technology perspective to problem solving

To Solve a Tough Problem, Reframe It

Five steps to ensure that you don’t jump to solutions by Julia Binder and Michael D. Watkins

Summary .   

Research shows that companies devote too little effort to examining problems before trying to solve them. By jumping immediately into problem-solving, teams limit their ability to design innovative solutions.

The authors recommend that companies spend more time up front on problem-framing, a process for understanding and defining a problem. Exploring different frames is like looking at a scene through various camera lenses while adjusting your angle, aperture, and focus. A wide-angle lens gives you a very different photo from that taken with a telephoto lens, and shifting your angle and depth of focus yields distinct images. Effective problem-framing is similar: Looking at a problem from a variety of perspectives helps you uncover new insights and generate fresh ideas.

This article introduces a five-phase approach to problem-framing: In the expand phase, the team identifies all aspects of a problem; in examine, it dives into root causes; in empathize, it considers key stakeholders’ perspectives; in elevate, it puts the problem into a broader context; and in envision, it creates a road map toward the desired outcome.

When business leaders confront complex problems, there’s a powerful impulse to dive right into “solving” mode: You gather a team and then identify potential solutions. That’s fine for challenges you’ve faced before or when proven methods yield good results. But what happens when a new type of problem arises or aspects of a familiar one shift substantially? Or if you’re not exactly sure what the problem is?

Research conducted by us and others shows that leaders and their teams devote too little effort to examining and defining problems before trying to solve them. A study by Paul Nutt of Ohio State University, for example, looked at 350 decision-making processes at medium to large companies and found that more than half failed to achieve desired results, often because perceived time pressure caused people to pay insufficient attention to examining problems from all angles and exploring their complexities. By jumping immediately into problem-solving, teams limit their ability to design innovative and durable solutions.

When we work with organizations and teams, we encourage them to spend more time up front on problem-framing, a process for understanding and defining a problem. Exploring frames is like looking at a scene through various camera lenses while adjusting your angle, aperture, and focus. A wide-angle lens will give you a very different photo from that taken with a telephoto lens, and shifting your angle and depth of focus yields distinct images. Effective problem-framing is similar: Looking at a problem from a variety of perspectives lets you uncover new insights and generate fresh ideas.

As with all essential processes, it helps to have a methodology and a road map. This article introduces the E5 approach to problem-framing—expand, examine, empathize, elevate, and envision—and offers tools that enable leaders to fully explore the problem space.

Phase 1: Expand

In the first phase, set aside preconceptions and open your mind. We recommend using a tool called frame-storming, which encourages a comprehensive exploration of an issue and its nuances. It is a neglected precursor to brainstorming, which typically focuses on generating many different answers for an already framed challenge. Frame-storming helps teams identify assumptions and blind spots, mitigating the risk of pursuing inadequate or biased solutions. The goal is to spark innovation and creativity as people dig into—or as Tina Seelig from Stanford puts it, “fall in love with”—the problem.

Begin by assembling a diverse team, encompassing a variety of types of expertise and perspectives. Involving outsiders can be helpful, since they’re often coming to the issue cold. A good way to prompt the team to consider alternative scenarios is by asking “What if…?” and “How might we…?” questions. For example, ask your team, “What if we had access to unlimited resources to tackle this issue?” or “How might better collaboration between departments or teams help us tackle this issue?” The primary objective is to generate many alternative problem frames, allowing for a more holistic understanding of the issue. Within an open, nonjudgmental atmosphere, you deliberately challenge established thinking—what we call “breaking” the frame.

It may be easy to eliminate some possibilities, and that’s exactly what you should do. Rather than make assumptions, generate alternative hypotheses and then test them.

Consider the problem-framing process at a company we’ll call Omega Soundscapes, a midsize producer of high-end headphones. (Omega is a composite of several firms we’ve worked with.) Omega’s sales had declined substantially over the past two quarters, and the leadership team’s initial diagnosis, or reference frame, was that recent price hikes to its flagship product made it too expensive for its target market. Before acting on this assumption, the team convened knowledgeable representatives from sales, marketing, R&D, customer service, and external consultants to do some frame-storming. Team members were asked:

• What if we lowered the price of our flagship product? How would that impact sales and profitability?
• How might we identify customers in new target markets who could afford our headphones at the current price?
• What if we offered financing or a subscription-based model for our headphones? How would that change perceptions of affordability?
• How might we optimize our supply chain and production processes to reduce manufacturing costs without compromising quality?

In playing out each of those scenarios, the Omega team generated several problem frames:

• The target market’s preferences have evolved.
• New competitors have entered the market.
• Product quality has decreased.
• Something has damaged perceptions of the brand.
• Something has changed in the priorities of our key distributors.

Each of the frames presented a unique angle from which to approach the problem of declining sales, setting the stage for the development of diverse potential solutions. At this stage, it may be relatively easy to eliminate some possibilities, and that’s exactly what you should do. Rather than make assumptions, generate alternative hypotheses and then test them.

See more HBR charts in Data & Visuals

Phase 2: Examine

If the expand phase is about identifying all the facets of a problem, this one is about diving deep to identify root causes. The team investigates the issue thoroughly, peeling back the layers to understand underlying drivers and systemic contributors.

A useful tool for doing this is the iceberg model, which guides the team through layers of causation: surface-level events, the behavioral patterns that drive them, underlying systematic structures, and established mental models. As you probe ever deeper and document your findings, you begin to home in on the problem’s root causes. As is the case in the expand phase, open discussions and collaborative research are crucial for achieving a comprehensive analysis.

Let’s return to our Omega Soundscapes example and use the iceberg model to delve into the issues surrounding the two quarters of declining sales. Starting with the first layer beneath the surface, the behavioral pattern, the team diligently analyzed customer feedback. It discovered a significant drop in brand loyalty. This finding validated the problem frame of a “shifting brand perception,” prompting further investigation into what might have been causing it.

Phase 3: Empathize

In this phase, the focus is on the stakeholders—employees, customers, clients, investors, supply chain partners, and other parties—who are most central to and affected by the problem under investigation. The core objective is to understand how they perceive the issue: what they think and feel, how they’re acting, and what they want.

First list all the people who are directly or indirectly relevant to the problem. It may be helpful to create a visual representation of the network of relationships in the ecosystem. Prioritize the stakeholders according to their level of influence on and interest in the problem, and focus on understanding the roles, demographics, behavior patterns, motivations, and goals of the most important ones.

Now create empathy maps for those critical stakeholders. Make a template divided into four sections: Say, Think, Feel, and Do. Conduct interviews or surveys to gather authentic data. How do various users explain the problem? How do they think about the issue, and how do their beliefs inform that thinking? What emotions are they feeling and expressing? How are they behaving? Populate each section of the map with notes based on your observations and interactions. Finally, analyze the completed empathy maps. Look for pain points, inconsistencies, and patterns in stakeholder perspectives.

Returning to the Omega case study, the team identified its ecosystem of stakeholders: customers (both current and potential); retail partners and distributors; the R&D, marketing, and sales teams; suppliers of headphone components; investors and shareholders; and new and existing competitors. They narrowed the list to a few key stakeholders related to the declining-sales problem: customers, retail partners, and investors/shareholders; Omega created empathy maps for representatives from each.

Here’s what the empathy maps showed about what the stakeholders were saying, thinking, feeling, and doing:

Sarah, the customer, complained on social media about the high price of her favorite headphones. Dave, the retailer, expressed concerns about unsold inventory and the challenge of convincing customers to buy the expensive headphones. Alex, the shareholder, brought up Omega’s declining financial performance during its annual investor day.

Sarah thought that Omega was losing touch with its loyal customer base. Dave was considering whether to continue carrying Omega’s products in his store or explore other brands. Alex was contemplating diversifying his portfolio into other consumer-tech companies.

As a longtime supporter of the brand, Sarah felt frustrated and slightly betrayed. Dave was feeling anxious about the drop in sales and the impact on his store’s profitability. Alex was unhappy with the declining stock value.

Sarah was looking for alternatives to the headphones, even though she loves the product’s quality. Dave was scheduling a call with Omega to negotiate pricing and terms. Alex was planning to attend Omega’s next shareholder meeting to find out more information from the leadership team.

When Omega leaders analyzed the data in the maps, they realized that pricing wasn’t the only reason for declining sales. A more profound issue was customers’ dissatisfaction with the perceived price-to-quality ratio, especially when compared with competitors’ offerings. That insight prompted the team to consider enhancing the headphones with additional features, offering more-affordable alternatives, and possibly switching to a service model.

Phase 4: Elevate

This phase involves exploring how the problem connects to broader organizational issues. It’s like zooming out on a map to understand where a city lies in relation to the whole country or continent. This bird’s-eye view reveals interconnected issues and their implications.

For this analysis, we recommend the four-frame model developed by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal, which offers distinct lenses through which to view the problem at a higher level. The structural frame helps you explore formal structures (such as hierarchy and reporting relationships); processes (such as workflow); and systems, rules, and policies. This frame examines efficiency, coordination, and alignment of activities.

The human resources frame focuses on people, relationships, and social dynamics. This includes teamwork, leadership, employee motivation, engagement, professional development, and personal growth. In this frame, the organization is seen as a community or a family that recognizes that talent is its most valuable asset. The political frame delves into power dynamics, competing interests, conflicts, coalitions, and negotiations. From this perspective, organizations are arenas where various stakeholders vie for resources and engage in political struggles to influence decisions. It helps you see how power is distributed, used, and contested.

The symbolic frame highlights the importance of symbols, rituals, stories, and shared values in shaping group identity and culture. In it, organizations are depicted as theaters through which its members make meaning.

Using this model, the Omega team generated the following insights in the four frames:

Structural.

A deeper look into the company’s structure revealed siloing and a lack of coordination between the R&D and marketing departments, which had led to misaligned messaging to customers. It also highlighted a lack of collaboration between the two functions and pointed to the need to communicate with the target market about the product’s features and benefits in a coherent and compelling way.

Human resources.

This frame revealed that the declining sales and price hikes had ramped up pressure on the sales team, damaging morale. The demotivated team was struggling to effectively promote the product, making it harder to recover from declining sales. Omega realized it was lacking adequate support, training, and incentives for the team.

The key insight from this frame was that the finance team’s reluctance to approve promotions in the sales group to maintain margins was exacerbating the morale problem. Omega understood that investing in sales leadership development while still generating profits was crucial for long-term success and that frank discussions about the issue were needed.

This frame highlighted an important misalignment in perception: The company believed that its headphones were of “top quality,” while customers reported in surveys that they were “overpriced.” This divergence raised alarm that branding, marketing, and pricing strategies, which were all predicated on the central corporate value of superior quality, were no longer resonating with customers. Omega realized that it had been paying too little attention to quality assurance and functionality.

Phase 5: Envision

In this phase, you transition from framing the problem to actively imagining and designing solutions. This involves synthesizing the insights gained from earlier phases and crafting a shared vision of the desired future state.

Here we recommend using a technique known as backcasting. First, clearly define your desired goal. For example, a team struggling with missed deadlines and declining productivity might aim to achieve on-time completion rates of 98% for its projects and increase its volume of projects by 5% over the next year. Next, reverse engineer the path to achieving your goal. Outline key milestones required over both the short term and the long term. For each one, pinpoint specific interventions, strategies, and initiatives that will propel you closer to your goal. These may encompass changes in processes, policies, technologies, and behaviors. Synthesize the activities into a sequenced, chronological, prioritized road map or action plan, and allocate the resources, including time, budget, and personnel, necessary to implement your plan. Finally, monitor progress toward your goal and be prepared to adjust the plan in response to outcomes, feedback, or changing circumstances. This approach ensures that the team’s efforts in implementing the insights from the previous phases are strategically and purposefully directed toward a concrete destination.

Applying the Approach

Albert Einstein once said, “If I had one hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solution.” That philosophy underpins our E5 framework, which provides a structured approach for conscientiously engaging with complex problems before leaping to solutions.

As teams use the methodology, they must understand that problem-framing in today’s intricate business landscape is rarely a linear process. While we’re attempting to provide a structured path, we also recognize the dynamic nature of problems and the need for adaptability. Invariably, as teams begin to implement solutions, new facets of a problem may come to light, unforeseen challenges may arise, or external circumstances may evolve. Your team should be ready to loop back to previous phases—for instance, revisiting the expand phase to reassess the problem’s frame, delving deeper into an overlooked root cause in another examine phase, or gathering fresh insights from stakeholders in a new empathize phase. Ultimately, the E5 framework is intended to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

Partner Center

• Corpus ID: 60842916

Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective

• D. Jonassen , Jane Howland , +1 author R. Marra
• Published 30 August 2002
• Education, Computer Science

749 Citations

A framework for designing problem-based learning environments, video as a learning tool : an off-campus experience in learning with media technology, online learning support in constructivist environments, the situational learning matrix: a design tool for creation of internet-based learning experiences, ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re‐defined and a conceptual framework, a problem-based learning model: showcasing an educational paradigm shift, are we using technology for learning, motivating learning and skills development in netizens, applying concept maps to integrate knowledge management with learning technology for e-learning platform, from knowledge transfer to competence development – a case of learning by designing, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

