collaborative problem solving training online

All Training Courses

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) – Certified Tier 1 Training

The CPS approach focuses on building helping relationships and teaching at-risk kids the skills they need to succeed across a variety of different settings. It is a strengths-based, neurobiologically-grounded approach that provides concrete guideposts so as to operationalize trauma-informed care and empower youth and family voice.  

• Course Information
• Download Course PDF.

Description

Collaborative Problem Solving is an evidence-based approach to understanding and helping children and adolescents with a wide range of social, emotional, and behavioural challenges.  

Participants learn to advance their skills in applying the model through a combination of didactic lectures, role-playing, videotape examples, case presentations, and breakout groups with topics of specific interest to clinicians and educators. Participants receive personal attention and individualized feedback during breakout sessions from Think:Kids trainers while also benefiting from opportunities for networking.   

Participants must attend all days to be considered for certification. Completion of the training is also a requirement of the professional certification program.  

Additional Topics Include:  

• Strategies for when a child refuses or has difficulty expressing his/her concerns.  
• Dealing with common resistances to the approach.  
• Troubleshooting other barriers to implementation in systems.  
• Integrating with other models (i.e. Positive Behavioural Supports).  
• Implementation in groups such as classrooms and transforming system-wide disciplinary policies.  

Learning Outcomes  

• Gain in-depth exposure to both the assessment and intervention components.  
• Practice drilling down to identify specific problems to be solved.  
• Practice identifying the specific cognitive skill deficits contributing to challenging behaviour.  
• Learn how to solve problems and train skills using the collaborative problem-solving process.  
• Practice indirect skills training with personalized feedback from trainers.  
• Develop the skills for troubleshooting Plan B.  

Who Should Attend   

This course is suitable for mental health front-line staff, clinicians and educators interested in becoming proficient in Collaborative Problem Solving.   

Course Dates & Format   

There are no scheduled dates for this course at this time, however in-service is available.

This is a 14-hour training. This course is delivered virtually over 4 half days. Attendance is required each day.   

Instructors:    

Michael Hone   

Since 1988, Michael Hone has worked in a variety of settings including child welfare, youth justice, education and child and youth mental health. Currently he is the Executive Director of a Children’s Mental Health Centre in Ottawa, Canada. Michael is one of 2 Master trainers in Canada for Collaborative Problem Solving and is involved with the Advisory Council of Think:Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital. Michael has been committed to implementing the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach across Ontario, and to date has trained approximately 8,000 people in Ontario.  

Natasha Tatartcheff-Quesnel  

Natasha has worked in child and adolescent services since 1991 in a variety of settings including residential services, secure treatment, youth justice, education, substance abuse, child and youth mental health, as well as in the private sector. She is a bilingual Certified Master Trainer and Consultant for Think:Kids and completed her fellowship for her Master’s in Social Work at Think:Kids in the department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. She is committed to implementing the CPS approach in Canada and the United States and has trained and provided implementation support to numerous sites. She has also reviewed child and youth mental health systems internationally using the SOCPR and presented on the topic at numerous conferences.  

Training Fee  

Group Registration:   Save 20% off individual fee with group registration of 4 or more participants. Download the group registration form  HERE .  

Continuing Education Information   

Continuing education credits are offered at no extra cost through Think:Kids, Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry.  

Licensing boards and professional organizations will grant Continuing Education credits for attendance at their discretion when participants submit the course outline and certificate.    

In-Service   

This is available as an in-person or virtual in-service training and customized to suit your needs.  

Search Courses

Course categories.

• Dual Diagnosis
• Health and Well Being
• Respite Learning Portal
• Sociocultural Perspectives
• Therapeutic Crisis Intervention
• Trauma Assessment & Treatment
• Trauma Focused Intervention
• Trauma-Informed Practice
• Treating Trauma Effects
• Uncategorized

Related Courses

Using Trauma-Informed Care Principles in Supporting Intergenerational Trauma in First Nation Communities

Trauma Informed Practice with Indigenous Children and Youth

Surviving and Thriving: Supporting Caregivers

Jump to content

Psychiatry Academy

Bookmark/search this post.

You are here

Parenting, teaching and treating challenging kids: the collaborative problem solving approach.

• CE Information
• Register/Take course

Think:Kids and the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital are pleased to offer an online training program featuring Dr. J. Stuart Ablon. This introductory training provides a foundation for professionals and parents interested in learning the evidence-based approach to understanding and helping children and adolescents with behavioral challenges called Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). This online training serves as the prerequisite for our professional intensive training.

The CPS approach provides a way of understanding and helping kids who struggle with behavioral challenges. Challenging behavior is thought of as willful and goal oriented which has led to approaches that focus on motivating better behavior using reward and punishment programs. If you’ve tried these strategies and they haven’t worked, this online training is for you! At Think:Kids we have some very different ideas about why these kids struggle. Research over the past 30 years demonstrates that for the majority of these kids, their challenges result from a lack of crucial thinking skills when it comes to things like problem solving, frustration tolerance and flexibility. The CPS approach, therefore, focuses on helping adults teach the skills these children lack while resolving the chronic problems that tend to precipitate challenging behavior.

This training is designed to allow you to learn at your own pace. You must complete the modules sequentially, but you can take your time with the content as your schedule allows. Additional resources for each module provide you with the opportunity for further development. Discussion boards for each module allow you to discuss concepts and your own experiences with other participants. Faculty from the Think:Kids program monitor the boards and offer their point of view.

Registrants will have access to course materials from the date of their registration through the course expiration date.

All care Providers: $149 Due to COVID-19, we are offering this course at the reduced rate of $99 for a limited time.

NOTE: If you are paying for your registration via Purchase Order, please send the PO to [email protected] . Our customer service agent will respond with further instructions.

Cancellation Policy

Refunds will be issued for requests received within 10 business days of purchase, but an administrative fee of $35 will be deducted from your refund. No refunds will be made thereafter. Additionally, no refunds will be made for individuals who claim CME or credit, regardless of when they request a refund.

Through the duration of the course, the faculty moderator will respond to any clinical questions that are submitted to the interactive discussion board. The faculty moderator for this course will be:

J. Stuart Ablon, PhD

*** Please note that discussion boards are reviewed on a regular basis, and responses to all questions will be posted within one week of receipt. ***

Target Audience

This program is intended for: Parents, clinicians, educators, allied mental health professionals, and direct care staff.

Learning Objectives

At the end of this program, participants will be able to:

• Shift thinking and approach to foster positive relationships with children
• Reduce challenging behavior
• Foster proactive, rather than reactive interventions
• Teach skills related to self-regulation, communication and problem solving

MaMHCA, and its agent, MMCEP has been designated by the Board of Allied Mental Health and Human Service Professions to approve sponsors of continuing education for licensed mental health counselors in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for licensure renewal, in accordance with the requirements of 262 CMR 3.00.

This program has been approved for 3.00 CE credit for Licensed Mental Health Counselors MaMHCA.

