP, and monitoring progress; (2) why it is necessary to conduct an FBA and the four ...
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 ...
What is a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) When and how an FBA is conducted How the results of an FBA are incorporated into a student's IEP ... • Collaborative Problem Solving (various "teams") • Strategies, interventions, assessments that address
The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP) considers FBA to be "a problem-solving process for addressing student problem behavior ." They go on to include that this process uses strategies and techniques that lead to understanding the purpose of an individual's behavior.
For additional free resources, visit www.LivesIntheBalance.org. © Ross Greene 2023
students with disabilities to become their own advocates and use effective choice-making, problem-solving, and goal-setting skills. Collaborative Consultation in the Schools Thomas J. Kampwirth 2014-12 Note: This is the loose-leaf version of Collaborative Consultation in the Schools and does not include access to the Enhanced Pearson eText.
Flowing from this simple but powerful philosophy, CPS focuses on building skills like flexibility, frustration tolerance and problem solving, rather than simply motivating kids to behave better. The process begins with identifying triggers to a child's challenging behavior and the specific skills they need help developing.
HCPSS Guidelines for FBA/BIP, 01/05/10 4 • Additional Supports - Any supports and/or training that are needed by those who will implement the plan. • Data Collection - Methods and frequency of data collection, person(s) responsible for collecting and analyzing data. Approval of the BIP by the IEP Team, 504 Team, or School-Based Problem-Solving Team
The FBA/BIP process guides assessment, intervention planning, implementation, and monitoring of interventions within a data-based problem-solving framework. Foundational to the individualized level of intervention at Tier 3 is the importance of understanding why behaviors are occurring. The FBA/BIP process provides the student's
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. The Collaborative Problem Solving approach integrates with Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) in educational settings.
Students will then apply these principles of behavior to the classroom for assessment, intervention, and evaluation purposes. This course prepares students to engage in collaborative problem-solving and conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). This course also prepares students to develop and implement a function-based behavior ...
This [Trauma-Informed FBA/BSP] is THE training that you will want to attend this school year! If you want to become a better professional, effectively teach the students who are considered the most challenging, and enjoy your work, enroll in this course. ... Rethinking Challenging Behavior: Collaborative Problem Solving Level 1 Essential ...
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 ...
Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS) is the model of care Dr. Greene originated and describes in his various books. About CPS. The CPS model is based on the premise that challenging behavior occurs when the demands and expectations being placed on a kid exceed the kid's capacity to respond adaptively…and that some kids are better equipped (i.e., have the skills) to handle certain ...
Craft a reframe response that might yield a fresh perspective to foster problem-solving. Share your example with your elbow partner. #6 Motivational Interviewing Activity. •Examine discrepancies •Express appreciation for the dilemma of change •Frame all behaviors as choices & explore pros and cons.
Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Paradigm shift: Emphasis on problems causing the behavior (Identifying and solving the problems rather than on modifying behavior). Problem solving is collaborative, not adult-driven and unilateral (Partner with the child to solve the problem instead of imposing consequences). Children do well if they are able
Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) is the only organization in Orange County focused exclusively on a system of care around Collaborative Problem Solving®(CPS).This exciting evidence-based approach helps with parenting, teaching and treating, children, teens, and young adults, with difficult-to-manage behaviors who are having trouble meeting the demands of home life, school and ...
Despite the growing emphasis on integrating collaborative problem-solving (CPS) into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, a comprehensive understanding of the critical factors that affect the effectiveness of this educational approach remains a challenge. This study aims to identify effective strategic and ...
There is a growing awareness that collaborative skills require dedicated teaching efforts and collaborative problem solving has been identified as a particularly promising task that draws upon various social and cognitive skills, and that can be analysed in classroom environments where skills are both measurable and teachable. In his book "Cognition in the Wild", Hutchins (1995) invites ...
Collaborative Problem Solving. With this method the instructor provides a loosly structured problem to the student groups and the students decide how they are going to proceed in solving the problem. The following criteria must be present: a novel problem to be solved (i.e., as opposed to completing a routine task) ...
Final Defense Interactions and Challenges During Synchronous Online Distance Collaborative Problem Solving Among Grade Five Students in an Advanced Mathematics Class by Mary Allaine E. Paran MS Mathematics Education Candidate Date: Saturday, 18 May 2024 Time: 11 am Venue: SEC A 321 - MJR Room Adviser: Romina Ann S. Yap, PhD Ateneo de Manila University
Our Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS) approach is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives. Anyone can learn Collaborative Problem Solving, and we're here to show you how. Kids with challenging behavior are tragically misunderstood.