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

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

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

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

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

19k Accesses

22 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

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

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

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

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

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

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

Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Taoist Perspective

Problem Solving in Technology Education: A Taoist Perspective Jim Flowers Problem solving and product design experiences can empower students by presenting unique learning opportunities. Although the problem solving method may have been important to technology education, as well as industrial arts, as far back as the 1920s (Foster, 1994 ), the movement to incorporate more problem solving and product design in technology education kept surfacing in the 1990s. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia introduced a series of high school technology courses grouped together as Design and Technology (Virginia Department of Education, 1992 ); TIES Magazine's web site offered 70 video tapes "that will support the teaching of design, problem solving and technology" (Ties, 1998 ); the use of design briefs was emphasized (Ritz & Deal, 1992 ); the popularity of a textbook titled Design and Problem Solving in Technology (Hutchinson & Karsnitz, 1994 ) continued to grow; and smiling students and their technological inventions were featured in articles (Edwards, 1996 ), at fairs, and in promotional materials. In the newer approaches to technology education that center on design, students are often asked to design new products. They creatively invent products like: pizza cutters with built-in flashlights; roller skates that work in sand; hats with built-in fans for cooling; and yet another way to store compact discs. Subtly, the definition of technology education has evolved to reflect this movement, since "much technological activity is oriented toward designing and creating new products, technological systems, and environments" (International Technology Education Association, 1996, p.18 ). While there are many definitions of technology (Dyrenfurth, 1991 ), a number of them are oriented toward a product design and problem solving model. Some of these definitions of technology center on "control" over the "human-made and natural environment" to better meet "human needs and wants." For example, Wright and Lauda (1993>) include these elements in their definition of technology as "a body of knowledge and actions, used by people, to apply resources in designing, producing, and using products, structures and systems to extend the human potential for controlling and modifying the natural and human-made environment" ( pp. 3-5 ). This is a shift in meaning from the days of the pump handle lamp and other woodshop projects. Back then, the student often began with a project idea, not with a problem to solve. As this shift in approach occurs, one problem faced by today's teachers of product design is that students tend to subvert a prescribed design process. For example, a typical teacher may ask a student to engage in such a design process, beginning with the student identifying a problem to solve. Often this is a need or want. Next, the student may be asked to gather information and then to formulate many possible solutions to the problem, eventually choosing the best. In reality, some students approach the activity with the thought, "I want to get a CD rack out of this class," or some similar sentiment that begins with one particular solution. In order to satisfy the teacher's requirements, they then craft a need to fit this product idea. While most of their designs are fanciful and lack practical application, a few do, in fact, make sense. However, the entire approach of asking students to design yet another product to satisfy our needs and wants may be misguided, for two reasons. First, few, if any, of today's products are designed (by technology students or professional product designers) to meet actual needs. They are almost always designed to meet open markets, and then human wants can be engineered to meet the product availability. A common joke asks, "If necessity is the mother of invention, how come so many inventions are unnecessary?" The phrase, "The customer is always right," and its more cynical corollary, "Give the customers what they think they want," are not without merit, and have led to economic success for many capitalists. However, the result of product design activities for technology students is that these students learn materialism to an extreme. They are taught that just because something can be invented or produced, it should be. They are taught that creatively designing products is a good thing, regardless of the outcomes. The ultimate criterion for success is money. Second, problem solving and product design are not the same; the best result of a sound problem solving process is often something other than a new product. Maybe the solution to a problem would be a change in corporate policy, new legislation, a consumer education program, or changes in how a product is marketed. These are each examples of design, but it is a system, not a product, that is designed or redesigned. Maybe the best solution is non-action, and acceptance of the situation without change. There have been numerous examples of technological products or "fixes," such as DDT, that have backfired. We need a global citizenry that can entertain a wider variety of solutions than merely a new technological product. Yet if students are told (even tacitly) that their solution must be a physical product or model, then we are restricting their diversity of solutions, and thereby asking them to choose what may not be the best solution. Maybe that approach to problem solving is part of how teachers are taught. Boser ( 1993 ) compared problem solving educational specialists in two groups, technology teacher educators (TECH) and other researchers who were not technology teacher educators (EXT). "Members of the TECH panel tended to rate most highly those procedures practiced within the field, such as design-based problem solving, R & D experiences, and innovation activities. EXT panelists considered techniques such as simulation and case study, which are perhaps more widely used in content areas outside of technology education, as appropriate delivery vehicles for the recommended problem solving procedures," stated Boser. Some might point to a definition of technology and argue that the goal of technological acts is control over the environment to meet our needs and wants. But does technology really give control over the environment? Or is this just one western (or stereotypically male) approach? Surely technology education should accommodate people of different religions and belief systems. Yet, there may be a bias against certain belief systems because of the underlying and unquestioned assumptions inherent in a definition of technology and a rationale of technology education. A Taoist philosophy is summarized in the Tao Te Ching, translated here from Lao Tsu's words ( 1972 ) from 6th Century BC China. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the reference numbers in the actual document. Lao Tsu suggested that less and less should be done "until non-action is achieved. When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering" (#48). The philosophy of Taoism, like some other belief systems, does not put humans on an adversarial battleground with nature. Instead, a harmonious existence is thought to be a proper relationship. "Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it? I do not believe it can be done. The universe is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it" (#29). It is difficult to delineate the separation between human and nature, and just as difficult to find the real difference between the human-made and natural environments. It is nearly impossible to name any terrestrial environment that is all human-made (without having been affected by the sun, for example), or one that has not been influenced by humans. These distinctions seem to isolate people from the world around them in an "unnatural" way. Yet, definitions of technology often attempt to make just such a distinction. From a Taoist perspective, some definitions of technology seem more like creeds about the nature and purpose of humans. A host of values dominant in much western culture are de-emphasized in Taoist texts, including materialism: "Having and not having arise together" (#2); "One gains by losing and loses by gaining" (#42); one "who knows that enough is enough will always have enough" (#46); and one "who is attached to things will suffer much" (#44). It is common for western students to strive to improve, to take pride in their work, and to expect and receive praise. Yet, Lao Tsu suggests, "Working, yet not taking credit. Work is done, then forgotten. Therefore it lasts forever" (#2), and "Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling" (#3). Technology students are especially encouraged to be innovative, and to want to improve the current situation (or solve the problem): "Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear" (#19); "Without desire there is tranquility" (#37). It is especially difficult for educators to question the value of education itself, but Taoism does: "In the pursuit of learning every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped" (#48); and "Give up learning and put an end to your troubles" (#20). While some Taoist doctrines may cause some to discount the entire philosophy, that would be a mistake. Instead, it would be better to see what questions are raised by such a stance. The emphasis on design in technology education may be related to the current abundance and diversity of technical artifacts. Would more artifacts be an improvement? While there are positive and negative outcomes of nearly any technological change, we should question the assumption that more is better. Does a major league pitcher concentrate on new baseball prototypes? No. The pitcher practices and experiments with the art of pitching, often hoping to achieve just a fraction of the skill enjoyed by some of the great pitchers in the history of the game. The aim is "the essence of pitching." However, technology is an important factor. As the clap-skate was introduced to Olympic speed skating competitions in 1998, the athletes altered their notion of "the essence of speed skating." As technology becomes more transparent to the end user, the user is required to know less technical information to use the technology. A few decades ago, computer programming was being pushed in the public schools. Now, the emphasis is more on the use of professionally prepared programs. Software is updated so often that it can be difficult to develop comfort with one particular version. This has let to some computer users feeling more comfortable with an older, and sometimes more reliable, version of a program. Their goal may not be to use the most advanced word processing program, but to write. Is the goal to achieve a sustainable future, or to keep accelerating? "There is no greater sin than desire, no greater curse than discontent, no greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself. Therefore [one] who knows that enough is enough will always have enough" (#46). Are there enough designs? Is there enough technology? Would it be possible to reconcile technology, technology education, and a Taoist perspective? Yes. But technology would not be the essence of human control over others and the environment. It would not be a master, but a tool. The goal would not be materialistic or technological, but to live life on a harmonious path. Will that entail problem solving and technology? Yes, but the goal of the problem solving activity may not be what it seems. Recommendations Therefore, I suggest a different approach to teaching problem solving in technology education. Students should be encouraged to concentrate not on whimsical wants or fanciful products. They should apply their considerable problem solving skills to improving the human condition, and the condition of non-humans, sometimes in spite of what some people want or think they want. They should be encouraged to find solutions from a broad range of technological and non-technological realms. Effective and responsible national leaders and corporate executives are those with enough backbone to do what they believe is best for the nation or corporation, in spite of mass opinion. They are not afraid to upset people, even friends, if these people had to be upset by the leader's pursuit of their course. While they may be mindful of the concerns of the workers, citizens, consumers, etc., they are willing to lose their job because they did what they thought was best, in spite of common opinion. The solutions (i.e., way) they choose are holistic, sometimes relying more on technology, other times involved with laws, communication, and other social arenas. They do not blindly accept the premise that their current product or service is the single best solution to a problem. They "know when enough is enough," and when the choice to not pursue a technological avenue is the wisest choice. If this is the type of person a technology teacher hopes their students will become, then specific educational experiences should be designed to empower students with those independent, risk-taking abilities where the goal is what is best, not necessarily only what the clients want or think they want. They must practice the skills involved in deciding when the best path may not be a new technological product. Teaching problem solving in technology education will continue to offer students invaluable learning experiences. The suggestion is that the focus and procedure be allowed to shift. This can be directed by how the teacher helps the student select a problem and frame the context of a problem. Here are four examples of situations a teacher may pose for students. In Costa Rica, some of the urban-dwellers move into the dwindling tropical rainforest, clear an area of trees, and try to live a better life than they had in the city. In Ghana, there is a shortage of skilled industrial workers, yet many of the students in Ghana's trade schools consider such jobs beneath their qualifications. In New York, a woman who played guitar and piano for many years has to give up these instruments because the guitar causes problems with her neck and back, and both instruments have resulted in carpal tunnel syndrome. In Delaware, a wife and husband in their seventies were given their first VCR, but the instructions sounded too intimidating for them to actually play or record a tape. In each example, there is a statement of a situation that might (or might not) be improved by a creative solution. Some solutions may be technological, but maybe the best solution is not technological. Students should examine such situations (both big and small, near and far, individual and societal) and use their creative problem solving abilities to try to plan what is best. This means weighing short-term gains and costs with long-term gains and costs. It means asking what is best: best for the individual, for the culture, for future generations, and for the environment. It means considering educational reform, personal lifestyle changes, new technology, and governmental action. The Japan External Trade Organization (1998) concluded that "a fundamental gap exists between the way Japanese companies and many of their overseas partners, especially in the West, view problems." Greater attention to both the diverse views of problem solving and to holistic approaches may improve the benefits of education in problem solving. Oddly, this more holistic approach to problem solving is contrary to popular belief and some research results: The tendency in education has been to employ the term "problem solving" generically to include such diverse activities as coping with marital problems and trouble-shooting electronic circuits. The results of this study suggest that such generalization may be inappropriate. Instead, problem solving should be viewed as nature specific. In other words, different types of problem situations (e.g., personal or technological) require different kinds and levels of knowledge and capability. This is substantiated by this study's findings that individuals manifest different style characteristics when addressing problems of different natures. (Wu, Custer, & Dyrenfurth, 1996, p.69) However, the best solution to a technological problem may be non- technological. Students who are practiced in considering this wider range of alternatives will be better prepared to face the demands of global citizenry than those who merely make yet another CD rack. A technology teacher can incorporate elements of a Taoist approach in subtle ways. These may include less emphasis on the product, less praise (from an external source), acceptance of some situations as they are, and an attitude of doing something because it needs to be done, and then moving on. There would certainly be less emphasis for some on solving problems by designing new products. Finally, it is critical for a technology teacher to revisit their definition and philosophy of technology, analyzing its assumptions and bias. That definition should be individually crafted by that teacher, so that it is honest and accurate, and accommodates a variety of belief systems. That definition can lay the path for a wondrous technological journey for the student and teacher. References Boser, R. (1993). The development of problem solving capabilities in pre-service technology teacher education. Journal of Technology Education, 4(2). Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1991) . Technological literacy synthesized. In M. J. Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak (Eds.), Technological literacy. 40th Yearbook, Council on Technology Teacher Education. Peoria, IL: Glencoe. Edwards, D. (1996). Design technology exhibit. The Technology Teacher, 55(8), 14-16. Foster, P. (1994). Technology education: AKA industrial arts. Journal of Technology Education , 5(2). Hutchinson, J., and Karsnitz, J. (1994). Design and problem solving in technology. Albany, NY: Delmar. International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Japan External Trade Organization. (1998). Problem solving. Retrieved April 23, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.jetro.go.jp/ Negotiating/6.html Lao Tsu. (1972). Tao te ching (Gia-Fu Feng & J. English, Trans.). Westminster, MD: Random House. (Original work 6th Century BC) Ritz, J. R., & Deal, W. F. (1992). Design briefs: Writing dynamic learning activities. The Technology Teacher, 54(5), 33-34. TIES. (1998). Ties - The magazine of design and technology. Retrieved on February 12, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.TCNJ.EDU/ ~ties/ Virginia Department of Education. (1992). Design and technology: Teacher's guide for high school technology education. Richmond, VA: Author. Wright, R. T. , & Lauda, D. P. (1993). Technology education - A position statement. The Technology Teacher, 52(4), 3-5. Wu, T., Custer, R. L., & Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1996). Technological and personal problem solving styles: Is there a difference? Journal of Technology Education , 7(2), 55-71. Jim Flowers is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industry and Technology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

Distance Learning

Using technology to develop students’ critical thinking skills.

by Jessica Mansbach

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a higher-order cognitive skill that is indispensable to students, readying them to respond to a variety of complex problems that are sure to arise in their personal and professional lives. The  cognitive skills at the foundation of critical thinking are  analysis, interpretation, evaluation, explanation, inference, and self-regulation.  

When students think critically, they actively engage in these processes:

• Communication
• Problem-solving

To create environments that engage students in these processes, instructors need to ask questions, encourage the expression of diverse opinions, and involve students in a variety of hands-on activities that force them to be involved in their learning.

Types of Critical Thinking Skills

Instructors should select activities based on the level of thinking they want students to do and the learning objectives for the course or assignment. The chart below describes questions to ask in order to show that students can demonstrate different levels of critical thinking.

*Adapted from Brown University’s Harriet W Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning

Using Online Tools to Teach Critical Thinking Skills

Online instructors can use technology tools to create activities that help students develop both lower-level and higher-level critical thinking skills.

• Example: Use Google Doc, a collaboration feature in Canvas, and tell students to keep a journal in which they reflect on what they are learning, describe the progress they are making in the class, and cite course materials that have been most relevant to their progress. Students can share the Google Doc with you, and instructors can comment on their work.
• Example: Use the peer review assignment feature in Canvas and manually or automatically form peer review groups. These groups can be anonymous or display students’ names. Tell students to give feedback to two of their peers on the first draft of a research paper. Use the rubric feature in Canvas to create a rubric for students to use. Show students the rubric along with the assignment instructions so that students know what they will be evaluated on and how to evaluate their peers.
• Example: Use the discussions feature in Canvas and tell students to have a debate about a video they watched. Pose the debate questions in the discussion forum, and give students instructions to take a side of the debate and cite course readings to support their arguments.  
• Example: Us e goreact , a tool for creating and commenting on online presentations, and tell students to design a presentation that summarizes and raises questions about a reading. Tell students to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s argument. Students can post the links to their goreact presentations in a discussion forum or an assignment using the insert link feature in Canvas.
• Example:  Use goreact, a narrated Powerpoint, or a Google Doc and instruct students to tell a story that informs readers and listeners about how the course content they are learning is useful in their professional lives. In the story, tell students to offer specific examples of readings and class activities that they are finding most relevant to their professional work. Links to the goreact presentation and Google doc can be submitted via a discussion forum or an assignment in Canvas. The Powerpoint file can be submitted via a discussion or submitted in an assignment.

Pulling it All Together

Critical thinking is an invaluable skill that students need to be successful in their professional and personal lives. Instructors can be thoughtful and purposeful about creating learning objectives that promote lower and higher-level critical thinking skills, and about using technology to implement activities that support these learning objectives. Below are some additional resources about critical thinking.

Additional Resources

Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site.  Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice ,  9 (1), 4.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review.  Pearson’s Research Reports ,  6 , 40-41.

Landers, H (n.d.). Using Peer Teaching In The Classroom. Retrieved electronically from https://tilt.colostate.edu/TipsAndGuides/Tip/180

Lynch, C. L., & Wolcott, S. K. (2001). Helping your students develop critical thinking skills (IDEA Paper# 37. In  Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Mandernach, B. J. (2006). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Integrating online tools to Promote Critical Thinking. Insight: A collection of faculty scholarship , 1 , 41-50.

Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education , 59 (2), 339-352.

Insight Assessment: Measuring Thinking Worldwide

http://www.insightassessment.com/

Michigan State University’s Office of Faculty  & Organizational Development, Critical Thinking: http://fod.msu.edu/oir/critical-thinking

The Critical Thinking Community

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Related Posts

Panopto for Video Recording and Sharing – November 2017 Online Learning Webinar

Up Up and Away: How Superheroes Can Save Online Discussions

Nebula: A Graphic Interface for Discussion Forums

Student Video Assignments

9 responses to “ Using Technology To Develop Students’ Critical Thinking Skills ”

This is a great site for my students to learn how to develop critical thinking skills, especially in the STEM fields.

Great tools to help all learners at all levels… not everyone learns at the same rate.

Thanks for sharing the article. Is there any way to find tools which help in developing critical thinking skills to students?

Technology needs to be advance to develop the below factors:

Understand the links between ideas. Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas. Recognize, build and appraise arguments.

Excellent share! Can I know few tools which help in developing critical thinking skills to students? Any help will be appreciated. Thanks!

• Pingback: EDTC 6431 – Module 4 – Designing Lessons That Use Critical Thinking | Mr.Reed Teaches Math
• Pingback: Homepage
• Pingback: Magacus | Pearltrees

Brilliant post. Will be sharing this on our Twitter (@refthinking). I would love to chat to you about our tool, the Thinking Kit. It has been specifically designed to help students develop critical thinking skills whilst they also learn about the topics they ‘need’ to.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

40 problem-solving techniques and processes

All teams and organizations encounter challenges. Approaching those challenges without a structured problem solving process can end up making things worse.

Proven problem solving techniques such as those outlined below can guide your group through a process of identifying problems and challenges , ideating on possible solutions , and then evaluating and implementing the most suitable .

In this post, you'll find problem-solving tools you can use to develop effective solutions. You'll also find some tips for facilitating the problem solving process and solving complex problems.

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

A step-by-step guide to planning a workshop, 54 great online tools for workshops and meetings, how to create an unforgettable training session in 8 simple steps.

• 18 Free Facilitation Resources We Think You’ll Love

What is problem solving?

Problem solving is a process of finding and implementing a solution to a challenge or obstacle. In most contexts, this means going through a problem solving process that begins with identifying the issue, exploring its root causes, ideating and refining possible solutions before implementing and measuring the impact of that solution.

For simple or small problems, it can be tempting to skip straight to implementing what you believe is the right solution. The danger with this approach is that without exploring the true causes of the issue, it might just occur again or your chosen solution may cause other issues.

Particularly in the world of work, good problem solving means using data to back up each step of the process, bringing in new perspectives and effectively measuring the impact of your solution.

Effective problem solving can help ensure that your team or organization is well positioned to overcome challenges, be resilient to change and create innovation. In my experience, problem solving is a combination of skillset, mindset and process, and it’s especially vital for leaders to cultivate this skill.

What is the seven step problem solving process?

A problem solving process is a step-by-step framework from going from discovering a problem all the way through to implementing a solution.

With practice, this framework can become intuitive, and innovative companies tend to have a consistent and ongoing ability to discover and tackle challenges when they come up.

You might see everything from a four step problem solving process through to seven steps. While all these processes cover roughly the same ground, I’ve found a seven step problem solving process is helpful for making all key steps legible.

We’ll outline that process here and then follow with techniques you can use to explore and work on that step of the problem solving process with a group.

The seven-step problem solving process is:

1. Problem identification 

The first stage of any problem solving process is to identify the problem(s) you need to solve. This often looks like using group discussions and activities to help a group surface and effectively articulate the challenges they’re facing and wish to resolve.

Be sure to align with your team on the exact definition and nature of the problem you’re solving. An effective process is one where everyone is pulling in the same direction – ensure clarity and alignment now to help avoid misunderstandings later.

2. Problem analysis and refinement

The process of problem analysis means ensuring that the problem you are seeking to solve is  the   right problem . Choosing the right problem to solve means you are on the right path to creating the right solution.

At this stage, you may look deeper at the problem you identified to try and discover the root cause at the level of people or process. You may also spend some time sourcing data, consulting relevant parties and creating and refining a problem statement.

Problem refinement means adjusting scope or focus of the problem you will be aiming to solve based on what comes up during your analysis. As you analyze data sources, you might discover that the root cause means you need to adjust your problem statement. Alternatively, you might find that your original problem statement is too big to be meaningful approached within your current project.

Remember that the goal of any problem refinement is to help set the stage for effective solution development and deployment. Set the right focus and get buy-in from your team here and you’ll be well positioned to move forward with confidence.

3. Solution generation

Once your group has nailed down the particulars of the problem you wish to solve, you want to encourage a free flow of ideas connecting to solving that problem. This can take the form of problem solving games that encourage creative thinking or techniquess designed to produce working prototypes of possible solutions. 

The key to ensuring the success of this stage of the problem solving process is to encourage quick, creative thinking and create an open space where all ideas are considered. The best solutions can often come from unlikely places and by using problem solving techniques that celebrate invention, you might come up with solution gold. 

4. Solution development

No solution is perfect right out of the gate. It’s important to discuss and develop the solutions your group has come up with over the course of following the previous problem solving steps in order to arrive at the best possible solution. Problem solving games used in this stage involve lots of critical thinking, measuring potential effort and impact, and looking at possible solutions analytically. 

During this stage, you will often ask your team to iterate and improve upon your front-running solutions and develop them further. Remember that problem solving strategies always benefit from a multitude of voices and opinions, and not to let ego get involved when it comes to choosing which solutions to develop and take further.

Finding the best solution is the goal of all problem solving workshops and here is the place to ensure that your solution is well thought out, sufficiently robust and fit for purpose. 

5. Decision making and planning

Nearly there! Once you’ve got a set of possible, you’ll need to make a decision on which to implement. This can be a consensus-based group decision or it might be for a leader or major stakeholder to decide. You’ll find a set of effective decision making methods below.

Once your group has reached consensus and selected a solution, there are some additional actions that also need to be decided upon. You’ll want to work on allocating ownership of the project, figure out who will do what, how the success of the solution will be measured and decide the next course of action.

Set clear accountabilities, actions, timeframes, and follow-ups for your chosen solution. Make these decisions and set clear next-steps in the problem solving workshop so that everyone is aligned and you can move forward effectively as a group. 