Authorization number: 17-0490

The Collaborative of NASW, Boston College, and Simmons College Schools of Social Work authorizes social work continuing education credits for courses, workshops, and educational programs that meet the criteria outlined in 258 CMR of the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Social Workers

This program has been approved for 3.00 Social Work Continuing Education hours for relicensure, in accordance with 258 CMR. Collaborative of NASW and the Boston College and Simmons Schools of Social Work Authorization Number D 61675-E

This course allows other providers to claim a Participation Certificate upon successful completion of this course.

Participation Certificates will specify the title, location, type of activity, date of activity, and number of AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ associated with the activity. Providers should check with their regulatory agencies to determine ways in which AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ may or may not fulfill continuing education requirements. Providers should also consider saving copies of brochures, agenda, and other supporting documents.

The Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. The Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

This offering meets the criteria for 3.00 Continuing Education (CE) credits per presentation for psychologists.

Stuart Ablon, PhD

Available credit.

• Business & Industry
• K-12 Education & Counseling/Social Work
• Natural Resources & Sustainability
• Certificates
• Conferences
• Lifelong Learning
• Coding Boot Camp
• Cloud Systems Administration Boot Camp
• Data Analytics Boot Camp
• Training Solutions
• UNH Violin Craftsmanship Institute
• Upcoming Business & Industry Workshops
• Upcoming Natural Resources & Sustainability Workshops
• Upcoming K-12 Education & Counseling/Social Work Workshops
• COVID-19 Protocols
• Welcome Information
• Sign-up For Email Updates

Like us on Facebook     Follow us on Twitter     UNH on YouTube      Follow us on LinkedIn      Sign Up for Email

Professional Development & Training

What you will learn, tools & materials.

Collaborative Problem Solving

The Collaborative Problem Solving course will help you become familiar with the basics of working in teams and why teamwork is important to our professional and personal success. This course will provide you with essential strategies for solving problems and challenges that arise during collaboration, and provide you with ways to move forward toward achieving a common goal.

• Requires consensus
• Involves groups or teams to make decisions
• Identifying the problem and the solution
• Identifying the leadership of the group
• Identifying the goal of the group
• Collaborative problem-solving is used to maximize productivity, minimize expenses, resolving conflict, improving morale, and integrating departments
• Using technology in the process
• Best practices for managing the collaborative problem-solving process

Requirements:

Hardware Requirements:

• This course can be taken on either a PC or Mac.

Software Requirements:

• PC: Windows 8 or later.
• Mac: macOS 10.6 or later.
• Browser: The latest version of Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox are preferred. Microsoft Edge and Safari are also compatible.
• Adobe Acrobat Reader .
• Software must be installed and fully operational before the course begins.
• Email capabilities and access to a personal email account.

Instructional Material Requirements:

The instructional materials required for this course are included in enrollment and will be available online.

Collaborative Problem Solving

This course will help you develop the collaborative problem-solving skills you need to succeed in virtually any work environment while focusing on the importance and many benefits of working in teams.

Details + Objectives

Course code: t14182.

The Collaborative Problem Solving course will help you become familiar with the basics of working in teams and why teamwork is important to our professional and personal success. This course will provide you with essential strategies for solving problems and challenges that arise during collaboration, and provide you with ways to move forward toward achieving a common goal.

What you will learn

• Collaborative problem-solving techniques
• Steps of the collaborative problem-solving process
• Principles for collaborative problem-solving
• Best practices for managing the collaborative problem-solving process

How you will benefit

• You will better be able to work with others
• You will gain techniques and skills to improve your team performance
• You will learn to more effectively communicate in a team environment

How the course is taught

• Self-paced, online course
• 3 Months access
• 30 course hours
• Requires consensus
• Involves groups or teams to make decisions
• Identifying the problem and the solution
• Identifying the leadership of the group
• Identifying the goal of the group
• Collaborative problem-solving is used to maximize productivity, minimize expenses, resolving conflict, improving morale, and integrating departments
• Using technology in the process

Instructors & Support

Requirements.

Prerequisites:

There are no prerequisites to take this course.

Requirements:

Hardware Requirements:

• This course can be taken on either a PC or Mac.

Software Requirements:

• PC: Windows 8 or later.
• Mac: macOS 10.6 or later.
• Browser: The latest version of Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox are preferred. Microsoft Edge and Safari are also compatible.
• Adobe Acrobat Reader .
• Software must be installed and fully operational before the course begins.
• Email capabilities and access to a personal email account.

Instructional Material Requirements:

The instructional materials required for this course are included in enrollment and will be available online.

When can I get started?

Your course begins immediately after you enroll.​

How does it work?

You have 3 months of access to the course. After enrolling, you can learn and complete the course at your own pace, within the allotted access period. You will have the opportunity to interact with other students in the online discussion area.

How long do I have to complete each lesson?

There is no time limit to complete each lesson, other than completing all lessons within the allotted access period. Discussion areas for each lesson are open for the entire duration of the course.

What if I need an extension?

Because this course is self-paced, no extensions will be granted after the start of your enrollment.

An Introduction to Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

Tuesday, july 13, 2021 – 6:00pm, 6:00pm - 7:00pm.

Please join Swindells Resource Center and certified trainers Marcus Saraceno and Paul Kammerzelt from Watershed Problem Solving LLC, for an introduction to Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS).

• The Collaborative Problem Solving® approach
• Skills used for solving problems
• Interventions used in the Collaborative Problem Solving® model
• What to do next?

Download Flyer here

Swindells Online Webinar

• Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools »

Collaborative Problem Solving in Schools

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

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

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

Transform School Discipline

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

A Client’s Story

Collaborative Problem Solving and SEL

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

Collaborative Problem Solving and MTSS

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

The Results

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

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

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

Bring CPS to Your School

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

What Our Clients Say

Education insights, to fix students’ bad behavior, stop punishing them, the benefits of changing school discipline, eliminating the school-to-prison pipeline, ending restraint and seclusion in schools: podcast, a skill-building approach to reducing students’ anxiety and challenging behavior, the school discipline fix book club, what can we do about post-pandemic school violence, sos: our schools are in crisis and we need to act now, talking to kids about the tiktok bathroom destruction challenge, north dakota governor’s summit on innovative education 2021, kids of color suffer from both explicit and implicit bias, school discipline is trauma-insensitive and trauma-uninformed, banning suspensions teachers need effective alternatives, why school discipline is broken and how to fix it, the nbc news report on calm rooms featuring dr. ablon, privacy overview.

The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

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

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

About this program.

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

For children/adolescents ages: 3 – 21

For parents/caregivers of children ages: 3 – 21

Program Overview

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

Program Goals

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

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

Logic Model

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

Essential Components

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

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

Program Delivery

Child/adolescent services.

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

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

Parent/Caregiver Services

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

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

Services Involve Family/Support Structures:

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

Recommended Intensity:

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

Recommended Duration:

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

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

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

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

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

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

Chinese, French, Spanish

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

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

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

Manuals and Training

Prerequisite/minimum provider qualifications.

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

Manual Information

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

Program Manual(s)

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

Training Information

There is training available for this program.

Training Contact:

• Think: Kids at Massachusetts General Hospital [email protected] phone: (617) 643-6300

Training Type/Location:

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

Number of days/hours:

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

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

Additional Resources:

There currently are additional qualified resources for training:

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

Implementation Information

Pre-implementation materials.