Ensuring that you plan for the roll-out of a solution is one of the most important problem solving steps. Without adequate planning or oversight, it can prove impossible to measure success or iterate further if the problem was not solved. 

6. Solution implementation 

This is what we were waiting for! All problem solving processes have the end goal of implementing an effective and impactful solution that your group has confidence in.

Project management and communication skills are key here – your solution may need to adjust when out in the wild or you might discover new challenges along the way. For some solutions, you might also implement a test with a small group and monitor results before rolling it out to an entire company.

You should have a clear owner for your solution who will oversee the plans you made together and help ensure they’re put into place. This person will often coordinate the implementation team and set-up processes to measure the efficacy of your solution too.

7. Solution evaluation 

So you and your team developed a great solution to a problem and have a gut feeling it’s been solved. Work done, right? Wrong. All problem solving strategies benefit from evaluation, consideration, and feedback.

You might find that the solution does not work for everyone, might create new problems, or is potentially so successful that you will want to roll it out to larger teams or as part of other initiatives. 

None of that is possible without taking the time to evaluate the success of the solution you developed in your problem solving model and adjust if necessary.

Remember that the problem solving process is often iterative and it can be common to not solve complex issues on the first try. Even when this is the case, you and your team will have generated learning that will be important for future problem solving workshops or in other parts of the organization. 

It’s also worth underlining how important record keeping is throughout the problem solving process. If a solution didn’t work, you need to have the data and records to see why that was the case. If you go back to the drawing board, notes from the previous workshop can help save time.

What does an effective problem solving process look like?

Every effective problem solving process begins with an agenda . In our experience, a well-structured problem solving workshop is one of the best methods for successfully guiding a group from exploring a problem to implementing a solution.

The format of a workshop ensures that you can get buy-in from your group, encourage free-thinking and solution exploration before making a decision on what to implement following the session.

This Design Sprint 2.0 template is an effective problem solving process from top agency AJ&Smart. It’s a great format for the entire problem solving process, with four-days of workshops designed to surface issues, explore solutions and even test a solution.

Check it for an example of how you might structure and run a problem solving process and feel free to copy and adjust it your needs!

For a shorter process you can run in a single afternoon, this remote problem solving agenda will guide you effectively in just a couple of hours.

Whatever the length of your workshop, by using SessionLab, it’s easy to go from an idea to a complete agenda . Start by dragging and dropping your core problem solving activities into place . Add timings, breaks and necessary materials before sharing your agenda with your colleagues.

The resulting agenda will be your guide to an effective and productive problem solving session that will also help you stay organized on the day!

Complete problem-solving methods

In this section, we’ll look at in-depth problem-solving methods that provide a complete end-to-end process for developing effective solutions. These will help guide your team from the discovery and definition of a problem through to delivering the right solution.

If you’re looking for an all-encompassing method or problem-solving model, these processes are a great place to start. They’ll ask your team to challenge preconceived ideas and adopt a mindset for solving problems more effectively.

Six Thinking Hats

Individual approaches to solving a problem can be very different based on what team or role an individual holds. It can be easy for existing biases or perspectives to find their way into the mix, or for internal politics to direct a conversation.

Six Thinking Hats is a classic method for identifying the problems that need to be solved and enables your team to consider them from different angles, whether that is by focusing on facts and data, creative solutions, or by considering why a particular solution might not work.

Like all problem-solving frameworks, Six Thinking Hats is effective at helping teams remove roadblocks from a conversation or discussion and come to terms with all the aspects necessary to solve complex problems.

The Six Thinking Hats   #creative thinking   #meeting facilitation   #problem solving   #issue resolution   #idea generation   #conflict resolution   The Six Thinking Hats are used by individuals and groups to separate out conflicting styles of thinking. They enable and encourage a group of people to think constructively together in exploring and implementing change, rather than using argument to fight over who is right and who is wrong.

Lightning Decision Jam

Featured courtesy of Jonathan Courtney of AJ&Smart Berlin, Lightning Decision Jam is one of those strategies that should be in every facilitation toolbox. Exploring problems and finding solutions is often creative in nature, though as with any creative process, there is the potential to lose focus and get lost.

Unstructured discussions might get you there in the end, but it’s much more effective to use a method that creates a clear process and team focus.

In Lightning Decision Jam, participants are invited to begin by writing challenges, concerns, or mistakes on post-its without discussing them before then being invited by the moderator to present them to the group.

From there, the team vote on which problems to solve and are guided through steps that will allow them to reframe those problems, create solutions and then decide what to execute on. 

By deciding the problems that need to be solved as a team before moving on, this group process is great for ensuring the whole team is aligned and can take ownership over the next stages. 

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ)   #action   #decision making   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #innovation   #design   #remote-friendly   It doesn’t matter where you work and what your job role is, if you work with other people together as a team, you will always encounter the same challenges: Unclear goals and miscommunication that cause busy work and overtime Unstructured meetings that leave attendants tired, confused and without clear outcomes. Frustration builds up because internal challenges to productivity are not addressed Sudden changes in priorities lead to a loss of focus and momentum Muddled compromise takes the place of clear decision- making, leaving everybody to come up with their own interpretation. In short, a lack of structure leads to a waste of time and effort, projects that drag on for too long and frustrated, burnt out teams. AJ&Smart has worked with some of the most innovative, productive companies in the world. What sets their teams apart from others is not better tools, bigger talent or more beautiful offices. The secret sauce to becoming a more productive, more creative and happier team is simple: Replace all open discussion or brainstorming with a structured process that leads to more ideas, clearer decisions and better outcomes. When a good process provides guardrails and a clear path to follow, it becomes easier to come up with ideas, make decisions and solve problems. This is why AJ&Smart created Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ). It’s a simple and short, but powerful group exercise that can be run either in-person, in the same room, or remotely with distributed teams.

Problem Definition Process

While problems can be complex, the problem-solving methods you use to identify and solve those problems can often be simple in design. 

By taking the time to truly identify and define a problem before asking the group to reframe the challenge as an opportunity, this method is a great way to enable change.

Begin by identifying a focus question and exploring the ways in which it manifests before splitting into five teams who will each consider the problem using a different method: escape, reversal, exaggeration, distortion or wishful. Teams develop a problem objective and create ideas in line with their method before then feeding them back to the group.

This method is great for enabling in-depth discussions while also creating space for finding creative solutions too!

Problem Definition   #problem solving   #idea generation   #creativity   #online   #remote-friendly   A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

The 5 Whys 

Sometimes, a group needs to go further with their strategies and analyze the root cause at the heart of organizational issues. An RCA or root cause analysis is the process of identifying what is at the heart of business problems or recurring challenges. 

The 5 Whys is a simple and effective method of helping a group go find the root cause of any problem or challenge and conduct analysis that will deliver results. 

By beginning with the creation of a problem statement and going through five stages to refine it, The 5 Whys provides everything you need to truly discover the cause of an issue.

The 5 Whys   #hyperisland   #innovation   This simple and powerful method is useful for getting to the core of a problem or challenge. As the title suggests, the group defines a problems, then asks the question “why” five times, often using the resulting explanation as a starting point for creative problem solving.

World Cafe is a simple but powerful facilitation technique to help bigger groups to focus their energy and attention on solving complex problems.

World Cafe enables this approach by creating a relaxed atmosphere where participants are able to self-organize and explore topics relevant and important to them which are themed around a central problem-solving purpose. Create the right atmosphere by modeling your space after a cafe and after guiding the group through the method, let them take the lead!

Making problem-solving a part of your organization’s culture in the long term can be a difficult undertaking. More approachable formats like World Cafe can be especially effective in bringing people unfamiliar with workshops into the fold. 

World Cafe   #hyperisland   #innovation   #issue analysis   World Café is a simple yet powerful method, originated by Juanita Brown, for enabling meaningful conversations driven completely by participants and the topics that are relevant and important to them. Facilitators create a cafe-style space and provide simple guidelines. Participants then self-organize and explore a set of relevant topics or questions for conversation.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

One of the best approaches is to create a safe space for a group to share and discover practices and behaviors that can help them find their own solutions.

With DAD, you can help a group choose which problems they wish to solve and which approaches they will take to do so. It’s great at helping remove resistance to change and can help get buy-in at every level too!

This process of enabling frontline ownership is great in ensuring follow-through and is one of the methods you will want in your toolbox as a facilitator.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)   #idea generation   #liberating structures   #action   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   DADs make it easy for a group or community to discover practices and behaviors that enable some individuals (without access to special resources and facing the same constraints) to find better solutions than their peers to common problems. These are called positive deviant (PD) behaviors and practices. DADs make it possible for people in the group, unit, or community to discover by themselves these PD practices. DADs also create favorable conditions for stimulating participants’ creativity in spaces where they can feel safe to invent new and more effective practices. Resistance to change evaporates as participants are unleashed to choose freely which practices they will adopt or try and which problems they will tackle. DADs make it possible to achieve frontline ownership of solutions.

Design Sprint 2.0

Want to see how a team can solve big problems and move forward with prototyping and testing solutions in a few days? The Design Sprint 2.0 template from Jake Knapp, author of Sprint, is a complete agenda for a with proven results.

Developing the right agenda can involve difficult but necessary planning. Ensuring all the correct steps are followed can also be stressful or time-consuming depending on your level of experience.

Use this complete 4-day workshop template if you are finding there is no obvious solution to your challenge and want to focus your team around a specific problem that might require a shortcut to launching a minimum viable product or waiting for the organization-wide implementation of a solution.

Open space technology

Open space technology- developed by Harrison Owen – creates a space where large groups are invited to take ownership of their problem solving and lead individual sessions. Open space technology is a great format when you have a great deal of expertise and insight in the room and want to allow for different takes and approaches on a particular theme or problem you need to be solved.

Start by bringing your participants together to align around a central theme and focus their efforts. Explain the ground rules to help guide the problem-solving process and then invite members to identify any issue connecting to the central theme that they are interested in and are prepared to take responsibility for.

Once participants have decided on their approach to the core theme, they write their issue on a piece of paper, announce it to the group, pick a session time and place, and post the paper on the wall. As the wall fills up with sessions, the group is then invited to join the sessions that interest them the most and which they can contribute to, then you’re ready to begin!

Everyone joins the problem-solving group they’ve signed up to, record the discussion and if appropriate, findings can then be shared with the rest of the group afterward.

Open Space Technology   #action plan   #idea generation   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #large group   #online   #remote-friendly   Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Using a problem-solving method to help a team identify and analyze a problem can be a quick and effective addition to any workshop or meeting.

While further actions are always necessary, you can generate momentum and alignment easily, and these activities are a great place to get started.

We’ve put together this list of techniques to help you and your team with problem identification, analysis, and discussion that sets the foundation for developing effective solutions.

Let’s take a look!

Fishbone Analysis

Organizational or team challenges are rarely simple, and it’s important to remember that one problem can be an indication of something that goes deeper and may require further consideration to be solved.

Fishbone Analysis helps groups to dig deeper and understand the origins of a problem. It’s a great example of a root cause analysis method that is simple for everyone on a team to get their head around. 

Participants in this activity are asked to annotate a diagram of a fish, first adding the problem or issue to be worked on at the head of a fish before then brainstorming the root causes of the problem and adding them as bones on the fish. 

Using abstractions such as a diagram of a fish can really help a team break out of their regular thinking and develop a creative approach.

Fishbone Analysis   #problem solving   ##root cause analysis   #decision making   #online facilitation   A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

Problem Tree 

Encouraging visual thinking can be an essential part of many strategies. By simply reframing and clarifying problems, a group can move towards developing a problem solving model that works for them. 

In Problem Tree, groups are asked to first brainstorm a list of problems – these can be design problems, team problems or larger business problems – and then organize them into a hierarchy. The hierarchy could be from most important to least important or abstract to practical, though the key thing with problem solving games that involve this aspect is that your group has some way of managing and sorting all the issues that are raised.

Once you have a list of problems that need to be solved and have organized them accordingly, you’re then well-positioned for the next problem solving steps.

Problem tree   #define intentions   #create   #design   #issue analysis   A problem tree is a tool to clarify the hierarchy of problems addressed by the team within a design project; it represents high level problems or related sublevel problems.

SWOT Analysis

Chances are you’ve heard of the SWOT Analysis before. This problem-solving method focuses on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is a tried and tested method for both individuals and teams.

Start by creating a desired end state or outcome and bare this in mind – any process solving model is made more effective by knowing what you are moving towards. Create a quadrant made up of the four categories of a SWOT analysis and ask participants to generate ideas based on each of those quadrants.

Once you have those ideas assembled in their quadrants, cluster them together based on their affinity with other ideas. These clusters are then used to facilitate group conversations and move things forward. 

SWOT analysis   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   #meeting facilitation   The SWOT Analysis is a long-standing technique of looking at what we have, with respect to the desired end state, as well as what we could improve on. It gives us an opportunity to gauge approaching opportunities and dangers, and assess the seriousness of the conditions that affect our future. When we understand those conditions, we can influence what comes next.

Agreement-Certainty Matrix

Not every problem-solving approach is right for every challenge, and deciding on the right method for the challenge at hand is a key part of being an effective team.

The Agreement Certainty matrix helps teams align on the nature of the challenges facing them. By sorting problems from simple to chaotic, your team can understand what methods are suitable for each problem and what they can do to ensure effective results. 

If you are already using Liberating Structures techniques as part of your problem-solving strategy, the Agreement-Certainty Matrix can be an invaluable addition to your process. We’ve found it particularly if you are having issues with recurring problems in your organization and want to go deeper in understanding the root cause. 

Agreement-Certainty Matrix   #issue analysis   #liberating structures   #problem solving   You can help individuals or groups avoid the frequent mistake of trying to solve a problem with methods that are not adapted to the nature of their challenge. The combination of two questions makes it possible to easily sort challenges into four categories: simple, complicated, complex , and chaotic .  A problem is simple when it can be solved reliably with practices that are easy to duplicate.  It is complicated when experts are required to devise a sophisticated solution that will yield the desired results predictably.  A problem is complex when there are several valid ways to proceed but outcomes are not predictable in detail.  Chaotic is when the context is too turbulent to identify a path forward.  A loose analogy may be used to describe these differences: simple is like following a recipe, complicated like sending a rocket to the moon, complex like raising a child, and chaotic is like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.”  The Liberating Structures Matching Matrix in Chapter 5 can be used as the first step to clarify the nature of a challenge and avoid the mismatches between problems and solutions that are frequently at the root of chronic, recurring problems.

Organizing and charting a team’s progress can be important in ensuring its success. SQUID (Sequential Question and Insight Diagram) is a great model that allows a team to effectively switch between giving questions and answers and develop the skills they need to stay on track throughout the process. 

Begin with two different colored sticky notes – one for questions and one for answers – and with your central topic (the head of the squid) on the board. Ask the group to first come up with a series of questions connected to their best guess of how to approach the topic. Ask the group to come up with answers to those questions, fix them to the board and connect them with a line. After some discussion, go back to question mode by responding to the generated answers or other points on the board.

It’s rewarding to see a diagram grow throughout the exercise, and a completed SQUID can provide a visual resource for future effort and as an example for other teams.

SQUID   #gamestorming   #project planning   #issue analysis   #problem solving   When exploring an information space, it’s important for a group to know where they are at any given time. By using SQUID, a group charts out the territory as they go and can navigate accordingly. SQUID stands for Sequential Question and Insight Diagram.

To continue with our nautical theme, Speed Boat is a short and sweet activity that can help a team quickly identify what employees, clients or service users might have a problem with and analyze what might be standing in the way of achieving a solution.

Methods that allow for a group to make observations, have insights and obtain those eureka moments quickly are invaluable when trying to solve complex problems.

In Speed Boat, the approach is to first consider what anchors and challenges might be holding an organization (or boat) back. Bonus points if you are able to identify any sharks in the water and develop ideas that can also deal with competitors!   

Speed Boat   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Speedboat is a short and sweet way to identify what your employees or clients don’t like about your product/service or what’s standing in the way of a desired goal.

The Journalistic Six

Some of the most effective ways of solving problems is by encouraging teams to be more inclusive and diverse in their thinking.

Based on the six key questions journalism students are taught to answer in articles and news stories, The Journalistic Six helps create teams to see the whole picture. By using who, what, when, where, why, and how to facilitate the conversation and encourage creative thinking, your team can make sure that the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the are covered exhaustively and thoughtfully. Reporter’s notebook and dictaphone optional.

The Journalistic Six – Who What When Where Why How   #idea generation   #issue analysis   #problem solving   #online   #creative thinking   #remote-friendly   A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

Individual and group perspectives are incredibly important, but what happens if people are set in their minds and need a change of perspective in order to approach a problem more effectively?

Flip It is a method we love because it is both simple to understand and run, and allows groups to understand how their perspectives and biases are formed. 

Participants in Flip It are first invited to consider concerns, issues, or problems from a perspective of fear and write them on a flip chart. Then, the group is asked to consider those same issues from a perspective of hope and flip their understanding.  

No problem and solution is free from existing bias and by changing perspectives with Flip It, you can then develop a problem solving model quickly and effectively.

Flip It!   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Often, a change in a problem or situation comes simply from a change in our perspectives. Flip It! is a quick game designed to show players that perspectives are made, not born.

LEGO Challenge

Now for an activity that is a little out of the (toy) box. LEGO Serious Play is a facilitation methodology that can be used to improve creative thinking and problem-solving skills. 

The LEGO Challenge includes giving each member of the team an assignment that is hidden from the rest of the group while they create a structure without speaking.

What the LEGO challenge brings to the table is a fun working example of working with stakeholders who might not be on the same page to solve problems. Also, it’s LEGO! Who doesn’t love LEGO! 

LEGO Challenge   #hyperisland   #team   A team-building activity in which groups must work together to build a structure out of LEGO, but each individual has a secret “assignment” which makes the collaborative process more challenging. It emphasizes group communication, leadership dynamics, conflict, cooperation, patience and problem solving strategy.

What, So What, Now What?

If not carefully managed, the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the problem-solving process can actually create more problems and misunderstandings.

The What, So What, Now What? problem-solving activity is designed to help collect insights and move forward while also eliminating the possibility of disagreement when it comes to identifying, clarifying, and analyzing organizational or work problems. 

Facilitation is all about bringing groups together so that might work on a shared goal and the best problem-solving strategies ensure that teams are aligned in purpose, if not initially in opinion or insight.

Throughout the three steps of this game, you give everyone on a team to reflect on a problem by asking what happened, why it is important, and what actions should then be taken. 

This can be a great activity for bringing our individual perceptions about a problem or challenge and contextualizing it in a larger group setting. This is one of the most important problem-solving skills you can bring to your organization.

W³ – What, So What, Now What?   #issue analysis   #innovation   #liberating structures   You can help groups reflect on a shared experience in a way that builds understanding and spurs coordinated action while avoiding unproductive conflict. It is possible for every voice to be heard while simultaneously sifting for insights and shaping new direction. Progressing in stages makes this practical—from collecting facts about What Happened to making sense of these facts with So What and finally to what actions logically follow with Now What . The shared progression eliminates most of the misunderstandings that otherwise fuel disagreements about what to do. Voila!

Journalists  

Problem analysis can be one of the most important and decisive stages of all problem-solving tools. Sometimes, a team can become bogged down in the details and are unable to move forward.

Journalists is an activity that can avoid a group from getting stuck in the problem identification or problem analysis stages of the process.

In Journalists, the group is invited to draft the front page of a fictional newspaper and figure out what stories deserve to be on the cover and what headlines those stories will have. By reframing how your problems and challenges are approached, you can help a team move productively through the process and be better prepared for the steps to follow.

Journalists   #vision   #big picture   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   This is an exercise to use when the group gets stuck in details and struggles to see the big picture. Also good for defining a vision.

Problem-solving techniques for brainstorming solutions

Now you have the context and background of the problem you are trying to solving, now comes the time to start ideating and thinking about how you’ll solve the issue.

Here, you’ll want to encourage creative, free thinking and speed. Get as many ideas out as possible and explore different perspectives so you have the raw material for the next step.

Looking at a problem from a new angle can be one of the most effective ways of creating an effective solution. TRIZ is a problem-solving tool that asks the group to consider what they must not do in order to solve a challenge.

By reversing the discussion, new topics and taboo subjects often emerge, allowing the group to think more deeply and create ideas that confront the status quo in a safe and meaningful way. If you’re working on a problem that you’ve tried to solve before, TRIZ is a great problem-solving method to help your team get unblocked.

Making Space with TRIZ   #issue analysis   #liberating structures   #issue resolution   You can clear space for innovation by helping a group let go of what it knows (but rarely admits) limits its success and by inviting creative destruction. TRIZ makes it possible to challenge sacred cows safely and encourages heretical thinking. The question “What must we stop doing to make progress on our deepest purpose?” induces seriously fun yet very courageous conversations. Since laughter often erupts, issues that are otherwise taboo get a chance to be aired and confronted. With creative destruction come opportunities for renewal as local action and innovation rush in to fill the vacuum. Whoosh!

Mindspin  

Brainstorming is part of the bread and butter of the problem-solving process and all problem-solving strategies benefit from getting ideas out and challenging a team to generate solutions quickly. 

With Mindspin, participants are encouraged not only to generate ideas but to do so under time constraints and by slamming down cards and passing them on. By doing multiple rounds, your team can begin with a free generation of possible solutions before moving on to developing those solutions and encouraging further ideation. 

This is one of our favorite problem-solving activities and can be great for keeping the energy up throughout the workshop. Remember the importance of helping people become engaged in the process – energizing problem-solving techniques like Mindspin can help ensure your team stays engaged and happy, even when the problems they’re coming together to solve are complex. 

MindSpin   #teampedia   #idea generation   #problem solving   #action   A fast and loud method to enhance brainstorming within a team. Since this activity has more than round ideas that are repetitive can be ruled out leaving more creative and innovative answers to the challenge.

The Creativity Dice

One of the most useful problem solving skills you can teach your team is of approaching challenges with creativity, flexibility, and openness. Games like The Creativity Dice allow teams to overcome the potential hurdle of too much linear thinking and approach the process with a sense of fun and speed. 

In The Creativity Dice, participants are organized around a topic and roll a dice to determine what they will work on for a period of 3 minutes at a time. They might roll a 3 and work on investigating factual information on the chosen topic. They might roll a 1 and work on identifying the specific goals, standards, or criteria for the session.

Encouraging rapid work and iteration while asking participants to be flexible are great skills to cultivate. Having a stage for idea incubation in this game is also important. Moments of pause can help ensure the ideas that are put forward are the most suitable. 

The Creativity Dice   #creativity   #problem solving   #thiagi   #issue analysis   Too much linear thinking is hazardous to creative problem solving. To be creative, you should approach the problem (or the opportunity) from different points of view. You should leave a thought hanging in mid-air and move to another. This skipping around prevents premature closure and lets your brain incubate one line of thought while you consciously pursue another.

Idea and Concept Development

Brainstorming without structure can quickly become chaotic or frustrating. In a problem-solving context, having an ideation framework to follow can help ensure your team is both creative and disciplined.

In this method, you’ll find an idea generation process that encourages your group to brainstorm effectively before developing their ideas and begin clustering them together. By using concepts such as Yes and…, more is more and postponing judgement, you can create the ideal conditions for brainstorming with ease.

Idea & Concept Development   #hyperisland   #innovation   #idea generation   Ideation and Concept Development is a process for groups to work creatively and collaboratively to generate creative ideas. It’s a general approach that can be adapted and customized to suit many different scenarios. It includes basic principles for idea generation and several steps for groups to work with. It also includes steps for idea selection and development.

Problem-solving techniques for developing and refining solutions 

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to develop and refine your ideas in order to bring them closer to a solution that actually solves the problem.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team think through their ideas and refine them as part of your problem solving process.

Improved Solutions

After a team has successfully identified a problem and come up with a few solutions, it can be tempting to call the work of the problem-solving process complete. That said, the first solution is not necessarily the best, and by including a further review and reflection activity into your problem-solving model, you can ensure your group reaches the best possible result. 

One of a number of problem-solving games from Thiagi Group, Improved Solutions helps you go the extra mile and develop suggested solutions with close consideration and peer review. By supporting the discussion of several problems at once and by shifting team roles throughout, this problem-solving technique is a dynamic way of finding the best solution. 

Improved Solutions   #creativity   #thiagi   #problem solving   #action   #team   You can improve any solution by objectively reviewing its strengths and weaknesses and making suitable adjustments. In this creativity framegame, you improve the solutions to several problems. To maintain objective detachment, you deal with a different problem during each of six rounds and assume different roles (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) during each round. At the conclusion of the activity, each player ends up with two solutions to her problem.

Four Step Sketch

Creative thinking and visual ideation does not need to be confined to the opening stages of your problem-solving strategies. Exercises that include sketching and prototyping on paper can be effective at the solution finding and development stage of the process, and can be great for keeping a team engaged. 

By going from simple notes to a crazy 8s round that involves rapidly sketching 8 variations on their ideas before then producing a final solution sketch, the group is able to iterate quickly and visually. Problem-solving techniques like Four-Step Sketch are great if you have a group of different thinkers and want to change things up from a more textual or discussion-based approach.

Four-Step Sketch   #design sprint   #innovation   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   The four-step sketch is an exercise that helps people to create well-formed concepts through a structured process that includes: Review key information Start design work on paper,  Consider multiple variations , Create a detailed solution . This exercise is preceded by a set of other activities allowing the group to clarify the challenge they want to solve. See how the Four Step Sketch exercise fits into a Design Sprint

Ensuring that everyone in a group is able to contribute to a discussion is vital during any problem solving process. Not only does this ensure all bases are covered, but its then easier to get buy-in and accountability when people have been able to contribute to the process.

1-2-4-All is a tried and tested facilitation technique where participants are asked to first brainstorm on a topic on their own. Next, they discuss and share ideas in a pair before moving into a small group. Those groups are then asked to present the best idea from their discussion to the rest of the team.

This method can be used in many different contexts effectively, though I find it particularly shines in the idea development stage of the process. Giving each participant time to concretize their ideas and develop them in progressively larger groups can create a great space for both innovation and psychological safety.

1-2-4-All   #idea generation   #liberating structures   #issue analysis   With this facilitation technique you can immediately include everyone regardless of how large the group is. You can generate better ideas and more of them faster than ever before. You can tap the know-how and imagination that is distributed widely in places not known in advance. Open, generative conversation unfolds. Ideas and solutions are sifted in rapid fashion. Most importantly, participants own the ideas, so follow-up and implementation is simplified. No buy-in strategies needed! Simple and elegant!

15% Solutions

Some problems are simpler than others and with the right problem-solving activities, you can empower people to take immediate actions that can help create organizational change. 

Part of the liberating structures toolkit, 15% solutions is a problem-solving technique that focuses on finding and implementing solutions quickly. A process of iterating and making small changes quickly can help generate momentum and an appetite for solving complex problems.

Problem-solving strategies can live and die on whether people are onboard. Getting some quick wins is a great way of getting people behind the process.   

It can be extremely empowering for a team to realize that problem-solving techniques can be deployed quickly and easily and delineate between things they can positively impact and those things they cannot change. 

15% Solutions   #action   #liberating structures   #remote-friendly   You can reveal the actions, however small, that everyone can do immediately. At a minimum, these will create momentum, and that may make a BIG difference.  15% Solutions show that there is no reason to wait around, feel powerless, or fearful. They help people pick it up a level. They get individuals and the group to focus on what is within their discretion instead of what they cannot change.  With a very simple question, you can flip the conversation to what can be done and find solutions to big problems that are often distributed widely in places not known in advance. Shifting a few grains of sand may trigger a landslide and change the whole landscape.

Problem-solving techniques for making decisions and planning

After your group is happy with the possible solutions you’ve developed, now comes the time to choose which to implement. There’s more than one way to make a decision and the best option is often dependant on the needs and set-up of your group.

Sometimes, it’s the case that you’ll want to vote as a group on what is likely to be the most impactful solution. Other times, it might be down to a decision maker or major stakeholder to make the final decision. Whatever your process, here’s some techniques you can use to help you make a decision during your problem solving process.

How-Now-Wow Matrix

The problem-solving process is often creative, as complex problems usually require a change of thinking and creative response in order to find the best solutions. While it’s common for the first stages to encourage creative thinking, groups can often gravitate to familiar solutions when it comes to the end of the process. 

When selecting solutions, you don’t want to lose your creative energy! The How-Now-Wow Matrix from Gamestorming is a great problem-solving activity that enables a group to stay creative and think out of the box when it comes to selecting the right solution for a given problem.

Problem-solving techniques that encourage creative thinking and the ideation and selection of new solutions can be the most effective in organisational change. Give the How-Now-Wow Matrix a go, and not just for how pleasant it is to say out loud. 

How-Now-Wow Matrix   #gamestorming   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   When people want to develop new ideas, they most often think out of the box in the brainstorming or divergent phase. However, when it comes to convergence, people often end up picking ideas that are most familiar to them. This is called a ‘creative paradox’ or a ‘creadox’. The How-Now-Wow matrix is an idea selection tool that breaks the creadox by forcing people to weigh each idea on 2 parameters.

Impact and Effort Matrix

All problem-solving techniques hope to not only find solutions to a given problem or challenge but to find the best solution. When it comes to finding a solution, groups are invited to put on their decision-making hats and really think about how a proposed idea would work in practice. 

The Impact and Effort Matrix is one of the problem-solving techniques that fall into this camp, empowering participants to first generate ideas and then categorize them into a 2×2 matrix based on impact and effort.

Activities that invite critical thinking while remaining simple are invaluable. Use the Impact and Effort Matrix to move from ideation and towards evaluating potential solutions before then committing to them. 

Impact and Effort Matrix   #gamestorming   #decision making   #action   #remote-friendly   In this decision-making exercise, possible actions are mapped based on two factors: effort required to implement and potential impact. Categorizing ideas along these lines is a useful technique in decision making, as it obliges contributors to balance and evaluate suggested actions before committing to them.

If you’ve followed each of the problem-solving steps with your group successfully, you should move towards the end of your process with heaps of possible solutions developed with a specific problem in mind. But how do you help a group go from ideation to putting a solution into action? 

Dotmocracy – or Dot Voting -is a tried and tested method of helping a team in the problem-solving process make decisions and put actions in place with a degree of oversight and consensus. 

One of the problem-solving techniques that should be in every facilitator’s toolbox, Dot Voting is fast and effective and can help identify the most popular and best solutions and help bring a group to a decision effectively. 

Dotmocracy   #action   #decision making   #group prioritization   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

Straddling the gap between decision making and planning, MoSCoW is a simple and effective method that allows a group team to easily prioritize a set of possible options.

Use this method in a problem solving process by collecting and summarizing all your possible solutions and then categorize them into 4 sections: “Must have”, “Should have”, “Could have”, or “Would like but won‘t get”.

This method is particularly useful when its less about choosing one possible solution and more about prioritorizing which to do first and which may not fit in the scope of your project. In my experience, complex challenges often require multiple small fixes, and this method can be a great way to move from a pile of things you’d all like to do to a structured plan.

MoSCoW   #define intentions   #create   #design   #action   #remote-friendly   MoSCoW is a method that allows the team to prioritize the different features that they will work on. Features are then categorized into “Must have”, “Should have”, “Could have”, or “Would like but won‘t get”. To be used at the beginning of a timeslot (for example during Sprint planning) and when planning is needed.

When it comes to managing the rollout of a solution, clarity and accountability are key factors in ensuring the success of the project. The RAACI chart is a simple but effective model for setting roles and responsibilities as part of a planning session.

Start by listing each person involved in the project and put them into the following groups in order to make it clear who is responsible for what during the rollout of your solution.

• Responsibility  (Which person and/or team will be taking action?)
• Authority  (At what “point” must the responsible person check in before going further?)
• Accountability  (Who must the responsible person check in with?)
• Consultation  (Who must be consulted by the responsible person before decisions are made?)
• Information  (Who must be informed of decisions, once made?)

Ensure this information is easily accessible and use it to inform who does what and who is looped into discussions and kept up to date.

RAACI   #roles and responsibility   #teamwork   #project management   Clarifying roles and responsibilities, levels of autonomy/latitude in decision making, and levels of engagement among diverse stakeholders.

Problem-solving warm-up activities

All facilitators know that warm-ups and icebreakers are useful for any workshop or group process. Problem-solving workshops are no different.

Use these problem-solving techniques to warm up a group and prepare them for the rest of the process. Activating your group by tapping into some of the top problem-solving skills can be one of the best ways to see great outcomes from your session.

Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process. Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute. 

If you are running a series of meetings, setting a consistent pattern of checking in and checking out can really help your team get into a groove. We recommend this opening-closing activity for small to medium-sized groups though it can work with large groups if they’re disciplined!

Check-in / Check-out   #team   #opening   #closing   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Either checking-in or checking-out is a simple way for a team to open or close a process, symbolically and in a collaborative way. Checking-in/out invites each member in a group to be present, seen and heard, and to express a reflection or a feeling. Checking-in emphasizes presence, focus and group commitment; checking-out emphasizes reflection and symbolic closure.

Doodling Together  

Thinking creatively and not being afraid to make suggestions are important problem-solving skills for any group or team, and warming up by encouraging these behaviors is a great way to start. 

Doodling Together is one of our favorite creative ice breaker games – it’s quick, effective, and fun and can make all following problem-solving steps easier by encouraging a group to collaborate visually. By passing cards and adding additional items as they go, the workshop group gets into a groove of co-creation and idea development that is crucial to finding solutions to problems. 

Doodling Together   #collaboration   #creativity   #teamwork   #fun   #team   #visual methods   #energiser   #icebreaker   #remote-friendly   Create wild, weird and often funny postcards together & establish a group’s creative confidence.

Show and Tell

You might remember some version of Show and Tell from being a kid in school and it’s a great problem-solving activity to kick off a session.

Asking participants to prepare a little something before a workshop by bringing an object for show and tell can help them warm up before the session has even begun! Games that include a physical object can also help encourage early engagement before moving onto more big-picture thinking.

By asking your participants to tell stories about why they chose to bring a particular item to the group, you can help teams see things from new perspectives and see both differences and similarities in the way they approach a topic. Great groundwork for approaching a problem-solving process as a team! 

Show and Tell   #gamestorming   #action   #opening   #meeting facilitation   Show and Tell taps into the power of metaphors to reveal players’ underlying assumptions and associations around a topic The aim of the game is to get a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on anything—a new project, an organizational restructuring, a shift in the company’s vision or team dynamic.

Constellations

Who doesn’t love stars? Constellations is a great warm-up activity for any workshop as it gets people up off their feet, energized, and ready to engage in new ways with established topics. It’s also great for showing existing beliefs, biases, and patterns that can come into play as part of your session.

Using warm-up games that help build trust and connection while also allowing for non-verbal responses can be great for easing people into the problem-solving process and encouraging engagement from everyone in the group. Constellations is great in large spaces that allow for movement and is definitely a practical exercise to allow the group to see patterns that are otherwise invisible. 

Constellations   #trust   #connection   #opening   #coaching   #patterns   #system   Individuals express their response to a statement or idea by standing closer or further from a central object. Used with teams to reveal system, hidden patterns, perspectives.

Draw a Tree

Problem-solving games that help raise group awareness through a central, unifying metaphor can be effective ways to warm-up a group in any problem-solving model.

Draw a Tree is a simple warm-up activity you can use in any group and which can provide a quick jolt of energy. Start by asking your participants to draw a tree in just 45 seconds – they can choose whether it will be abstract or realistic. 

Once the timer is up, ask the group how many people included the roots of the tree and use this as a means to discuss how we can ignore important parts of any system simply because they are not visible.

All problem-solving strategies are made more effective by thinking of problems critically and by exposing things that may not normally come to light. Warm-up games like Draw a Tree are great in that they quickly demonstrate some key problem-solving skills in an accessible and effective way.

Draw a Tree   #thiagi   #opening   #perspectives   #remote-friendly   With this game you can raise awarness about being more mindful, and aware of the environment we live in.