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

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

Formal Support for Implementation

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

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

Fidelity Measures

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

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

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

Implementation Guides or Manuals

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

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

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

Research on How to Implement the Program

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

Child Welfare Outcome: Child/Family Well-Being

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

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

Population:

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

Location/Institution: Massachusetts

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

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: 4 months.

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

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

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

Location/Institution: Oregon

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

Length of controlled postintervention follow-up: None.

Additional References

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

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

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

Contact Information

Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed by CEBC: July 2023

Date Program Content Last Reviewed by Program Staff: March 2020

Date Program Originally Loaded onto CEBC: May 2017

Glossary | Sitemap | Limitations & Disclosures

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

© copyright 2006-2023 The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare www.cebc4cw.org

TRAININGS OF ALL SHAPES AND SIZES FOR CAREGIVERS OF ALL STRIPES

So there’s definitely something for you, your school, or your treatment facility.

CONFERENCES

• SCHOOLS & FACILITIES
• CLINICIANS & EDUCATORS

WORKSHOPS & TRAINING

Whether you’re a clinician, educator, or parent, if you’re seeking additional exposure to and expertise in the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions model, there’s a training option to meet your needs…and many of these options are offered remotely and virtually. (Additional trainings are listed on a different website… click here ). In this section you can choose from virtual trainings, annual conferences, trainings specific to schools and facilities (including our proficiency trainings), trainings for individual clinicians and educators (including our certification and skill-enhancement trainings), trainings specifically for parents, and on-demand programming. Whew!

Hope – Solutions – Action …that was the tagline for our 2023 Children’s Mental Health Advocacy Conference , which was held on October 27th . But that tagline had meaning for the over 3000 people who registered for the conference. The hope is in the legislation and policy changes that tell us that punitive, exclusionary disciplinary practices won’t be around forever. The solutions can be found in innovative, collaborative, proactive interventions like Collaborative & Proactive Solutions that are proven to dramatically reduce or eliminate discipline referrals, restraints, and seclusions. And the action …thats up to you, but there are lots of things you to can do to move things in the right direction, starting with signing up to be a Lives in the Balance Advocator. As always, the conference was free. You missed it? You couldn’t stay for all of it? You can watch the conference in its entirety he re .

Our virtual 2024 Annual Summit on Collaborative & Proactive Solutions will be held on April 12, 2024 , and, as always, will feature dynamic keynote speakers and breakout groups for parents, educators, and mental health clinicians at various points in their journey with the CPS model. The Summit will be free to attend, and registration will open in the fall.

VIRTUAL TRAININGS

Our next live, virtual, 2-day combined introductory and advanced training on Collaborative & Proactive Solutions with Dr. Greene is on November 16-17, 2023 . If you can’t join in live, your registration gives you access to the recording. Registration is now open!

If you don’t want to wait — or if those dates don’t work for you — our last 2-day training is available with a pay-per-view option.

FREEBIES: There are three new videos to help schools reduce reliance on restraint and seclusion. The newest, just released on April 10, is a 28-minute collaboration between Lives in the Balance and All Brains Belong VT to support the end of restraint and seclusion in Vermont’s schools. You can watch that here . The second is a 75-minute instruction al video created in collaboration with the Department of Education in the state of Maine aimed at helping educators (and not just those in the state of Maine) know what to to instead of restraint and seclusion. And the third is the recording of the free webinar on restraint and seclusion offered by Lives in the Balance in May, 2022. And here’s the link to our website offering tons of additional free resources.

CONSULTATION AND TRAINING FOR SCHOOLS AND THERAPEUTIC FACILITIES

HALF AND FULL-DAY WORKSHOPS If you or your staff are relatively new to the CPS model, Lives in the Balance offers half- and full-day workshops, which provide a general overview of the CPS model (key themes, use of assessment instrumentation, and solving problems collaboratively), and can be provided either on-site or by webinar.

TWO-DAY ON-SITE INTRODUCTORY TRAININGS   For a more intensive introductory experience, we provide a two-day introductory training, either on-site or by webinar . The addition of the second day allows for presenting video examples of the CPS model, along with greater opportunity for practice, processing, discussion, and questions.

15-WEEK PROFICIENCY TRAININGS In our 15-week proficiency training, a Lives in the Balance trainer works with 8-10 staff (known as the “core group”) by Zoom. This training helps key staff become proficient in the the two key facets of the model (the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems [ALSUP] and Plan B), and requires that participants submit work samples to the trainer via Dropbox, and participate in weekly one-hour weekly group coaching and feedback sessions. The goal of the training is to help staff become proficient in using the ALSUP and Plan B so as to model these facets for other staff, thereby facilitating the spread of CPS through the school or facility. The core group is typically comprised of a cross-section of administrators and classroom teachers/line staff. Key prerequisites for participants are (a) an open mind, (b) a willingness to practice the model between sessions, and (c) the courage to receive feedback in a group format.

CONSULTATION AND TRAINING ON REDUCING/ELIMINATING RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION No, we’re not going to teach staff how to recognize that a student is becoming escalated (staff already know when a student is becoming escalated…and, by the time a student is becoming escalated, you’re in crisis  management mode). And we’re not going to teach staff how to safely restrain and seclude students (also crisis management). We’re going to help staff become almost totally proactive in identifying the expectations students are having difficulty meeting (known in the CPS model as unsolved problems), and we’re going to help staff learn how to solve those problems collaboratively and proactively. Along the way, we’re going to help with the logistical factors that so often set the stage for restraint and seclusion (e.g. lack of awareness of student medication changes, the belief that restraint and seclusion are necessary and promote safety, placing expectations on students that it’s quite clear they can’t meet). Then we’re going to watch your rates of restraints and seclusions plummet.

If you want to discuss any of these options or the needs of your school or facility with a real human being, CONTACT Lives in the Balance and we’ll make sure you get what you need. Trainings are available in English, Swedish, Danish, German, Finnish, Norwegian, and French.

TRAININGS FOR INDIVIDUAL EDUCATORS AND CLINICIANS

2-DAY TRAININGS Our 2-day trainings provide participants with additional exposure to and instruction in key facets of the CPS model, video examples of its application, and model updates. These trainings are offered in various locations throughout the world, and also via webinar . The advanced trainings are for those who have had some prior exposure to the model, often through attendance at one of Dr. Greene’s one-day introductory trainings (see below), as well as for those who have already attended a prior 2-day training and have been actively applying the model in clinical work or in a treatment or education setting. All 2-day trainings are taught by Dr. Greene. Many are posted on a different website .

CERTIFICATION TRAININGS   Certification trainings are designed for individual clinicians, educators, and other providers interested in developing proficiency in the application of the CPS model and training others. The training provides supervised practice and feedback in two components, both comprised of weekly, 60-90 minute Zoom supervision sessions. The first ten week component involves a pre-certification training, and focuses on use of the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems [ALSUP] and Plan B. Participants who successfully complete this pre-certification training are eligible to participate in the subsequent component, a 14-week training in which skills related to explaining the model, demonstrating it, and coaching it are the focal point. Each supervision group is limited to six participants, and we typically run multiple groups simultaneously. Submission of weekly work samples are required, so access to a sufficient number of kids and families/teachers is necessary. Upon successful completion of this training, participants are eligible to provide demonstration, coaching, and feedback to staff in their schools and provide the CPS model in their outpatient setting or therapeutic facility. Certified providers are also eligible to begin receiving training in speaking on the CPS model and providing consultation, supervision, and coaching to train others outside of their setting. These trainings typically commence in September each year, and, in addition to English, are offered in Swedish, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, and French. You can submit your application  here. If you still have questions, please read our FAQs and/or contact us at [email protected] .