Closing activities for a problem-solving process

Each step of the problem-solving workshop benefits from an intelligent deployment of activities, games, and techniques. Bringing your session to an effective close helps ensure that solutions are followed through on and that you also celebrate what has been achieved.

Here are some problem-solving activities you can use to effectively close a workshop or meeting and ensure the great work you’ve done can continue afterward.

One Breath Feedback

Maintaining attention and focus during the closing stages of a problem-solving workshop can be tricky and so being concise when giving feedback can be important. It’s easy to incur “death by feedback” should some team members go on for too long sharing their perspectives in a quick feedback round. 

One Breath Feedback is a great closing activity for workshops. You give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on what they’ve done but only in the space of a single breath. This keeps feedback short and to the point and means that everyone is encouraged to provide the most important piece of feedback to them. 

One breath feedback   #closing   #feedback   #action   This is a feedback round in just one breath that excels in maintaining attention: each participants is able to speak during just one breath … for most people that’s around 20 to 25 seconds … unless of course you’ve been a deep sea diver in which case you’ll be able to do it for longer.

Who What When Matrix 

Matrices feature as part of many effective problem-solving strategies and with good reason. They are easily recognizable, simple to use, and generate results.

The Who What When Matrix is a great tool to use when closing your problem-solving session by attributing a who, what and when to the actions and solutions you have decided upon. The resulting matrix is a simple, easy-to-follow way of ensuring your team can move forward. 

Great solutions can’t be enacted without action and ownership. Your problem-solving process should include a stage for allocating tasks to individuals or teams and creating a realistic timeframe for those solutions to be implemented or checked out. Use this method to keep the solution implementation process clear and simple for all involved. 

Who/What/When Matrix   #gamestorming   #action   #project planning   With Who/What/When matrix, you can connect people with clear actions they have defined and have committed to.

Response cards

Group discussion can comprise the bulk of most problem-solving activities and by the end of the process, you might find that your team is talked out! 

Providing a means for your team to give feedback with short written notes can ensure everyone is head and can contribute without the need to stand up and talk. Depending on the needs of the group, giving an alternative can help ensure everyone can contribute to your problem-solving model in the way that makes the most sense for them.

Response Cards is a great way to close a workshop if you are looking for a gentle warm-down and want to get some swift discussion around some of the feedback that is raised. 

Response Cards   #debriefing   #closing   #structured sharing   #questions and answers   #thiagi   #action   It can be hard to involve everyone during a closing of a session. Some might stay in the background or get unheard because of louder participants. However, with the use of Response Cards, everyone will be involved in providing feedback or clarify questions at the end of a session.

Tips for effective problem solving

Problem-solving activities are only one part of the puzzle. While a great method can help unlock your team’s ability to solve problems, without a thoughtful approach and strong facilitation the solutions may not be fit for purpose.

Let’s take a look at some problem-solving tips you can apply to any process to help it be a success!

Clearly define the problem

Jumping straight to solutions can be tempting, though without first clearly articulating a problem, the solution might not be the right one. Many of the problem-solving activities below include sections where the problem is explored and clearly defined before moving on.

This is a vital part of the problem-solving process and taking the time to fully define an issue can save time and effort later. A clear definition helps identify irrelevant information and it also ensures that your team sets off on the right track.

Don’t jump to conclusions

It’s easy for groups to exhibit cognitive bias or have preconceived ideas about both problems and potential solutions. Be sure to back up any problem statements or potential solutions with facts, research, and adequate forethought.

The best techniques ask participants to be methodical and challenge preconceived notions. Make sure you give the group enough time and space to collect relevant information and consider the problem in a new way. By approaching the process with a clear, rational mindset, you’ll often find that better solutions are more forthcoming.  

Try different approaches  

Problems come in all shapes and sizes and so too should the methods you use to solve them. If you find that one approach isn’t yielding results and your team isn’t finding different solutions, try mixing it up. You’ll be surprised at how using a new creative activity can unblock your team and generate great solutions.

Don’t take it personally 

Depending on the nature of your team or organizational problems, it’s easy for conversations to get heated. While it’s good for participants to be engaged in the discussions, ensure that emotions don’t run too high and that blame isn’t thrown around while finding solutions.

You’re all in it together, and even if your team or area is seeing problems, that isn’t necessarily a disparagement of you personally. Using facilitation skills to manage group dynamics is one effective method of helping conversations be more constructive.

Get the right people in the room

Your problem-solving method is often only as effective as the group using it. Getting the right people on the job and managing the number of people present is important too!

If the group is too small, you may not get enough different perspectives to effectively solve a problem. If the group is too large, you can go round and round during the ideation stages.

Creating the right group makeup is also important in ensuring you have the necessary expertise and skillset to both identify and follow up on potential solutions. Carefully consider who to include at each stage to help ensure your problem-solving method is followed and positioned for success.

Create psychologically safe spaces for discussion

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner.

It can be tough for people to stand up and contribute if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions and where possible, create regular opportunities for challenges to be brought up organically.

Document everything

The best solutions can take refinement, iteration, and reflection to come out. Get into a habit of documenting your process in order to keep all the learnings from the session and to allow ideas to mature and develop. Many of the methods below involve the creation of documents or shared resources. Be sure to keep and share these so everyone can benefit from the work done!

Bring a facilitator 

Facilitation is all about making group processes easier. With a subject as potentially emotive and important as problem-solving, having an impartial third party in the form of a facilitator can make all the difference in finding great solutions and keeping the process moving. Consider bringing a facilitator to your problem-solving session to get better results and generate meaningful solutions!

Develop your problem-solving skills

It takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver. While some roles or participants might more naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, it can take development and planning to help everyone create better solutions.

You might develop a training program, run a problem-solving workshop or simply ask your team to practice using the techniques below. Check out our post on problem-solving skills to see how you and your group can develop the right mental process and be more resilient to issues too!

Design a great agenda

Workshops are a great format for solving problems. With the right approach, you can focus a group and help them find the solutions to their own problems. But designing a process can be time-consuming and finding the right activities can be difficult.

Check out our workshop planning guide to level-up your agenda design and start running more effective workshops. Need inspiration? Check out templates designed by expert facilitators to help you kickstart your process!

Save time and effort creating an effective problem solving process

A structured problem solving process is a surefire way of solving tough problems, discovering creative solutions and driving organizational change. But how can you design for successful outcomes?

With SessionLab, it’s easy to design engaging workshops that deliver results. Drag, drop and reorder blocks  to build your agenda. When you make changes or update your agenda, your session  timing   adjusts automatically , saving you time on manual adjustments.

Collaborating with stakeholders or clients? Share your agenda with a single click and collaborate in real-time. No more sending documents back and forth over email.

Explore  how to use SessionLab  to design effective problem solving workshops or  watch this five minute video  to see the planner in action!

Over to you

The problem-solving process can often be as complicated and multifaceted as the problems they are set-up to solve. With the right problem-solving techniques and a mix of exercises designed to guide discussion and generate purposeful ideas, we hope we’ve given you the tools to find the best solutions as simply and easily as possible.

Is there a problem-solving technique that you are missing here? Do you have a favorite activity or method you use when facilitating? Let us know in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you! 

James Smart is Head of Content at SessionLab. He’s also a creative facilitator who has run workshops and designed courses for establishments like the National Centre for Writing, UK. He especially enjoys working with young people and empowering others in their creative practice.

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Your list of techniques for problem solving can be helpfully extended by adding TRIZ to the list of techniques. TRIZ has 40 problem solving techniques derived from methods inventros and patent holders used to get new patents. About 10-12 are general approaches. many organization sponsor classes in TRIZ that are used to solve business problems or general organiztational problems. You can take a look at TRIZ and dwonload a free internet booklet to see if you feel it shound be included per your selection process.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

Going from a mere idea to a workshop that delivers results for your clients can feel like a daunting task. In this piece, we will shine a light on all the work behind the scenes and help you learn how to plan a workshop from start to finish. On a good day, facilitation can feel like effortless magic, but that is mostly the result of backstage work, foresight, and a lot of careful planning. Read on to learn a step-by-step approach to breaking the process of planning a workshop into small, manageable chunks.  The flow starts with the first meeting with a client to define the purposes of a workshop.…

Effective online tools are a necessity for smooth and engaging virtual workshops and meetings. But how do you choose the right ones? Do you sometimes feel that the good old pen and paper or MS Office toolkit and email leaves you struggling to stay on top of managing and delivering your workshop? Fortunately, there are plenty of great workshop tools to make your life easier when you need to facilitate a meeting and lead workshops. In this post, we’ll share our favorite online tools you can use to make your life easier and run better workshops and meetings. In fact, there are plenty of free online workshop tools and meeting…

How does learning work? A clever 9-year-old once told me: “I know I am learning something new when I am surprised.” The science of adult learning tells us that, in order to learn new skills (which, unsurprisingly, is harder for adults to do than kids) grown-ups need to first get into a specific headspace.  In a business, this approach is often employed in a training session where employees learn new skills or work on professional development. But how do you ensure your training is effective? In this guide, we'll explore how to create an effective training session plan and run engaging training sessions. As team leader, project manager, or consultant,…

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments and Self-Reported Health Among Adults in the U.S.: An Analysis of the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies

Roberto j. millar.

1. Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Health Administration and Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A

2. Gerontology Doctoral Program, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A

Shalini Sahoo

Takashi yamashita, phyllis cummins.

3. The Scripps Gerontology Center, Miami University, Oxford, OH, U.S.A

Problem-solving skills in the context of technologically complex modern societies have become increasingly important to health management in later life. This study is designed to investigate the associations between problem-solving skills in technology-rich environment (PSTRE) and health, and to explore whether age-differences exist. Using the data from the 2012/2014 Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), we used logistic regression to examine the relationship between PSTRE and self-reported health among a representative sample of American adults aged 35 years and older (N = 3,260). Overall, greater PSTRE (OR = 1.012, p < 0.001) was significantly associated with better self-rated health even after adjusting for the sociodemographic characteristics. Yet, PSTRE was only partially predictive of health in some age groups. Our findings highlight the potential of PSTRE to reduce health disparities among middle-aged and older adults living in modern technology and information rich societies.

Everyday problem-solving skills, or the ability to find effective solutions for everyday challenges, have been shown to be an important predictor of health status among aging adults ( Mienaltowski 2011 ; Thornton, Deria, Gelb, Shapiro & Hill, 2007 ). Further, age- related cognitive declines can contribute to difficulties in everyday problem solving that involve domains such as processing speed, working memory, and inductive reasoning ( Mienaltowski, 2011 ; Schaie, Willis & Caskie, 2004 ). In an era of digital technology, health-related information and patient-physician communications is increasingly being integrated through emerging technologies like computerized systems, which may present a unique challenges associated with managing one’s own health and navigating healthcare systems in later life ( Gordon & Hornbrook, 2018 ). In the context of an aging society and given the increasing reliance on technology in healthcare settings and health management, problem solving skills in an environment of fast-changing digital technology could influence the health of middle-age and older adults by limiting access to and use of digitalized health information ( Mackert, Mabry-Flynn, Champlin, Donovan, & Pounders, 2016 ).

Literature Review

Problem solving and health.

Problem solving skills (PSS) refer to individuals’ ability to draw from accumulated knowledge/experience and critical thinking skills to reach sound solutions and adapt to everyday challenging environments ( Mienaltowski, 2011 ). Problem solving may require that individuals recruit different skills based on the nature of the ‘challenge’ at hand. For instance, crystallized intelligence is knowledge or experience that is accumulated over time and remains as a person ages, such as language, or general knowledge. In contrast, fluid intelligence refers to the ability to solve unfamiliar problems and use critical thinking skills through processing speed, inductive reasoning, and working memory ( Ziegler, Cengia, Mussel, & Gerstorf, 2015 ). Skills related to fluid intelligence have been shown to decrease starting in the late-twenties and mid-thirties, while crystallized intelligence is thought to remain stable in mid-life until there is a gradual decline in the seventies and eighties ( Schaie et al., 2004 ). Thus, solving problems that require fluid skills (e.g., processing speed, inductive reasoning) can be more challenging in middle and older adulthood due to age-related cognitive declines. These age-related changes in strategies for problem solving can result in different individual outcomes across the life course ( Artistico, Cervone, & Pezzuti, 2003 ; Burton, Strauss, Hultsch, & Hunter, 2006 ). For instance, differences in PSS can have important consequences for health and health behaviors later in life.

There is now evidence that PSS are moderately related to a number of health conditions and overall health status. Visser and colleagues (2015) found that among stroke survivors, greater PSS are associated with better health related quality of life. PSS have been also studied in the context of diabetes self-care ( King et al., 2010 ), mobility ( Areáin et al., 2015 ), and ability to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) ( Kimber, 2013 ). The positive relationship between PSS and health-related outcomes are generally consistent. These studies support that PSS is a predictor of health status. Similarly, problem-solving therapy (PST) has shown positive health-related outcomes such as reduced depressive symptoms in several clinical trials and interventions for older adults (e.g., Areán, Raue, Mackin, Kanellopoulos, McCulloch & Alexopoulos, 2010 ; Gustavson, Alexopoulos, Niu, McCulloch, Meade & Areán, 2016 ). PST is a problem-focused cognitive-behavioral intervention that promotes proactive problem solving and positive coping strategies ( Haley, 1987 ). Overall, this body of research supports a positive relationship between problem solving and health in middle and older adulthood.

Technology and Health

Although PSS has been associated with health, the roles of specific PSS components remain understudied ( Kimbler, 2013 ). This is particularly the case for PSS in the context of technology-rich environments (PSTRE). PSTRE refers to “using digital technology, communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform practical tasks” ( OECD, 2012 , p.46). High PSTRE skills can facilitate the successful attainment and assessment of health information using digital sources, providing individuals with greater PSTRE with additional health-promoting opportunities and resources. Limited research has examined the direct influence of PSTRE and its effect on health. Among such studies, Prins and colleagues (2015) found that an increase in PSTRE was associated with 7.6% greater odds of reporting better self-rated health among adults aged 16–65. However, this relationship became non-significant after accounting for sociodemographic characteristics. Importantly, adults over the age of 65 were not included in their analysis. The second half of adult life is a life stage where individuals often experience declining health. Given the growing presence of technology in healthcare and health care management ( Mackert et al., 2016 ), the use of problem-solving skills within technology-rich environment present opportunities for promoting the health of middle age and older adults.

In an era of digital technology, health-related information and patient-physician communications are increasingly being provided through web-based modalities ( Gordon & Hornbrook, 2018 ). For instance, eHealth, or consumer health information technologies allow prompt access to patient-physician communication and health-promoting information ( Gewald & Rockmann, 2016 ). The role of technology in healthcare is likely to continue expanding, which offers opportunities for health promotion by allowing individuals to take active control of their health management ( Jacobs, Lou, Ownby, & Caballero, 2016 ). The Healthy People 2020 initiative calls for the use of health information technology as a tool for improving population health and health care quality. However, utilizing these resources requires basic knowledge and the ability to adapt to emerging technologies ( Czaja et al., 2006 ). Digital health literacy has been used to capture the skills required to use technology for health management and health information seeking ( Norman & Skinner, 2006 ). Older adults may face a number of barriers that limit their digital health literacy. For instance, older adults may have less familiarity with the use of digital technology and may be less likely to use these resources (e.g., online health information management system) for health management ( Gordon & Hornbrook, 2018 ). Differences in access to digital technologies and the ability to use these technologies to obtain health information can contribute to health disparities for middle and older adults.

Conceptual Model

Given a lack of conceptual scholarship involving a direct relationship between PSTRE and health, we draw from two relevant conceptual models: Paasche-Orlow and Wolf ‘s (2007) model linking health literacy to health outcomes, and Gewald’s and Rockmann’s (2016) model of enhanced eHealth use. Health literacy is defined as “the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions” ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 ). On the other hand, PSTRE can be considered a specific type of general PSS. Given the increasing interest in health and digital technology in later life, we apply these conceptual models to examine the role of PSTRE in relation to self-rated health as an outcome. In view of Paasche-Orlow and Wolf’s (2007) model, PSTRE are one of several individual-level characteristics associated with health-related outcomes. Furthermore, problem-solving is influenced by age, among other sociodemographic characteristics ( Paasche-Orlow & Wolf, 2007 ). The second model by Gewald and Rockmann (2016) highlights the importance of computer self-efficacy, through the innovative use of information technology (i.e., PSTRE) for healthcare management. This model suggests that PSTRE is negatively associated with age and is expected to affect health outcomes via differing health information seeking, including the use of internet, printed sources as well as social networks. Ideas put forth by these models propose an important association between PSS, technology use and health. We build on these two conceptual models by explicitly examining the direct association between a specific type of PSS (i.e., PSTRE) and self-rated health in the adult life.

Research Questions

This study formulated and addressed two research questions:

• Is there an association between PSTRE and self-rated health among American adults?
• Are there age-related differences in the relationship between PSTRE and self-rated health?

We obtained the data from the U.S. public use files of the 2012/2014 Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). PIAAC provides data for adults from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations. The overall goal of the PIAAC is to assess the skills of adults in economically developed societies. In particular, the PIAAC uses an interactive computer-based assessment to measure individuals’ Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments (PSTRE) skills. The U.S. PIAAC uses a four-stage stratified probability method to recruit adults between the ages of 16 and 74. PIAAC provides final sampling and replicate weights to correctly estimate nationally representative results (AIR PIAAC Team, n.d.). Additional technical information about PIAAC has been published elsewhere ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2017 ). The current analysis uses data for adults over the age of 35. Our decision for this age cut-off is based on support for changes in cognitive skills (i.e., fluid intelligence indicators) that relate to problem-solving that involves novel problems (e.g., emerging technologies). Of 4,532 eligible respondents, our final analytic sample consisted of 3,260 respondents who were randomly selected to complete the PSTRE module.

Outcome variable.

Our outcome of interest is self-rated health. PIAAC respondents were asked the following question: “In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” In light of the low number of fair and poor health responses, self- rated health was dichotomized as (1=good health [excellent, very good, good] or 0= poor health [fair, poor]).

Predictor variables.