SKILL ENHANCEMENT TRAININGS These trainings are an alternative to the lengthier, more intensive 24-week certification trainings (see below). Over the course of five 60-minute group Zoom sessions, participants receive coaching and feedback from certified providers in CPS to increase their skills in the application of the CPS model. The first 1-2 sessions are focused on the use of the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP). The remaining sessions are focused on Plan B, and involve having participants audiotape their use of Plan B with actual kids and their caregivers so as to receive highly individualized coaching and feedback. Registration is limited to six participants per training. Trainings are available in English, Swedish, Danish, and French. For more information and to register for our Wednesday session on Wednesdays at 7PM ET beginning January 10th please click here  or our Thursday session Thursdays at 11AM ET beginning March 7th click here .  If you have additional questions, email us at [email protected] .

TRAINING FOR PARENTS

Finally! An INTRODUCTORY COURSE for parents! If you want help improving your understanding of the CPS model, this 5-week course — conducted entirely by Zoom — is what you’ve been waiting for. The first session focuses on the basic tenets of the model. In session 2, you’ll learn the ins and outs of the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP). You’ll complete an ALSUP ahead of session 3 and receive specific feedback on the unsolved problems you identified. The remaining sessions are focused on Plan B, and involve having participants audiotape their use of Plan B — with your kids — so that we can provide you with individualized feedback and help you improve your skills. Registration is limited to six participants per training. For more information and to register for our next session to be held on Wednesdays at 7PM ET/New York starting January 10th , please click here .  Just added!  Thursdays at 11AM starting March 7th – click here to register. If you have additional questions, email us at [email protected] . There are also close to 200 providers across the world who can help you and your family implement the CPS model.

ON-DEMAND PROGRAMMING

2-Day Training on Collaborative & Proactive Solutions with Dr. Ross Greene

Infusing Collaborative & Proactive Solutions Into PBIS with assistant principal Kelly Sarah and school psychologist Rachel Polacek  (FREE!)

Addressing Disproportionality in School Discipline with Collaborative & Proactive Solutions with Dr. Stacy Haynes (FREE!)

School Implementation of CPS: Building leadership density & a positive culture with Principal Ryan Gleason  (FREE!)

CPS & the Neurodivergent Student with Dr. Stacy Haynes  (FREE!)

If you’re interested in learning more about any of the above options, just use the Contact form on this website.

15 Main Street, Suite 200, Freeport, Maine 04032

Lives In the Balance All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy Disclaimer Gift Acceptance Policy

Sign up for our Newsletter CPS Methodology Podcasts about the CPS Model Connect with our Community Research

Why We’re Here Meet the Team Our Board of Directors Higher Ed Advisory Board

Get in Touch Make a Donation

• PARENTS & FAMILIES
• EDUCATORS & SCHOOLS
• PEDIATRICIANS & FAMILY PHYSICIANS
• WORKSHOPS & TRAININGS
• CPS PAPERWORK
• PUBLIC AWARENESS
• SCHOLARSHIPS
• BECOME AN ADVOCATOR
• RESOURCES FOR ADVOCATORS
• TAKE ACTION

October 13, 2020 by Autor invitado

Mr. Sungwon Lee is the CEO of G-School based in Seoul, South Korea. Previously a public school teacher for 20 years, he established G-School based on the mission that education should reflect the changes in the society. It realizes the idea of what future education should look like and implements 21st century education through a network of collaborative teachers. Mr. Lee is a special guest to our blog series on the development of #skills21 in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Educational institutions around the world scrambled to address the global crisis the best way they could as the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases hit new records daily. Public and private responses to the pandemic only highlighted the limitations of the education sector around the world. In a time when school closures became the norm, how did G-School see an opportunity in the wake of the pandemic?

G-School is an unaccredited experimental school based in Seoul, South Korea. It provides education for middle and high school students, and because it is unaccredited by the government, it has the freedom to adopt and implement teaching methods as well as academic curricula it deems fit for its students. With its progressive education program, it is committed to fostering key future skills that correspond to a rapidly changing world. Its curriculum places heavy emphasis on self-guided learning and project-based learning, the latter to help students develop collaborative problem-solving skills. 2020 was a particularly meaningful year for G-School, as it successfully designed and implemented its online curriculum for all enrolled students in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Notable was the absence of learning losses over 6 months, from march to september—one of the primary initial concerns of teachers prior to implementing the shift to complete online learning. Not only did students’ digital literacy soar during the short time period, but also did their communication and collaborative skills with their peers. Technology-based tools proved to be exceptionally useful for both teachers and students in keeping track of daily assignments and academic progress, and ultimately helped improve the students’ skills, learning competence, and attitude.

9 principles of G-School

Nurturing Collaborative Problem-Solving Skills through Online Learning

The curriculum at G-School is designed to foster collaborative problem-solving skills, a challenging goal even in a conventional in-person learning environment. Students are encouraged to solve problems and overcome challenges by working together with peers. In fact, teamwork constitutes an integral part of the students’ learning experience at G-School. In a time when in-person learning became impossible, G-School’s collaborative learning model became possible through technology.

An example of an online tool frequently used by students at G-School is called Mindmeister . This application allows teams to build ideas from scratch, and individual thoughts and concepts become a vast web of information that offers the “big picture” at a glance. Through video conferencing, students further their discussions and ideas.

Hosting a 150-minute class for 35 students online? Not a problem. ZOOM has proven to be an invaluable tool during the time of the pandemic and its breakout room feature helped teachers to encourage small-group discussions. Students also conceptualize and document projects on shared digital workspaces such as Notion , spreadsheets such as Numbers and turn to Google shared documents to collaborate on team assignments.

Fostering Self-Guided Learning through Project-based Learning

Another key objective of G-School’s education is to nurture students with a sense of self-agency. Teachers are committed to helping students discover their worth and potential to grow so they motivate themselves to work harder. That is why at G-School, teachers understand that every student grows at a different pace. Once a student finds a topic interesting, they will explore in depth. Once students discover they have what it takes to achieve their goals, teachers facilitate and motivate students to complete their academic journey autonomously with a high level of excellence and sense of purpose and responsibility.

Every semester, teachers thoroughly assess and document the students’ growth in knowledge, competence and attitude. The detailed assessment then becomes a tool to determine a student’s progress while also providing insights into his or her future growth potential. Therefore, G-School’s ultimate mission is to foster critical thinking, communication skills, collaborative skills, creativity and empathy, the five key future skills that can help a student thrive in the world.

G-School’s online education model does not owe its success purely to technology. Rather, the main reason behind the school’s success story lies in its bold attempt to break away from conventional knowledge-based learning to competency-based learning – one of the founding philosophies of G-School. If the ways of the past do not blend in with the times of dynamic changes, they must go. It is time to open our eyes to new and innovative methods and experiment boldly to prepare humanity for the next generation to come. This is the true definition of education in the 21st century. There is no time to waste.

How can schools in Latin America and the Caribbean move towards competency-based learning? Do you know any examples of schools like G-School in your country? Leave us your comment in the section below or on Twitter mentioning @BIDeducacion #EnfoqueEducacion.

Stay tuned and follow our blog series on education and #skills21 in times of coronavirus. Read the first entry of these series here . Download the Future is now and don’t forget to keep an eye out for our news!

Learn Collaborative Problem-Solving Strategies and Tools for the Workplace

Free webinar.

Finding durable and equitable solutions to the many issues caused by the rapid pace of change in the workplace requires labor and management to work together to fully understand and address the source of conflicts.

On December 6 at 12:30 PM the Scheinman Institute will present a free 75-minute interactive webinar focused on collaborative problem-solving strategies and tools to identify mutual interests, create options for solutions based on data, and engage constituents in the implementation of new practices.

Learn more and register today.

Scheinman Institute Newsletter Signup

Keep up with the latest information and news about the Institute's research, education, student engagement, and outreach.

tag, as divs are not allowed in 's --> Training Opportunities

On-demand resources, 2022 eating disorder treatment series.

Eating disorders frequently develop during childhood, adolescence and during the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Children and youth benefit from screening for eating disorders for early detection and to identify those at risk of developing these disorders. The earlier an eating disorder and associated behaviors are recognized, diagnosed, and effectively treated, the better the long-term outcomes. Follow this link​ for more information on eating disorder trends for young people, infancy through age 25. Effective eating disorder treatment is delivered by a multidisciplinary team composed of behavioral health/mental health providers, nutrition therapy providers and medical providers. Treatment consists of stabilizing the individual's medical and nutritional needs while providing mental health therapies. Use of family and youth peer support services is also encouraged when appropriate in the treatment cycle.

We are pleased to provide this training, funded by Mental Health Block Grant dollars, to impart essential knowledge about eating disorders and to increase the number of skilled providers in the behavioral health workforce. Sessions are noon to 1:15 p.m. and include a 15-minute question and answer session. Unless otherwise noted, each session is eligible for 1 Continuing Education Unit (CEU) through the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). Registration is required to earn CEUs for each session.

Regional Help and Resources​ ​ for eating disorder treatment

June 8: Therese S. Waterhous, PhD, RDN, FAED (she/her)

Therese has worked within the eating disorder community for 15 years. She started as an advocate and in 2009 opened Willamette Nutrition Source, LLC, a private practice devoted to eating disorder treatment and education. She is a member of the Academy for Eating Disorders, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the International Association for Eating Disorder Professionals, and in each organization has served on numerous committees, given many presentations, and authored many written pieces for various publications. Locally, she has trained many health care professionals.

• Video Recording, June 8 lecture
• ​ Lecture Slides ​​
• Handout: PACEs Connection article:  How Adverse Childhood Experiences Influence Eating Disorders
• Handouts: Academy for Eating Disorders Publications :
• Eating Disorders: A Guide to Medical Care
• Guidebook for Nutrition Treatment of Eating Disorders
• A Guide to Selecting Evidence-based Psychological Therapies for Eating Disorders

July 13: "Eating Disorders in Underrepresented Groups," Whitney Trotter, RDN, RN (she/her)

Whitney is dually licensed as a registered dietitian and nurse and is also a yoga instructor. whitney has more than 10 years of experience working as a registered dietitian serving the hiv/aids community, in addition to working in the eating disorder field. whitney's career in the eating disorder field includes being a former nutrition and nursing director of a residential, php, and iop center. whitney also previously worked at a level 1 pediatric trauma center as a pediatric emergency room nurse. in addition to her rn and rdn work. whitney is also the owner/founder of bluff city health, a private practice specializing in bridging the gap in the eating disorder field of equitable care and social justice. .

• ​ Video Recording, July 13 lecture
• Lecture Slides

August 10:  “Next Steps After Screening and Diagnosis: Effective Treatment Concepts & Levels of Care," Dr.​ Therese Waterhous

• ​Video Recording, August 10 lecture​
• Article:  Very Well "Which Level of Eating Disorder Treatment is Right for Me?"​
• Handouts: 
• Flow Chart for eating disorder decisions
• Jacob's EDGE Questionnaire
• Short Version of EDE Questionnaire​

August 31: 1 hour Q&A with Dr. Therese Waterhous

• Video Recording, August 31
• Q&A and Resources
• Video Recording, September 21 lecture
• Lecture Slides​
• ​Handout:  National Eating Disorders Collaboration:  Treatment Options
• Article:  Social Work Today:  A Transdiagnostic Approach to Treating Eating Disorders ,  by Rebecca Berman, LCSW-C, CEDS, MLSP  ​
• Video Recording, October 12 lecture
• Video Recording, November 16 lecture
• ​Handout:  Recovery Oriented Language Guide Mental Health Coordinating Council 2022 ​
• Video Recording, December 7 lecture
• Weight Inclusive Handout
• Article:  ‘You Don’t Look Anorexic’ - The New York Times, 10/18/2022​

Parent-Child Interaction Therapy

More training events and opportunities, how to recognize an official oregon website, official websites use .gov.

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock icon ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website.

Only share sensitive information on official, secure websites.

Your browser is out-of-date! It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how

Events & Training

View our trauma-informed care, "resilience & self-regulation," and collaborative problem solving events and training schedule below..

This [Trauma-Informed FBA/BSP] is THE training that you will want to attend this school year! If you want to become a better professional, effectively teach the students who are considered the most challenging, and enjoy your work, enroll in this course. Although the information and suggested practices are based on brain science that can be found in other places, there is no substitute for the way Doris and Rick demonstrate the manner in which to approach students. The guided practice they provide allows one to use these skills the very next day. I continue to hear Doris and Rick in my head, allowing me to use their wording for responding to students that is natural and genuine. Doris and Rick have extensive experience with the students who are typically described as “difficult, challenging, hard, unteachable.” Their experience helps them to teach others in a powerful way, and their humor and kindness keeps the learning fun.

“I’m a Teacher, Not a Therapist!”

Decreasing Overwhelm & Empowering Educators in Their Appropriate Role in Serving Students with Impacts of Trauma, Neurodiversity or Attachment Issues

“Revolutionary Resilience for Staff & Students” / “The Resilience Advantage”® HeartMath Institute

Proactive Evidence-Based Tools & Strategies for Educators & Mental Health Providers Serving Youth or Adults with Trauma Impacts, Challenging Behavior or Neurodiversity

“Your FBA is a Fantasy!”

Creating Trauma-Informed, Brain-Based, Skill-Focused Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior Support Plans that Improve Emotional, Behavioral & Academic Performance, and Build Resilience!!

Truly Trauma-Informed?

Assessment and Design of Actionable Systems and Practices on the Journey to Becoming a Trauma-Informed School or Agency

COMING SOON!