PSTRE was analyzed by a set of 10 statistically estimated means (i.e., plausible values; range 0–500) based on the respondents’ performance on a select number of PSTRE-related tasks (OECD, 2012a). PIAAC’s PSTRE domain measures and quantifies individuals’ ability to use digital devices and software applications to solve everyday tasks. More specifically, the PIAAC assesses PSTRE skills by presenting respondents with a set of computer-based tasks of increasing difficulty. These tasks incorporate adaptive response functions and are timed in order to rigorously assess individuals’ PSTRE skills. For example, a simpler task asks individuals to organize or sort large numbers of digital files according to their size, or adjust software program settings according to specific instructions (OECD, 2012a, p.55). More complex tasks may involve locating an email, opening its attachments, and using the attached information to create simple graphics and tables. (See Chapter 5 of the OECD’s 2012a technical report for detailed information and additional sample items). Age was measured in two different ways: in five- year intervals (i.e., 35–39, 40–44, 45–49, 50–54, 55–59, 60–65, 66–70, and 71+) and ten-year intervals (i.e., 35–44, 45–54, 55–65, 66 +). Although the five-year interval provides more detailed information and was used in the main analysis, the ten-year intervals were included in subgroup analyses, given the small sample size and distribution of two relevant covariates (health insurance and income) in older age groups. This decision was made based on PIAAC-specific recommendations, which suggests a minimum subgroup sample size of 62 in order to produce meaningful, reliable results (AIR PIAAC Team, n.d).

Covariates.

Sex was coded as 1-female and 0-male. Race/ethnicity was dichotomized to reflect whether a respondent identified as non-Hispanic white or some other race/ethnicity (1-non-Hispanic white and 0-other). The sample size for the specific race/ethnic groups was insufficient. Educational attainment was dichotomized to represent 1- college degree or higher and 0- less than a college degree. Income was categorized based on a five-category scale developed by PIAAC to illustrate representative income quintiles (1-lowest income to 5-highest income). Non-employed individuals, or those with no income, were aggregated to the lowest income quintile given PIAAC’s classification of the unemployed as non-earners. A dichotomous variable was used to denote whether a respondent had health insurance (1-yes and 0-no). Finally, based on Gewald and Rockmann’s (2016) conceptual model of technology and health, we included a variable to capture the use of the internet for health-information seeking. Based on the question “How much information about health issues do you get from the Internet?” and the responses, “a lot”, “some”, “a little”, and “none”, we dichotomized internet use for health information-seeking (1=yes [“a lot”, “some”] and 0=no [“a little”, and “none”]) based on conceptual and distributional considerations.

Analytical Approach

We used the IDB Analyzer version 4.0.14, developed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (2017) . The IDB Analyzer generates a macro program that can be executed using SPSS or SAS software in order to estimate representative figures with PIAAC data, and incorporates sampling weights (SPFWT0), replicate weights (SPFWT1- SPFWT80), and PSTRE plausible values into the statistical analysis (AIR PIAAC Team, n.d; IBM SPSS Statistics, 2017 ; SAS Institute Inc, 2013 ). Unweighted descriptive statistics were computed for all variables included in the final model. In order to address our first research question (Is there an association between PSTRE and self-rated health?), we used a fully adjusted binary logistic regression to model self-reported health [dichotomized given the skewed distribution and conceptual reasons for the meaningful groups (positive vs. negative health)] as a function of PSTRE values while adjusting for covariates ( Wright, 1995 ). We also constructed unadjusted models to establish the baseline models.

To address our second research question (are there significant age differences in the relationship between PSTRE and self-rated health?), we conducted a series of logistic regression analyses for age groups based on the five- and ten-year intervals. In order to explore meaningful age-group specifications in the context of our research, age in five and ten-year intervals were used in separate analyses. Our decision to utilize both age categorizations (i.e., five and ten-year intervals) for the sub-group analysis was informed by the PIAAC guidelines requiring the use of subgroups with more than 62 observations in order to make accurate estimations (AIR PIAAC Team, n.d.). Due to the small sample sizes for those who were not employed and/or uninsured among older age groups, we eliminated income and health insurance from our covariates in the sub-group analysis. This way, the model specifications were consistent across the age groups and results were comparable. Since the objective of the sub-group analysis is to explore the relationship between the self-reported health and PSTRE across age groups, the comparable models were required.

Finally, given the conceptual relevance of health information seeking using the internet, we tested an interaction between PSTRE scores and internet use for health information-seeking; results for this interaction were non-significant in our preliminary analysis. We also tested models that included the age and income variables measured in a series of dichotomous variables. We verified no major differences between these models, and final models were constructed with the age and income as ordinal measures. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 ( SAS Institute Inc, 2013 ).

Table 1 presents unweighted descriptive statistics (except for the PSTRE scores) for our analytic sample by health status. The majority (85%) of respondents in our sample reported good health. The average weighted PSTRE score was 265. Respondents with good self-reported health had, on average, higher PSTRE scores than those with poor health (268.415 and 265.432; t = 8.053; p < .05; df = 3,259). There were a smaller percentage of respondents in the two oldest age categories of 66 to 70 and 71 and over (10.726% and 5.782%, respectively). Over half of respondents were in the lowest income quintile (54.412%) mainly due to the employment status (i.e., unemployed or retired). Nearly half of respondents were female (54.822%), while the majority (60.741%) had a high school-level education or less, identified as white (68.878%) and reported having health insurance (81.919%). Finally, over 67.977% of participants reported using the Internet frequently for accessing health information.

Unweighted Descriptive Statistics for Adults Over Age 35 by Health Status

Note: PSTRE = Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments. SE= standard error. PSTRE significance test based on weighted values, other estimates based on unweighted values. PSTRE score estimate is weighted and calculated using plausible values and replicate weights. No unweighted score is available in the PIAAC. Good health = self-reported health (Excellent. Very good, Good); Poor health = self-reported health (Fair, Poor). Ten-year age groups used in sub-group analysis only.

Table 2 presents estimated Odds Ratios (OR) from weighted binary logistic regression models that address our first research question. In the unadjusted model, PSTRE was a statistically significant predictor of good health status (OR = 1.012, p < 0.001). That is, a one-point increase in PSTRE score was associated with 1.012 times odds of reporting good health. This relationship remained significant in our adjusted model after accounting for covariates (OR = 1.006, p < 0.01). A one-point increase in PSTRE score was associated with 1.006 times odds of reporting good health. Importantly, only income (OR = 1.509, p < 0.001) and college education (OR = 1.371, p < 0.001) were statistically significant predictors of good health. On a related note, given the validity of self-rated health changes in later life (i.e., moderation effect by age) (see Zajacova & Woo, 2016 ), we ran separate models for the life stages. For example, follow-up analysis of age 35–49, and 50 and older showed that the estimated odds ratios of PSTRE [age 35–49 (OR = 1.007, p < 0.01); age 50 and older (OR = 1.005, p < 0.01) were consistent with our final model (OR = 1.006). This is not to say that the interpretation of self-rated health by life stages are comparable, but its associations with PSTRE were consistent across age groups in our study.

Estimated Odds Ratios from Weighted Binary Logistic Regression Models of PSTRE Scores Predicting Self-Rated Health (N = 3260)

Note: PSTRE = Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments. OR= Odds Ratio, SE= Standard Error. Self-reported health was a dichotomous measure [Good health = Excellent. Very good, Good); Poor health = (Fair, Poor)]. A one-unit increase represents 1-point increment on PSTRE score. Logistic regression estimates calculated using plausible values and full sample replicate weights using IDB Analyzer (Version 3.1).

Table 3 presents adjusted logistic regression results for our subgroup analyses of five and ten-year age subgroups, which address our second research question. For the five-year age categories, PSTRE was a statistically significant predictor of good health status among the 45 to 49 year-old age group (OR = 1.013, p < 0.01), the 60 to 65 year-old age group (OR = 1.007, p < 0.05), and the 66 to 70 year-old age group (OR = 1.008, p < 0.05). In the ten-year age subgroups analyses, PSTRE was a statistically significant predictor of good health status among all age groups; 35 to 44 year-old group (OR= 1.006, p <.05), 45 to 54 year-old age group (OR = 1.008, p < 0.01), 55 to 65 year-old age group (OR = 1.006, p < 0.05), and those 66 years or older (OR = 1.010, p < 0.05). College education was a significant predictor of self-reported health in the age groups 35–44, 45–54 and 55–65. All other covariates were not statistically significant in any of the ten-year age groups.

Estimated Odds Ratios from Weighted Binary Logistic Regression Models Predicting Self-Rated Health by Age Groups

Note: PSTRE = Problem Solving in Technology Rich Environments. Self-reported health was a dichotomous measure [Good health = Excellent. Very good, Good); Poor health = (Fair, Poor)]. Health insurance status and income quintile were omitted in subgroup analyses due to the small sample size in the older age groups. A one-unit increase of the PSTRE score represents 1-point increment. Logistic regressions were estimated using plausible values and full sample replicate weights using IDB Analyzer (Version 3.1). OR= Odds Ratio, SE= Standard Error.

We addressed two research questions: (1) Is there an association between PSTRE and self-reported health? and (2) Are there significant age-related differences in the relationship between PSTRE and self-reported health? In support of our first research question, results from our analysis show that an increase in problem-solving skills in the context of a technology-rich environment (i.e., PSTRE) was associated with better self-rated health. Unlike the previous studies of PSTRE and health of adults aged 16 to 65 (e.g., Prins et al., 2015 ), the PSTRE and health relationship persisted after introducing relevant socio-demographic characteristics among those aged 35 and 74. This relationship was partly explained by income and education. Income and educational status are well established social determinants of health in later-life (CDC Online Newsroom, n.d.).

With regard to our second research question about age-related differences in this association, subgroup analyses showed mixed findings. Consistent with the empirical and conceptual literature, which suggest age-related declines in the ability to solve novel problems such as those of emerging technologies ( Mienaltowski, 2011 ), we expected to see age-related changes in the association between PSTRE and health in middle and older adulthood. However, we found limited and inconsistent support for significant age differences. Our two sets of subgroup analyses by five and ten-year categories yielded different results. PSTRE was the only statistically significant predictor of good health among 45–49, 60–65, and 66–70 year-olds in the first set of analyses. On the other hand, the second set of analyses showed that PSTRE was a significant predictor of good health for all age groups. Yet, it should be noted that there could be significant differences in the way older and younger cohorts utilize PSTRE skills for health-related information. Our study lays the groundwork for future research to further investigate this relationship as well as to disentangle age, period, and cohort effects.

In view of the empirical and conceptual scholarship, we expected age differences in the use of the internet for health information seeking ( Jensen, King, Davis, & Guntzviller, 2010 ). However, internet use for health information seeking was not associated with reporting better health in any of our age subgroup analyses. This may suggest the use of alternative health information sources, such as healthcare professionals or books and magazines ( Hall, Bernhardt & Dodd, 2015 ; Yamashita, Bardo, Liu & Cummins, 2018 ). Higher PSTRE may be related to the use of these multiple health information sources. Indeed, there is evidence that health information seeking can be influenced by education and health literacy, with higher education being associated with greater use of text-based information, and higher health literacy associated with less use of the internet for health information ( Yamashita et al., 2018 ).

Nevertheless, PIAAC’s PSTRE domain is a novel and complex measure that assesses cognitive ability through problem-solving, as well as familiarity with technology (OECD, 2012a). The integration of these two domains (cognitive ability and technology use) provides an informative new measure that bridges previous avenues of inquiries related to the assessment of online health-information seeking in older adults ( Berkowsky & Czaja, 2018 ). PSTRE can be considered one of the health literacy domains that are important for health in later life. Past studies have found positive relations between general literacy, numeracy and self-rated health (e.g., Prins & Monnat, 2015 ). It should be noted that the PIAAC provides general literacy and numeracy in addition to the PSTRE skills assessment. Our decision to focus on PSTRE was based on a lack of inquiry on PSTRE as well as the relevance to the research needs on digital technology, health and aging. Given the little understanding about the relationship between PSTRE and health, we did not include other competency measures such as literacy and numeracy in order to document the baseline effect of PSTRE. Given our findings and insights from the previous research, components of health literacy, such as literacy, numeracy and PSTRE, are likely to contribute to health outcomes in different ways. Future research needs to identify such unique effect for informing health promotion programs targeting specific health literacy domains like PSTRE. Additionally, further research is needed to determine the subdomains of PSTRE (instead of a single-item indicator) and potential mechanisms by which PSTRE impacts a variety of health-related outcomes among middle age and older individuals.

Limitations

This study should be considered in light of some methodological limitations. First, our analysis uses cross-sectional data, which limits the ability to make any causal inference. Second, we cannot rule out potential omitted variable bias. Particularly, traditional demographic characteristics such as marital status and other social network/support information would be helpful in future research although not available in the current PIAAC data. Third, the PIAAC public use files only provide age group information. In addition, age range in the PIAAC is limited to ages 16 to 74. Given the importance of age for problem-solving skills, future studies should consider extending the age range beyond 74 years old to more broadly capture age-related health declines in the context of a digital era. Fourth, our sample distribution and the suggested sample size requirements for using the IDB Analyzer restricted our analytic approach to control for two relevant covariates (income and health insurance status) in our subgroup analyses. Although the decision was appropriate for the examination of age group differences, omission of these covariates could have over- or under-estimated the effect of PSTRE on health in general and, arguably, in older age groups with limited sample sizes. Finally, given our use of a dichotomous, self-reported measure of health, future research should consider more direct and objective indicators of health status.

Contributions

Despite the limitations, this study adds to the growing, yet limited, body of research on the malleable factors such as adult education and skill proficiencies (e.g., PSTRE), which are influential on health status among adults in multiple life stages (e.g., Paasche-Orlow et al., 2007 ; Prins & Mooney, 2014 ). We address a gap in this literature by focusing on an understudied adult competency indicator of PSS ( Kimber, 2013 ). We are one of few studies to use nationally representative data to directly explore PSTRE and its association with self-reported health in middle-aged and older adults. Results from our adjusted logistic regression analysis provide support for the association between PSTRE skills and self-rated health even after accounting for the sociodemographic characteristics. These findings have the potential to inform the design of competencies-based health promotion as well as adult education programs that incorporate technological problem-solving in order to address health disparities among middle-aged and older adults ( Mackert et al., 2016 ; Tikkanen, 2017 ).

Implications

There are a few preliminary implications we can draw from the results of this study. Our results suggest that adult education programs could include problem-solving and technology skills interventions to better equip middle-aged and older individuals to effectively navigate health care systems and enhance health outcomes. Promoting PSTRE could be an efficient and autonomous (e.g., self-care) way to reduce health disparities. From a life course perspective, lifelong learning is no longer a means merely to acquire new knowledge and skills; it has become a critical process to obtain necessary skills (e.g., appropriate use of internet as health information source) to navigate in this digital era ( Tikkanen, 2017 ). In addition, our findings suggest that healthcare professionals can identify and provide additional support (e.g., customized instruction, recommendation for technology-related training) to individuals with limited technological proficiencies as a potential avenue to limit health disparities. As our findings suggest, individuals with low PSTRE skills could benefit from technology-related training programs in order to promote health outcomes. For example, enhanced PSTRE could improve health outcomes by allowing middle age and older individuals to take active participation in managing their health with the use of emerging digital technologies ( Kiosses & Alexopoulos, 2014 ). At the same time, any intervention programs should consider age differences in skill sets as well as attitudes toward technology use. Finally, this study provides policymakers with a nationally representative profile of adults’ PSTRE, which, although understudied, seems to be important for health in in middle and old age.

In an era of emerging digital technology in healthcare, practicing self-care and navigating healthcare systems is becoming increasingly dependent on technology-related problem-solving skills. Difficulty understanding and using the rapidly advancing technologies for health-related information and health management may exacerbate already existing health inequalities, particularly among older individuals. In this study, we find that that problem-solving skills in the context of technology-rich environments is positively associated with self-reported health among American adults. Furthermore, we find unique age group differences, with higher PSTRE skills being associated with better health at the differential degrees by life stages. Our findings highlight the importance of promoting technological problem-solving skills through lifelong education in order to promote the health of aging adults.