Bring healing home for vets.

Equipping Families and Friends of Veterans with Skills and Tools to Help Veteran Loved Ones Heal From Post-War Trauma within the context of home & community

Collaborative Problem Solving®MGH Introductory Overview / Tier 1 Intensive

Collaborative Problem Solving®(MGH): A 3-Day Intensive on this Innovative, Trauma-Informed, Skill-Based Approach for Teaching, Treating, Parenting/Caregiving Youth (& Adults) with Challenging Behavior

Rick & Doris Bowman (Bowman Consulting) have literally transformed the way we work with children. Rather than relying on consequences and punishments, we are consciously building lagging skills and neural pathways in every interaction we have with students and parents. With the support of the Bowmans, we’ve implemented multiple trauma-informed practices and are genuinely making a difference and seeing progress with our students with the greatest challenges. As someone with multiple levels of CPS training, I highly recommend any training or resources the Bowmans have to offer. You will not be disappointed!

We’re Featured Presenters!!

“Truly Trauma-Responsive?  Actionable System Design”

This session is part of the Annual ESSDACK “Bridging to Resilience” Conference 2023 and has seats available to the public .

CLICK HERE FOR CONFERENCE HANDOUT:

11-7-23 Your FBA is a Fantasy – ESSDACK Conf HANDOUT

Wichita, Kansas

3 Sessions:   1) “I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist!”,  2) “Your FBA is a Fantasy! Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs and Behavior Plans”,  3) Expert Panel Discussion

10:30 – 11:30a CST

2:00 – 3:00p CST

3:15 – 4:00p CST

This session is part of the Annual Resilience Impact “ Trauma-Informed Schools Institute 2023 ” and has seats available to the public .

Rochester, Minnesota

Rethinking Challenging Kids: Collaborative Problem Solving Tier 1 (®MGH, Think:Kids)

11/13 – 15/2023

8:00a – 3:30p PST

This event is hosted by Oregon Alliance in partnership with Bowman Consulting Group (BCG), and is a closed training to staff of Alliance member agencies only.

11/20 – 22/23

8:00a – 4:00p PST

This event is hosted by Heights Christian Schools (Orange County, CA) and has limited seats open to the public .

La Mirada, CA

Truly Trauma-Informed? Effective Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems and Practices on the Journey to Becoming a Trauma-Informed School or Agency

11:00a – 6:30p EST

This event is hosted by InterMountain ESD and has in-person AND VIRTUAL seats open to the public!

Pendleton, OR

or Virtual via ZOOM

Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBA’s & Behavior Support Plans That Improve Emotional, Behavioral & Academic Performance, and Build Resilience!

11:00 – 6:30 EST

This event is hosted by HBCC and Bowman Consulting Group  and  has seats open to the public, both VIRTUAL & IN-PERSON .

Virtual Training &

In-Person in Tustin, CA (Orange County)

Effective Intervention for Challenging Behavior: Collaborative Problem Solving Introductory Overview (®MGH, Think:Kids)

6:00 – 8:00pm PST

This event is hosted by Hope International University and has in-person seats open to the public, as well as a virtual option!

Fullerton, CA

or Virtual Option

11:00a – 7:00p EST

This event is hosted by Baker School District and has VIRTUAL seats open to the public!

Virtual via ZOOM

Rethinking Challenging Behavior: Collaborative Problem Solving Level 1 Essential Foundations (®MGH, Think:Kids)

2/13 – 2/25/24

8:00a – 4:00p PST daily

This event is hosted by Bowman Consulting Group and is open to the public! (In-building secure parking is available at the training site.)

200 SW Market St., Portland, OR

ACADEMY DAY – “I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! Decreasing Overwhelm & Empowering Educators in Serving Students with Impacts of Trauma, Neurodiversity, and other Causes of Chronic Challenging Behavior” STANDARD SESSION – “The Coherence Advantage: Emotional, Cognitive, Mental & Physical Health Impacts of HRV Coherence , and Benefits for Staff & Student Self-Regulation”

2/18 & 2/20/24

Session times TBD

These sessions are “Academy Day PreCon”  and Regular Conference sessions for the Annual Attachment & Trauma Network’s “ Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference 2024 ” and has seats available to the public .

Dallas, Texas

2/22,  2/29,  3/5/24

This VIRTUAL training event is hosted by Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) & Bowman Consulting and has VIRTUAL seats open to attendees from SoCal Region & those with direct connections to HBCC or Hope International University ( HIU )!

Virtual via Zoom

Conference Session:   “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices on the Journey to Becoming Trauma-Informed”

Session Times TBA

This session is part of the Annual Knowledge Center at Chaddock “Trauma-Informed Relationship-Focused Schools Conference” and has seats available to the public .

Quincy,  Illinois

“Your FBA is a Fantasy! Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs and Behavior Plans that Improve Emotional, Behavioral and Academic Functioning & Improve Resilience”

Session Time TBA

This session is part of the Annual Mental Health Association of Orange County “Meeting of the Minds 2024 Conference” and has seats available to the public .

Anaheim, CA

8/12 – 8/14/24

(Tentative Dates)

This event is hosted by InterMountain ESD and has in-person seats open to the public!

I know I have thanked you both so many times, but for real…thank you for everything! Every single time I listen to you and have the opportunity to learn from you, the fire inside of me reignites. I have found such a passion and desire to find each of these kids, whether on my caseload or not, and help them in our school… This is all because of the work you’ve done with us and the collaboration we have had together. I hope you understand how much the two of you have changed my perspective of teaching and my approach to each child individually. Working with you has been such a joy and a true privilege. Seriously, THANK YOU!

Recent Speaking Events & Trainings

Previous trainings / presentations in 2023:.

10/17/23 – Truly Trauma-Responsive? Actionable System Design · Ohio Children’s Alliance Fall Conference 2023 Columbus/Westerville, OH

10/13/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Lafayette Elementary School  Albany, Oregon

10/13/23 – Making Trauma-Informed Practices Actionable · Salem-Keizer School District  Albany, Oregon

10/9 – 10/11/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Williamette Educational Service District  Salem, Oregon

10/6/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Nixya’awii Community School   Pendleton, Oregon

10/5/23 – Self-Regulation · Journeys with PDA   Missoula,Montana

10/5/23 – Truly Trauma-Informed · Coalition of Oregon Schools Administrators   Eugene, Oregon

9/29/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Amity School District   Amity, Oregon

9/19 – 21/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance   Virtual

8/31 – 9/1/23 – Truly Trauma Informed · Dallas School District   Dallas, Oregon

8/30/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Salem-Keizer School District   Salem, Oregon

8/29/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Salem-Keizer School District   Salem, Oregon

8/28/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Lake County Education Service District   Lakeview, Oregon

8/26/23 – Revolutionary Resilience for Educators, Providers & Youth They Serve  · Heights Christian School   La Miranda, California

8/25, 10/2, 10/3/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Heights Christian School   La Miranda, California

8/22/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Dickinson Public Schools   Dickinson, North Dakota

8/21/23 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Dickinson Public Schools   Dickinson, North Dakota

8/16 – 18/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Bowman Consulting Group   Portland, Oregon