• AIR PIAAC Team. (n.d.). What you need to consider before working with PIAAC data . Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51bb74b8e4b0139570ddf020/t/57ebf6e903596ed76b2b971d/1475081961884/WorkingWithPIAACData_updated+092016.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Areán PA, Raue PJ, McCulloch C, Kanellopoulos D, Seirup JK, Banerjee S, . . . Alexopoulos GS (2015). Regular research article: Effects of problem-solving therapy and clinical case management on disability in low-income older adults . The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 23 , 1307–1314.doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2015.04.005 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Areán PA, Raue P, Mackin RS, Kanellopoulos D, McCulloch C, & Alexopoulos GS (2010). Problem-solving therapy and supportive therapy in older adults with major depression and executive dysfunction. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 167 ( 11 ), 1391–1398. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091327 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Artistico D, Cervone D, & Pezzuti L. (2003). Perceived self-efficacy and everyday problem solving among young and older adults . Psychology and Aging , 18 ( 1 ), 68–79. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.18.1.68 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkowsky RW & Czaja SJ (2018) Challenges associated with online health information seeking among older adults. In Pak R. & McLaughlin AC (Eds.), Aging, technology and health . (pp. 31–48). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-811272-4.00002-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burton CL, Strauss E, Hultsch DF, & Hunter MA (2006). Cognitive functioning and everyday problem solving in older adults . Clinical Neuropsychology , 20 ( 3 ), 432–452. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CDC Online Newsroom - Press Release (n.d.).- Higher education and income levels keys to better health, according to annual report on nation’s health May 16, 2012. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0516_higher_education.html
• Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, & Sharit J. (2006). Factors Predicting the Use of Technology: Findings From the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) . Psychology and Aging , 21 ( 2 ), 333–352. 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gewald H, & Rockmann R. (2016). Mature Adults’ Use of Digital Health Services The Role of Prior Computer Experience on eHealth Adoption . CONF-IRM 2016 Proceedings . 1 . https://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2016/1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon NP, & Hornbrook MC (2018). Older adults’ readiness to engage with eHealth patient education and self-care resources: A cross-sectional survey . BMC Health Services Research , 18 ( 1 ),220. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2986-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gustavson KA, Alexopoulos GS, Niu GC, McCulloch C, Meade T, & Areán PA (2016). Regular research article: Problem-solving therapy reduces suicidal ideation in depressed older adults with executive dysfunction . The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 24 , 11–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2015.07.010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feinberg I, Frijters J, Johnson-Lawrence V, Greenberg D, Nightingale E, & Moodie C. (2016). Examining associations between health information seeking behavior and adult education status in the US: An analysis of the 2012 PIAAC Data . PloS one , 11 ( 2 ), 1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148751 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haley J. (1987). The Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series. Problem-solving therapy (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall AK, Bernhardt JM, & Dodd V. (2015). Older adults use of online and offline sources of health information and constructs of reliance and self-efficacy for medical decision making . Journal of Health Communication , 20 ( 7 ), 751–758. 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018603 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Healthy People.gov. (n.d.) Health communication and health information technology . https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/health-communication-and-health-information-technology . Accessed 15 Aug 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Information technology and the U.S. workforce: Where are we and where do we go from here? (2017). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.177226/24649 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0 . Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs RJ, Lou JQ, Ownby RL, & Caballero J. (2016). A systematic review of eHealth interventions to improve health literacy . Health Informatics Journal , 22 ( 2 ), 81–98. doi: 10.1177/1460458214534092 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen JD, King AJ, Davis LA, & Guntzviller LM (2010). Utilization of internet technology by low-income adults: the role of health literacy, health numeracy, and computer assistance . Journal of Aging and Health , 22 ( 6 ), 804–826. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimbler KJ (2013). Everyday problem solving and instrumental activities of daily living: Support for domain specificity . Behavioral Sciences , 3 ( 1 ), 170–191. doi: 10.3390/bs3010170 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King DK, Glasgow RE, Toobert DJ, Strycker LA, Estabrooks PA, Osuna D, & Faber AJ (2010). Self-efficacy, problem solving, and social-environmental support are associated with diabetes self-management behaviors . Diabetes Care , 33 ( 4 ), 751–753. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1746 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiosses DN, & Alexopoulos GS (2014). Problem-solving therapy in the elderly . Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry , 1 ( 1 ), 15–26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mackert M, Mabry-Flynn A, Champlin S, Donovan EE, & Pounders K. (2016). Health literacy and health information technology adoption: The potential for a new digital divide . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 18 ( 10 ), e264–e264. Retrieved from http://proxy-bc.researchport.umd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=cmedm&AN=27702738&site=eds-live&scope=site [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, & Schutte NS (2007). The efficacy of problem solving therapy in reducing mental and physical health problems: A meta-analysis . Clinical Psychology Review , 27 , 46–57. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.12.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mienaltowski A. (2011). Everyday problem solving across the adult life span: solution diversity and efficacy . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1235 , 75–85. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06207.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). What is PIAAC? Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Norman CD, & Skinner HA (2006). eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world . Journal of Medical Internet Research , 8 ( 2 ), [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Literacy, Numeracy and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments: Framework for the OECD Survey of Adult Skills , OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264128859-en [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paasche-Orlow M, & Wolf MS (2007). The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes . American Journal of Health Behavior , 31 , S19–S26. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prins E. & Monnat S. (2015). Examining Associations between Self-Rated Health and Proficiency in Literacy and Numeracy among immigrants and U.S.-Born Adults: Evidence from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) . PLoS ONE 10 ( 7 ): e0130257. 10.1371/journal.pone.0130257 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prins E, & Mooney A. (2014). Literacy and health disparities . New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education , 2014 ( 142 ), 25–35. doi: 10.1002/ace.20092 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prins E, Monnat S, Clymer C, & Toso BW (2015). How is health related to literacy, numeracy, and technological problem-solving skills among U.S. adults? evidence from the program for the international assessment of adult competencies (PIAAC) . Journal of Research & Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary & Basic Education , 4 ( 3 ), 22–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• SAS Institute Inc. Released 2013. Help and Documentation, Version 9.4 . Cary, NC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaie KW, Willis SL, & Caskie GIL (2004). The Seattle Longitudinal Study: Relationship Between Personality and Cognition . Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition , 11 (2–3), 304–324. 10.1080/13825580490511134 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornton W, Deria S, Gelb S, Shapiro R. & Hill A. (2007). Neuropsychological mediators of the links among age, chronic illness, and everyday problem solving . Journal of Psychology and Aging , 22 ( 3 ), 470–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tikkanen T(2017). Problem-solving skills, skills needs and participation in lifelong learning in technology-intensive work in the Nordic countries . Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies / Sodobna Pedagogika , 68 ( 4 ), 110–128 [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy . Retrieved from https://health.gov/communication/initiatives/health-literacy-action-plan.asp [ Google Scholar ]
• Visser MM, Heijenbrok-Kal M Spijker AV, Oostra KM, Busschbach JJ, & Ribbers GM (2015). Original research: Coping, problem solving, depression, and health-related quality of life in patients receiving outpatient stroke rehabilitation . Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , 96 , 1492–1498. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.04.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright RE (1995). Logistic regression. In Grimm LG & Yarnold PR (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 217–244). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yamashita T, Bardo AR, Liu D. & Cummins PA (2018). Literacy, Numeracy, and Health Information-Seeking Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults in the United States. Journal of Aging and Health , (in press) 10.1177/0898264318800918 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zajacova A. & Woo H. (2016). Examination of Age Variations in the Predictive Validity of Self-Rated Health . Journal of Gerontology: Series B , 71 ( 3 ), 551–557. 10.1093/geronb/gbv050 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler M, Cengia A, Mussel P, & Gerstorf D. (2015). Openness as a buffer against cognitive decline: The Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model applied to late adulthood . Psychology and Aging , 30 ( 3 ), 573–588. doi: 10.1037/a0039493 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hey! You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Systems Thinking: What, Why, When, Where, and How?

I f you’re reading The Systems Thinker®, you probably have at least a general sense of the benefits of applying systems thinking in the work-place. But even if you’re intrigued by the possibility of looking at business problems in new ways, you may not know how to go about actually using these principles and tools. The following tips are designed to get you started, whether you’re trying to introduce systems thinking in your company or attempting to implement the tools in an organization that already supports this approach.

What Does Systems Thinking Involve?

Tips for beginners.

• Study the archetypes.
• Practice frequently, using newspaper articles and the day’s headlines.
• Use systems thinking both at work and at home.
• Use systems thinking to gain insight into how others may see a system differently.
• Accept the limitations of being in-experienced; it may take you a while to become skilled at using the tools. The more practice, the quicker the process!
• Recognize that systems thinking is a lifelong practice

It’s important to remember that the term “systems thinking” can mean different things to different people. The discipline of systems thinking is more than just a collection of tools and methods – it’s also an underlying philosophy. Many beginners are attracted to the tools, such as causal loop diagrams and management flight simulators, in hopes that these tools will help them deal with persistent business problems. But systems thinking is also a sensitivity to the circular nature of the world we live in; an awareness of the role of structure in creating the conditions we face; a recognition that there are powerful laws of systems operating that we are unaware of; a realization that there are consequences to our actions that we are oblivious to. Systems thinking is also a diagnostic tool. As in the medical field, effective treatment follows thorough diagnosis. In this sense, systems thinking is a disciplined approach for examining problems more completely and accurately before acting. It allows us to ask better questions before jumping to conclusions. Systems thinking often involves moving from observing events or data, to identifying patterns of behavior overtime, to surfacing the underlying structures that drive those events and patterns. By understanding and changing structures that are not serving us well (including our mental models and perceptions), we can expand the choices available to us and create more satisfying, long-term solutions to chronic problems. In general, a systems thinking perspective requires curiosity, clarity, compassion, choice, and courage. This approach includes the willingness to see a situation more fully, to recognize that we are interrelated, to acknowledge that there are often multiple interventions to a problem, and to champion interventions that may not be popular (see “The Systems Orientation: From Curiosity to Courage,”V5N9).

Why Use Systems Thinking?

Systems thinking expands the range of choices available for solving a problem by broadening our thinking and helping us articulate problems in new and different ways. At the same time, the principles of systems thinking make us aware that there are no perfect solutions; the choices we make will have an impact on other parts of the system. By anticipating the impact of each trade-off, we can minimize its severity or even use it to our own advantage. Systems thinking therefore allows us to make informed choices. Systems thinking is also valuable for telling compelling stories that describe how a system works. For example, the practice of drawing causal loop diagrams forces a team to develop shared pictures, or stories, of a situation. The tools are effective vehicles for identifying, describing, and communicating your understanding of systems, particularly in groups.

When Should We Use Systems Thinking?

Problems that are ideal for a systems thinking intervention have the following characteristics:

• The issue is important.
• The problem is chronic, not a one-time event.
• The problem is familiar and has a known history.
• People have unsuccessfully tried to solve the problem before.

Where Should We Start?

When you begin to address an issue, avoid assigning blame (which is a common place for teams to start a discussion!). Instead, focus on items that people seem to be glossing over and try to arouse the group’s curiosity about the problem under discussion. To focus the conversation, ask, “What is it about this problem that we don’t understand?”

In addition, to get the full story out, emphasize the iceberg framework. Have the group describe the problem from all three angles: events, patterns, and structure (see “The Iceberg”). Finally, we often assume that everyone has the same picture of the past or knows the same information. It’s therefore important to get different perspectives in order to make sure that all viewpoints are represented and that solutions are accepted by the people who need to implement them. When investigating a problem, involve people from various departments or functional areas; you may be surprised to learn how different their mental models are from yours.

How Do We Use Systems Thinking Tools?

Causal Loop Diagrams. First, remember that less is better. Start small and simple; add more elements to the story as necessary. Show the story in parts. The number of elements in a loop should be determined by the needs of the story and of the people using the diagram. A simple description might be enough to stimulate dialogue and provide a new way to see a problem. In other situations, you may need more loops to clarify the causal relationships you are surfacing.

THE ICEBERG

The Archetypes. When using the archetypes, or the classic stories in systems thinking, keep it simple and general. If the group wants to learn more about an individual archetype, you can then go into more detail. Don’t try to “sell” the archetypes; people will learn more if they see for themselves the parallels between the archetypes and their own problems. You can, however, try to demystify the archetypes by relating them to common experiences we all share.

How Do We Know That We’ve “Got It”?

Here’s how you can tell you’ve gotten a handle on systems thinking:

• You’re asking different kinds of questions than you asked before.
• You’re hearing “catchphrases” that raise cautionary flags. For example, you find yourself refocusing the discussion when someone says, “The problem is we need more (sales staff, revenue).”
• You’re beginning to detect the archetypes and balancing and reinforcing processes in stories you hear or read.
• You’re surfacing mental models (both your own and those of others).
• You’re recognizing the leverage points for the classic systems stories.

Once you’ve started to use systems thinking for inquiry and diagnosis, you may want to move on to more complex ways to model systems-accumulator and flow diagrams, management flight simulators, or simulation software. Or you may find that adopting a systems thinking perspective and using causal loop diagrams provide enough insights to help you tackle problems. However you proceed, systems thinking will forever change the way you think about the world and approach issues. Keep in mind the tips we’ve listed here, and you’re on your way!

Michael Goodman is principal at Innovation Associates Organizational Learning

Related Articles

Moving from blame to accountability.

When something goes wrong in an organization, the first question that is often posed is, “Whose fault is…

The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: How Can We Make It Easier to Master?

Despite significant advances in personal computers and systems thinking software over the last decade, learning to apply systems…

What is Your Organization’s Core Theory of Success?

Managers in today’s organizations are continually confronted with new challenges and increased performance expectations. At the same time,…

Breaking the Cycle of Organizational Addiction

Every so often in the world of business, we see an enterprise that, after years of steady progress…

Sign up to stay in the loop

Receive updates of new articles and save your favorites..

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Password * Enter Password Confirm Password

Enhancing the Teaching of Problem-Solving in Technology Education

• First Online: 29 January 2019

Cite this chapter

• Thomas Delahunty 7  

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Technology Education ((CITE))

592 Accesses

2 Citations

Problem-solving skills are a critical element of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, and improving students’ capability is a contemporary focus. Traditional research in this area has emphasised processes and heuristic approaches to solving problems while neglecting the early stages such as problem conceptualisation. This chapter will discuss a research study aimed at addressing this knowledge gap in technology education using a novel approach adapted from the field of cognitive neuroscience. Findings are then discussed in the context of enhancing pedagogical practice around the framing of problem-solving tasks on the part of the teacher and the student. This chapter will be of interest to a wide audience of educators in STEM disciplines.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Designing Technology-Based Tasks for Enhancing Mathematical Understanding Through Problem Solving

Technology Enhanced Problem-Based Learning

Problem-Based Learning in Technology Education

Arrowsmith-Young, B. (2012). The woman who changed her brain . London: Square Peg.

Google Scholar  

Byrnes, J. P., & Miller, D. C. (2007). The relative importance of predictors of math and science achievement: An opportunity-propensity analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (4), 599–629.

Article   Google Scholar  

Delahunty, T. (2014) Investigating conceptualisation and the approach taken to solving convergent problems: Implications for instructional task design. Unpublished thesis (Ph.D), University of Limerick.

Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2018). Exploring the use of electroencephalography to gather objective evidence of cognitive processing during problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27 , 114–130.

Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 134 , 9–21.

Entwistle, N. J. (2000, November). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts . Teaching and learning research paper conference, Leicster, England.

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4 (1), 6–16.

Hahn, U., & Chater, N. (1998). Similarity and rules: Distinct exhaustive empirically distinguishable? Cognition, 65 (2), 197–230.

Jakel, F., & Schreiber, C. (2013). Introspection in problem solving. Journal of Problem Solving, 6 (1), 20–33.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments . New York: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95 (2), 139–151.

Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A.-M. (2016). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychological Review, 28 , 831–852.

Kitchner, K. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26 (4), 222–232.

Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education . Dordrecht: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

McCormick, R., & Davidson, M. (2009). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1 (3), 230–241.

O’Donoghue, J., & Kooij, H. V.-D. (2007). Assessing adults’ quantitative skills – The INULIS project (pp. 251–263). The 14th international conference of adult learning mathematics (ALM), Limerick.

Ohlsson, S. (2012). The problems with problem solving: Reflections on the rise, current status, and possible future of a cognitive research paradigm. The Journal of Problem Solving, 5 (1), 101–128.

Payne, T. C., Gallagher, K., Eck, J. E., & Frank, J. (2013). Problem framing in problem solving: A case study. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 36 (4), 670–682.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 , 257–285.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies . New York: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Thomas Delahunty

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Delahunty .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Curtin University, Perth, Australia

P John Williams

University of Exeter Associate, Brighton, UK

David Barlex

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Delahunty, T. (2019). Enhancing the Teaching of Problem-Solving in Technology Education. In: Williams, P.J., Barlex, D. (eds) Explorations in Technology Education Research. Contemporary Issues in Technology Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3010-0_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3010-0_10

Published : 29 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-13-3009-4

Online ISBN : 978-981-13-3010-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (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

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

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

Business Insights

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

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

How to Be a More Creative Problem-Solver at Work: 8 Tips

• 01 Mar 2022

The importance of creativity in the workplace—particularly when problem-solving—is undeniable. Business leaders can’t approach new problems with old solutions and expect the same result.

This is where innovation-based processes need to guide problem-solving. Here’s an overview of what creative problem-solving is, along with tips on how to use it in conjunction with design thinking.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Creative Problem-Solving?

Encountering problems with no clear cause can be frustrating. This occurs when there’s disagreement around a defined problem or research yields unclear results. In such situations, creative problem-solving helps develop solutions, despite a lack of clarity.

While creative problem-solving is less structured than other forms of innovation, it encourages exploring open-ended ideas and shifting perspectives—thereby fostering innovation and easier adaptation in the workplace. It also works best when paired with other innovation-based processes, such as design thinking .

Creative Problem-Solving and Design Thinking

Design thinking is a solutions-based mentality that encourages innovation and problem-solving. It’s guided by an iterative process that Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar outlines in four stages in the online course Design Thinking and Innovation :

• Clarify: This stage involves researching a problem through empathic observation and insights.
• Ideate: This stage focuses on generating ideas and asking open-ended questions based on observations made during the clarification stage.
• Develop: The development stage involves exploring possible solutions based on the ideas you generate. Experimentation and prototyping are both encouraged.
• Implement: The final stage is a culmination of the previous three. It involves finalizing a solution’s development and communicating its value to stakeholders.

Although user research is an essential first step in the design thinking process, there are times when it can’t identify a problem’s root cause. Creative problem-solving addresses this challenge by promoting the development of new perspectives.

Leveraging tools like design thinking and creativity at work can further your problem-solving abilities. Here are eight tips for doing so.

8 Creative Problem-Solving Tips

1. empathize with your audience.

A fundamental practice of design thinking’s clarify stage is empathy. Understanding your target audience can help you find creative and relevant solutions for their pain points through observing them and asking questions.

Practice empathy by paying attention to others’ needs and avoiding personal comparisons. The more you understand your audience, the more effective your solutions will be.

2. Reframe Problems as Questions

If a problem is difficult to define, reframe it as a question rather than a statement. For example, instead of saying, "The problem is," try framing around a question like, "How might we?" Think creatively by shifting your focus from the problem to potential solutions.

Consider this hypothetical case study: You’re the owner of a local coffee shop trying to fill your tip jar. Approaching the situation with a problem-focused mindset frames this as: "We need to find a way to get customers to tip more." If you reframe this as a question, however, you can explore: "How might we make it easier for customers to tip?" When you shift your focus from the shop to the customer, you empathize with your audience. You can take this train of thought one step further and consider questions such as: "How might we provide a tipping method for customers who don't carry cash?"

Whether you work at a coffee shop, a startup, or a Fortune 500 company, reframing can help surface creative solutions to problems that are difficult to define.

3. Defer Judgment of Ideas

If you encounter an idea that seems outlandish or unreasonable, a natural response would be to reject it. This instant judgment impedes creativity. Even if ideas seem implausible, they can play a huge part in ideation. It's important to permit the exploration of original ideas.

While judgment can be perceived as negative, it’s crucial to avoid accepting ideas too quickly. If you love an idea, don’t immediately pursue it. Give equal consideration to each proposal and build on different concepts instead of acting on them immediately.

4. Overcome Cognitive Fixedness

Cognitive fixedness is a state of mind that prevents you from recognizing a situation’s alternative solutions or interpretations instead of considering every situation through the lens of past experiences.

Although it's efficient in the short-term, cognitive fixedness interferes with creative thinking because it prevents you from approaching situations unbiased. It's important to be aware of this tendency so you can avoid it.

5. Balance Divergent and Convergent Thinking

One of the key principles of creative problem-solving is the balance of divergent and convergent thinking. Divergent thinking is the process of brainstorming multiple ideas without limitation; open-ended creativity is encouraged. It’s an effective tool for generating ideas, but not every idea can be explored. Divergent thinking eventually needs to be grounded in reality.

Convergent thinking, on the other hand, is the process of narrowing ideas down into a few options. While converging ideas too quickly stifles creativity, it’s an important step that bridges the gap between ideation and development. It's important to strike a healthy balance between both to allow for the ideation and exploration of creative ideas.

6. Use Creative Tools

Using creative tools is another way to foster innovation. Without a clear cause for a problem, such tools can help you avoid cognitive fixedness and abrupt decision-making. Here are several examples:

Problem Stories

Creating a problem story requires identifying undesired phenomena (UDP) and taking note of events that precede and result from them. The goal is to reframe the situations to visualize their cause and effect.

To start, identify a UDP. Then, discover what events led to it. Observe and ask questions of your consumer base to determine the UDP’s cause.

Next, identify why the UDP is a problem. What effect does the UDP have that necessitates changing the status quo? It's helpful to visualize each event in boxes adjacent to one another when answering such questions.

The problem story can be extended in either direction, as long as there are additional cause-and-effect relationships. Once complete, focus on breaking the chains connecting two subsequent events by disrupting the cause-and-effect relationship between them.

Alternate Worlds

The alternate worlds tool encourages you to consider how people from different backgrounds would approach similar situations. For instance, how would someone in hospitality versus manufacturing approach the same problem? This tool isn't intended to instantly solve problems but, rather, to encourage idea generation and creativity.

7. Use Positive Language

It's vital to maintain a positive mindset when problem-solving and avoid negative words that interfere with creativity. Positive language prevents quick judgments and overcomes cognitive fixedness. Instead of "no, but," use words like "yes, and."

Positive language makes others feel heard and valued rather than shut down. This practice doesn’t necessitate agreeing with every idea but instead approaching each from a positive perspective.

Using “yes, and” as a tool for further idea exploration is also effective. If someone presents an idea, build upon it using “yes, and.” What additional features could improve it? How could it benefit consumers beyond its intended purpose?

While it may not seem essential, this small adjustment can make a big difference in encouraging creativity.

8. Practice Design Thinking

Practicing design thinking can make you a more creative problem-solver. While commonly associated with the workplace, adopting a design thinking mentality can also improve your everyday life. Here are several ways you can practice design thinking:

• Learn from others: There are many examples of design thinking in business . Review case studies to learn from others’ successes, research problems companies haven't addressed, and consider alternative solutions using the design thinking process.
• Approach everyday problems with a design thinking mentality: One of the best ways to practice design thinking is to apply it to your daily life. Approach everyday problems using design thinking’s four-stage framework to uncover what solutions it yields.
• Study design thinking: While learning design thinking independently is a great place to start, taking an online course can offer more insight and practical experience. The right course can teach you important skills , increase your marketability, and provide valuable networking opportunities.

Ready to Become a Creative Problem-Solver?

Though creativity comes naturally to some, it's an acquired skill for many. Regardless of which category you're in, improving your ability to innovate is a valuable endeavor. Whether you want to bolster your creativity or expand your professional skill set, taking an innovation-based course can enhance your problem-solving.

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

About the Author

14 Major Tech Issues — and the Innovations That Will Resolve Them

Members of the Young Entrepreneur Council discuss some of the past year’s most pressing technology concerns and how we should address them.

The past year has seen unprecedented challenges to public-health systems and the global economy. Many facets of daily life and work have moved into the digital realm, and the shift has highlighted some underlying business technology issues that are getting in the way of productivity, communication and security.

As successful business leaders, the members of the  Young Entrepreneur Council understand how important it is to have functional, up-to-date technology. That ’ s why we asked a panel of them to share what they view as the biggest business tech problem of the past year. Here are the issues they ’ re concerned about and the innovations they believe will help solve them.

Current Major Technology Issues

• Need For Strong Digital Conference Platforms
• Remote Internet Speed and Connections
• Phishing and Data Privacy Issues
• Deepfake Content
• Too Much Focus on Automation
• Data Mixups Due to AI Implementation
• Poor User Experience

1. Employee Productivity Measurement

As most companies switched to 100 percent remote almost overnight, many realized that they lacked an efficient way to measure employee productivity. Technology with “ user productivity reports ”  has become invaluable. Without being able to “ see ”  an employee in the workplace, companies must find technology that helps them to track and report how productive employees are at home. — Bill Mulholland , ARC Relocation

2. Digital Industry Conference Platforms

Nothing beats in-person communication when it comes to business development. In the past, industry conferences were king. Today, though, the move to remote conferences really leaves a lot to be desired and transforms the largely intangible value derived from attending into something that is purely informational. A new form or platform for industry conferences is sorely needed. — Nick Reese , Elder Guide

3. Remote Internet Speed and Equipment

With a sudden shift to most employees working remotely, corporations need to boost at-home internet speed and capacity for employees that didn ’ t previously have the requirements to produce work adequately. Companies need to invest in new technologies like 5G and ensure they are supported at home. — Matthew Podolsky , Florida Law Advisers, P.A.

4. Too Much Focus on Automation

Yes, automation and multi-platform management might be ideal for big-name brands and companies, but for small site owners and businesses, it ’ s just overkill. Way too many people are overcomplicating things. Stick to your business model and what works without trying to overload the process. — Zac Johnson , Blogger

5. Phishing Sites

There are many examples of phishing site victims. Last year, I realized the importance of good pop-up blockers for your laptop and mobile devices. It is so scary to be directed to a website that you don ’ t know or to even pay to get to sites that actually don ’t  exist. Come up with better pop-up blockers if possible. — Daisy Jing , Banish

6. Data Privacy

I think data privacy is still one of the biggest business tech issues around. Blockchain technology can solve this problem. We need more and more businesses to understand that blockchains don’t just serve digital currencies, they also protect people’s privacy. We also need Amazon, Facebook, Google, etc. to understand that personal data belongs in the hands of the individual. — Amine Rahal , IronMonk Solutions

7. Mobile Security

Mobile security is a big issue because we rely so much on mobile internet access today. We need to be more aware of how these networks can be compromised and how to protect them. Whether it ’ s the IoT devices helping deliver data wirelessly to companies or people using apps on their smartphones, we need to become more aware of our mobile cybersecurity and how to protect our data. — Josh Kohlbach , Wholesale Suite

8. Deepfake Content

More and more people are embracing deepfake content, which is content created to look real but isn ’ t. Using AI, people can edit videos to look like someone did something they didn ’ t do and vice versa, which hurts authenticity and makes people question what ’ s real. Lawmakers need to take this issue seriously and create ways to stop people from doing this. — Jared Atchison , WPForms

9. Poor User Experience

I ’ ve noticed some brands struggling with building a seamless user experience. There are so many themes, plugins and changes people can make to their site that it can be overwhelming. As a result, the business owner eventually builds something they like, but sacrifices UX in the process. I suspect that we will see more businesses using customer feedback to make design changes. — John Brackett , Smash Balloon LLC

10. Cybersecurity Threats

Cybersecurity threats are more prevalent than ever before with increased digital activities. This has drawn many hackers, who are becoming more sophisticated and are targeting many more businesses. Vital Information, such as trade secrets, price-sensitive information, HR records, and many others are more vulnerable. Strengthening cybersecurity laws can maintain equilibrium. — Vikas Agrawal , Infobrandz

11. Data Backup and Recovery

As a company, you ’ ll store and keep lots of data crucial to keeping business moving forward. A huge tech issue that businesses face is their backup recovery process when their system goes down. If anything happens, you need access to your information. Backing up your data is crucial to ensure your brand isn ’ t at a standstill. Your IT department should have a backup plan in case anything happens. — Stephanie Wells , Formidable Forms

12. Multiple Ad and Marketing Platforms

A major issue that marketers are dealing with is having to use multiple advertising and marketing platforms, with each one handling a different activity. It can overload a website and is quite expensive. We ’ re already seeing AdTech and MarTech coming together as MAdTech. Businesses need to keep an eye on this convergence of technologies and adopt new platforms that support it. — Syed Balkhi , WPBeginner

13. Location-Based Innovation

The concentration of tech companies in places like Seattle and San Francisco has led to a quick rise in living costs in these cities. Income isn ’ t catching up, and there ’ s stress on public infrastructure. Poor internet services in rural areas also exacerbate this issue. Innovation should be decentralized. — Samuel Thimothy , OneIMS

14. Artificial Intelligence Implementation

Businesses, especially those in the tech industry, are having trouble implementing AI. If you ’ ve used and improved upon your AI over the years, you ’ re likely having an easier time adjusting. But new online businesses test multiple AI programs at once and it ’ s causing communication and data mix-ups. As businesses settle with specific programs and learn what works for them, we will see improvements. — Chris Christoff , MonsterInsights

Recent Corporate Innovation Articles

Navigating the Digital Age: The Role of Technology in Modern Problem-Solving

September 19, 2024 Admin Assistant USEFUL TIPS 0

In today’s fast-paced world, technology plays a pivotal role in solving complex problems across various sectors. From healthcare to finance, advancements in technology have revolutionized the way we address challenges and improve our quality of life. Understanding how these technological innovations work can help individuals and businesses leverage them effectively for better outcomes.

Healthcare: Precision and Efficiency

In the healthcare industry, technology has introduced groundbreaking solutions that enhance patient care and streamline medical processes. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have replaced traditional paper records, allowing for more efficient data management and improved patient safety. Advanced diagnostic tools, such as AI-powered imaging systems, can now detect conditions with unprecedented accuracy, enabling early intervention and personalized treatment plans. Telemedicine has also become a game-changer, providing remote consultations and reducing the need for physical visits, which is particularly beneficial for patients in underserved areas.

Finance: Automation and Security

The financial sector has similarly benefited from technological advancements. Automation has transformed routine banking operations, reducing manual errors and speeding up transaction processing. Online banking and mobile apps have made managing finances more convenient, offering features like real-time account monitoring and instant fund transfers. In the realm of investment, algorithmic trading and robo-advisors provide data-driven insights and personalized strategies, making financial planning more accessible to a broader audience. Security is another critical aspect, with technologies like blockchain enhancing transaction transparency and reducing the risk of fraud.

Entertainment and Leisure: Innovation and Choice

In the realm of entertainment, technology has created new ways for people to enjoy their favorite pastimes. Streaming services have replaced traditional media consumption methods, providing on-demand access to a vast library of movies, TV shows, and music. Gaming technology has advanced significantly, with virtual and augmented reality offering immersive experiences that were previously unimaginable. The rise of online casinos has also been a notable development, bringing gaming to the digital forefront. Among these innovations, new instant withdrawal casino have gained popularity for their ability to provide quick and hassle-free payouts, enhancing the gaming experience for users who value both excitement and convenience.

Education: Accessibility and Engagement

Technology has also revolutionized the education sector by making learning more accessible and engaging. Online courses and e-learning platforms have opened up educational opportunities for people around the globe, breaking down geographical barriers and providing flexible learning options. Interactive tools such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are transforming traditional teaching methods, offering immersive experiences that can enhance understanding and retention. Additionally, data analytics helps educators track student progress and tailor instructional methods to individual needs.

The Business Sector: Efficiency and Innovation

For businesses, technology is a key driver of efficiency and innovation. Cloud computing allows companies to scale their operations seamlessly and access powerful computing resources without significant upfront investments. Automation tools and artificial intelligence streamline processes, from customer service to supply chain management, reducing costs and increasing productivity. Data analytics enables businesses to make informed decisions based on real-time insights, helping them stay competitive in a dynamic market. The integration of technology into business strategies is essential for growth and adaptation in today’s rapidly evolving landscape.

As technology continues to advance, its impact on various sectors will only grow stronger. Embracing these innovations can lead to more effective problem-solving , improved efficiency, and enhanced quality of life. Whether through advancements in healthcare, finance, education, entertainment, or business, technology offers tools and solutions that address contemporary challenges and open up new possibilities. By staying informed and adapting to these changes, individuals and organizations can harness the full potential of technological progress to achieve their goals and navigate the complexities of the modern world.

Be the first to comment

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

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

Copyright © 2024

• Food & Water
• Education & Work
• Where We Work
• Women's Economic Justice
• Reports & Resources
• Reports & Resources Archive
• How to Help
• Organize Locally
• Attend an Event
• Ways to Give
• News & Stories
• Latest Stories
• Perspectives
• Press Releases
• Media Coverage
• Press Resources
• Mission & Vision
• Global Advisory Council
• Strategic Partners
• Our History
• Equity and Inclusion

How empowering women can help Southern Africa combat climate change

Anna's maize crop, stunted by El Niño, threatens her livelihood and millions more in Zimbabwe, fueling a deepening food crisis. Photo: Tanaka Chitsa/CARE

By Chikwe Mbweeda September 19, 2024

Southern Africa is reeling from its most severe drought in a century, driven by the extreme short-term effects of El Niño, and the relentless long-term effects of climate change.

In nations like Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, crops have failed, livestock and wildlife are dying, and food insecurity is placing over 20 million people at risk.

Despite the scale and scope of this crisis, the international community can come together to help. Urgent and strategic actions – actions that help empower women-led organizations in particular – are necessary to address these dire challenges, save lives, and build more resilient communities capable of facing future emergencies. The time to act with urgency, deliberation, and strategic planning is now.

Across Southern Africa, the drought is wreaking havoc on communities, especially in rural areas where women and girls bear the brunt of the suffering. With water sources drying up, people are forced to share what little they have with animals, increasing the risk of disease. Fields lie barren under the relentless sun, leading to widespread hunger. Children are too weak to rise in the morning, and many families survive on a single meal a day.

This drought is not just robbing people of food and water—it is stripping away their humanity, health, and hope.

Women and girls are particularly at-risk. As they travel longer distances to find water, they face increased risks of gender-based violence (GBV). At the same time, to get food, the susceptibility to resort to activities such as prostitution or transactional sex is high, a grim reality that has been documented in past crises.

In Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, the prolonged dry spell has led to complete harvest failures. In Malawi, a critical maize shortage has driven prices skyward, leaving 4.4 million people in crisis. In Zambia, 9 million people across 84 districts are already grappling with the harsh consequences of this disaster. In Zimbabwe, at least 2.7 million people face food insecurity, though the true number is likely higher. Mozambique’s southern and central regions are also suffering, with below-average rainfall delaying the rainy season and exacerbating drought conditions.

Over 565,000 people in Inhambane and Gaza provinces are at risk of severe food insecurity. Even in Madagascar, where rains from Cyclones Alvaro and Gamane provided brief relief, the outlook is bleak, with over 262,000 children under five facing acute malnutrition.

Supporting women-led organizations and Humanitarian Partnership Platforms is essential to address community-level needs and mitigate the risks of gender-based violence exacerbated by the hunger crisis. We need to focus on helping communities become more resilient, especially by empowering women and girls. This includes programs like Climate-Smart Agriculture, which have shown great results in helping people adapt to change and creating a more equal future. The situation in Southern Africa demands urgent action from governments, humanitarian organizations, and international partners. By addressing funding gaps, prioritizing direct and flexible funding, enhancing access to funds, and streamlining funding mechanisms, we can provide life-saving assistance, restore essential services, and lay the groundwork for resilience and recovery.

Empowering women and girls is not just a moral imperative; it is a practical strategy for building resilience.

The situation in Southern Africa demands urgent action from governments, humanitarian organizations, and international partners. Funding gaps must be addressed, and donors must prioritize direct and flexible funding that can reach those most in need. By enhancing access to funds for local actors and international NGOs with strong community ties, we can ensure that life-saving assistance is delivered where it is most needed.

Immediate funding is critical to prevent the crisis from deepening. Timely and strategic allocation of resources is essential to cover all sectors and regions in the Southern Africa Humanitarian Response Plan. Donors must commit to providing additional funding that is predictable, multi-year, and flexible. This will enable humanitarian actors to not only address the most pressing needs but also to restore essential services and lay the foundation for long-term resilience and recovery.

Successful initiatives like the USAID Takunda project in Zimbabwe and the Community-Based Adaptation: Scaling up Community Action for Livelihoods and Ecosystems in Southern Africa and Beyond (CBA-SCALE Southern Africa+) project in Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe offer blueprints for how resilience strategies can effectively tackle the impacts of El Niño. These programs focus on improving agricultural practices, natural resource management, and community-led adaptation strategies, playing a crucial role in mitigating climate-related challenges and fostering sustainable development.

The world cannot stand by as millions in Southern Africa face the bleak reality of hunger and despair. Let’s come together, address the crisis, and prevent further devastation. Let’s give hope a chance to bloom again in Southern Africa.

• Agriculture
• Climate Change
• Climate Crisis
• Hunger in Emergencies
• Southern Africa
• Water crisis
• Women and Girls

Related Stories

By David Mutua · September 19, 2024

A deadly Mpox outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo is rapidly spreading through overcrowded camps, disproportionately affecting displaced women and girls. Read More

The latest on Mpox and its effect on women in the Democratic Republic of Congo

By Dunia*, as told to Johanna Mitscherlich · September 18, 2024

“I watch my children suffer from cancer, but I’m unable to provide them with the necessary treatment or food to make them feel better,” says Dunia*, a mother from Gaza City. Read More

An internally displaced mother’s daily struggle in Gaza

By Dalmar Ainashe, as told to Hillol Sobhan · September 12, 2024

A deeply personal story of living through famine as a child in Somalia, and now working to stop it around the world as an adult. Read More

What famine feels like