8/14 – 15/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Crane School District   Crane, Oregon

7/12 – 14/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance   Virtual

7/10 – 12/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Villages of California   Tustin, California

6/26 – 28/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Orange County Department of Education   Orange, California

6/19 – 21/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Lafayette Elementary Schools in Greater Albany Public Schools   Albany, Oregon

6/14 – 16/23 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · InterMountain ESD   Pendleton, Oregon

6/7/23 – Revolutionary Resilience for Educators, Providers & Youth They Serve · Heights Christian Schools   La Miranda, California

6/1/23 – Revolutionary Resilience for Educators, Providers & Youth They Serve · Stowell Learning Center  Stowell Center, Chino, CA

5/23 – 25/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance   Virtual

5/16/2023 – Truly-Trauma Informed  · Housing Authority of Jackson County   Medford, Oregon

5/5/2023 – Meeting of the Minds · Mental Health Association of Orange County   Anaheim (Marriott), California

4/20/2023 – Your FBA is a Fantasy · Bowman Consulting Group   Virtual Training

4/19/2023 – I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! · Bowman Consulting Group   Virtual Training

4/12 – 4/14/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Williamette Educational Service District   Salem. Oregon

3/15 – 17/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Oregon Alliance   Virtual

2/20 – 21/2023 – Creating Trauma-Sensitive School Conference 2023 · Creating Trauma-Sensitive School Conference 2023   Houston, Texas

2/15 – 17/2023 – Rethinking Challenging Kids · Bowman Consulting Group   Portland, Oregon

1/21/2023 – Your FBA is Fantasy · Bowman Consulting Group   Virtual Training

1/17 – 19/23 – Collaborative Problem Solving · Bowman Consulting Group   Virtual Training

Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2022:

12/2/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Coos Bay School District – Coos Bay, OR (Virtual)

11/16 – 18/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon Alliance – Oregon Statewide (Virtual)

10/27/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting  Group – (Virtual)

10/21 – 24/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child – Orange County, CA (Virtual)

8/30 – 11/4/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Central Linn School District – Halsey, OR

8/31/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Central Linn School District – Halsey, OR

8/15 – 8/17/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Forest Grove School District – Forest Grove, OR

8/15 – 16/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Orange County Dept of Education (OCDE) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)

8/10/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Resilience Impact Summer Workshop Series – Minnesota (Virtual)

8/3 – 5/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Albany School District – Albany, OR (Virtual)

7/14 – 7/28/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon DHS Resource Family Retention Program – Oregon Districts 13 & 14 (Virtual)

6/22 – 6/24/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon Alliance – Oregon Statewide (Virtual)

6/21/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)

6/13 – 16/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)

6/8/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)

6/7/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)

6/2/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Special Education District of Lake County (SEDOL) – Gages Lake, IL (Virtual)

5/6/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Resilience Impact Annual Conference 2022 – Brainerd, Minnesota

5/5/22 – Keynote Address: I’m a Teacher, NOT a Therapist! Decreasing Overwhelm and Empowering Educators  · Resilience Impact Annual Conference 2022 – Brainerd, Minnesota

5/4/22 – Pre-Conference Day: Your FBA is a Fantasy! Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Resilience Impact Annual Conference 2022 – Brainerd, Minnesota

4/13 – 4/27/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Forest Grove & Hillsboro School Districts – Oregon (Virtual)

3/14/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Lake Region Special Education – Devil’s Lake, ND (Virtual)

3/11 – 5/20/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Central Linn School District – Halsey, OR

3/10 – 4/7/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Rockbridge County Schools – Rockbridge, VA (Virtual)

3/3/22 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)

2/20 – 22/22 – “Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators, Providers and the Kids They Serve” · Attachment & Trauma Network: Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference 2022 – Houston, TX

1/21 & 2/11/22 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Coos Bay School District – Coos Bay, OR (Virtual)

1/5 – 7/22 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Idaho Youth Ranch – Boise, ID (Virtual)

I was able to use the CPS model the very next day in my classroom, and it has been life-changing for me and for the students that I have used it with!

The most well-run, well-presented, and most valuable training I’ve been to in 27 years in education! Thank you for your passion and commitment to both children and staff!

It was amazing! …it was the first time I ever attended a workshop and WANTED a fourth day!

Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2021:

12/13/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Bismarck Early Childhood Education Program – Bismarck, ND (Virtual)

12/9/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA (Virtual)

11/5/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Central Linn Elementary – Halsey, OR

10/28/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Milford Exempted Village Schools – Milford, OH (Virtual)

10/30 – 11/20/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · In Focus of Cleveland – Cleveland, OH (Virtual)

10/13 – 15/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Oregon Alliance – Oregon  Statewide (Virtual)

10/8/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Yamhill-Carlton School District – Yamhill, OR

10/2/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans [Conference Session] · ATTACH Conference – Minneapolis, MN (Virtual)

9/28 – 30/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Family Solutions – Medford, OR (Virtual)

9/15/21 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Monte Vista Elementary (Creighton SD) – Phoenix, AZ (Virtual)

8/31 – 9/2/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Serendipity Center – Portland, OR (Virtual)

8/25 – 27/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Capital Region ESD 113 – Olympia, WA (Virtual)

8/3 – 5/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Waverly Elementary – Albany, OR (Virtual)

7/27 – 29/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)

7/13/21 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Homewood-Flossmoor H.S. – Flossmoor, IL (Virtual)

6/16 – 18/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Jefferson County ESD – Madras, OR (Virtual)

5/19 – 21/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

5/12/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Homewood Flossmoor High School – Flossmoor, IL (Virtual)

5/5/21 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Homewood-Flossmoor H.S. – Flossmoor, IL (Virtual)

4/28/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans ·   Peace Garden Special Services Consortium – Bottineau, ND (Virtual)

4/26 – 5/10/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

4/21 – 23/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Douglas County ESD / Southern Oregon ESD (Postponed) – Roseburg, OR

4/19/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

4/14/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) – Prince George, VA (Virtual)

4/12/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Staunton Schools – Staunton, VA (Virtual)

4/7 – 4/9/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Serendipity Center – Portland, OR (Virtual)

3/3 – 5/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

2/25/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Douglas Education Service District (ESD) – Roseburg, OR (Virtual)

2/23 – 3/9/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

2/16/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

2/15 – 18/21 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Revolutionary Resilience for Educators & Providers” – Attachment & Trauma Network: Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference (Virtual)

2/9/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Beach Elementary, Portland Public Schools – Portland, OR (Virtual)

2/1/21 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)

1/27/21 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)

1/8/21 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

Amazing presenters! Depth of knowledge surpassed my expectations!

The passion of the presenters was OUTSTANDING! Clearly it matters to them that transformation occur, not merely improvement.

Most valuable to me was the depth that Rick & Doris went into about the CPS process – WHY it works and HOW to make it work!

Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2020:

12/4/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

11/20/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

11/18 – 19/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)

11/13/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Harney Education Service District (ESD) – Burns, OR (Virtual)

11/12/20 – “Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans” · Kansas ESSDACK Bridging to Resilience Conference 2020 – Virtual

11/7/20 – “Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans”– Ohio Trauma-Informed Schools Conference 2020 – Virtual

11/6 – 8/20 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Revolutionary Resilience for Educators & Providers” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Innovative Schools Summit 2020 – Las Vegas, NV

10/30/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

10/26 – 11/10/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

10/28/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Dickinson Public Schools – Dickinson, ND (Virtual)

10/19 – 21/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

10/16/2020 – Trauma-Informed Care Principles & Strategies Follow-Up Training · Harney Education Service District (ESD) – Burns, OR (Virtual)

10/14/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Washington State Child Long-Term Inpatient Programs (CLIP) – Washington Statewide (Virtual)

10/12 – 13/20 – Pacific NW Institute for Special Education and Law 2020 · Seattle, WA (Virtual)

10/9/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

9/30 – 10/2/20 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Revolutionary Resilience for Educators & Providers” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Conference of Oregon School Administrators Special Education Conference 2020 – Eugene, OR (Virtual)

9/29/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · D.C. Public Schools – Washington D.C. (Virtual)

9/24 – 25/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Alamance-Burlington Schools – Burlington, NC (Virtual)

9/18/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker Charter Web Academy – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

9/8/20 – Managing Your Emotions Helps Kids to Manage Theirs: 3 Strategies for Parents & Teachers to Build Resilience and Emotional Control · “LD Expert Live” Stowell Learning Center – Orange County, CA (Virtual via Facebook)

9/3/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)

9/2/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)

9/1/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Marysville School District – Marysville, WA (Virtual)

8/27/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Beach Elementary, Portland Public Schools – Portland, OR (Virtual)

8/17 – 19/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Bowman Consulting Group (Postponed due to Covid-related restrictions) – Portland, OR (Virtual)

8/7/20 – From Surviving to Thriving in Classrooms & Families in Turbulent Times · Bowman Consulting Group (Virtual)

8/3 – 5/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Harney Education service District (ESD) – Burns, OR (Virtual)

7/28 – 30/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Family Solutions – Medford, OR (Virtual)

7/16 – 17/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)

7/14/20 – Managing Your Emotions Helps Kids to Manage Theirs: 3 Strategies for Parents & Teachers to Build Resilience and Emotional Control · “LD Expert Live” Stowell Learning Center – Orange County, CA (Virtual via Facebook)

6/29/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)

6/24 – 26/20 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators Annual Conference 2020 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Seaside, OR (Virtual)

6/15 – 18/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Family Solutions – Medford, OR (Virtual)

6/8 – 10/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Youth Homes and Seneca Family of Agencies – East Bay Area – Oakland, Walnut Creek (Virtual)

6/4/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Fusion Academy – Orange County, CA (Virtual)

5/26 – 29/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Baker School District – Baker City, OR (Virtual)

5/23/20 – Revolutionary Resilience & Self-Regulation for Educators/Providers & Youth They Serve · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)

5/19 – 20/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – (Virtual)

5/26 – 29/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · McAdams Academy – Wichita, KS (Virtual) – Postponed due to Covid

4/25/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · McAdams Academy – Wichita, KS – Postponed due to Covid

4/24/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · McAdams Academy – Wichita, KS – Postponed due to Covid

4/20/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Bowman Consulting Group – Baker City, OR – Postponed due to Covid

4/16 – 18/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Baker School District – Baker City, OR – Postponed due to Covid

4/9 – 10/20 – Oregon Response to Instruction & Intervention Conference: “Neuroscience of Trauma, Regulation & Learning: Preparing the Brain to Learn” / 2 Sessions “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices” · Oregon RTIi – Portland, OR – Cancelled due to Covid

3/27/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Sponsored by Alpha Mortgage – Wilmington, NC – Cancelled due to Covid

3/26/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Sponsored by Alpha Mortgage – Jacksonville, NC – Cancelled due to Covid

3/25/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Sponsored by Alpha Mortgage – Wilmington, NC – Cancelled due to Covid

3/16/20 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Clermont County ESC – Clermont, OH – Cancelled due to Covid

3/12 – 13/20 – Introduction to Neuroscience of Trauma & Trauma-Informed Practices / Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Housing Authority of Jackson County – Medford, OR

3/6/20 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Harney Education Service District (ESD) – Burns, OR

2/16 – 18/20 – Attachment & Trauma Network: Creating Trauma-Sensitive Schools Conference 2020 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Atlanta, GA

1/29 – 31/20 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Hosted by Cambia / Blue Cross Blue Shield – Portland, OR

Previous Trainings / Presentations in 2019:

12/9 – 11/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Hosted by Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child (HBCC) – Orange County, CA

11/18/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Warren County ESC – Lebanon, OH

11/14 – 15/19 – Innovative Schools Summit – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – San Antonio, TX

11/8/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker School District – Baker City, OR

11/7/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Baker School District – Baker City, OR

10/28 – 30/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Hosted by Cambia / Blue Cross Blue Shield – Portland, OR

10/21/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Bowman Consulting Group – Portland, OR

10/18/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Madison Elementary School District – Phoenix, AZ

10/15/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child – Orange County, CA

10/14/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Helping the Behaviorally Challenging Child – Orange County, CA

10/11/19 – Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Trauma-Informed School Systems & Practices · Olive Crest Academy – Orange County, CA

10/3/19 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Special Educators Conference 2019 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Eugene, OR

9/30/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Montgomery County ESC – Dayton, OH

9/23 – 25/19 – Pacific NW Institute for Special Education and the Law 2019 – “Your FBA is a Fantasy” / “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” / “Rethinking Challenging Kids: Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach” – Seattle, WA

9/7/19 – HELP Inclusion Conference 2019 “Stop Chasing Compliance & Start Building Skills: Rethinking Challenging Behavior with the Collaborative Problem-Solving Approach” – Orange County, CA

8/26 – 27/19 – Trauma-Informed Care Principles & Strategies / Collaborative Problem solving Introductory Overview · Rogue River Elementary School – Rogue River, OR

8/23/19 – Trauma-Informed Care Principles & Strategies / Collaborative Problem solving Introductory Overview · Beach Elementary, Portland Public Schools – Portland, OR

8/22/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Olive Crest Academy – Orange County, CA

8/19 – 21/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Sherwood School District – Sherwood, OR

8/14 – 16/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Southern Oregon Education Service District (ESD) – Phoenix, OR

7/25 – 27/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Powerful Change Group – Scottsdale, AZ

7/15 – 17/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Madison Elementary School District – Phoenix, AZ

6/20/19 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Annual conference  2019 – “Truly Trauma-Informed? Assessment & Design of Actionable Systems & Practices” – Seaside, OR

6/19/19 – Conference of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) Annual Conference 2019 – Pre-Conference Full-Day “Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans”

5/17 – 19/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Bowman Consulting Group – Salem, OR

4/29 – 5/1/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Southern Oregon Education service District (ESD) – Medford, OR

4/26/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving®(MGH) Introductory Overview · Multnomah Education Service District (ESD) – Portland, OR

4/8/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Baker School District – Baker City, OR

4/4 – 6/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Baker School District – Baker City, OR

3/18/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Cambia / Blue Cross Blue Shield – Portland, OR

3/1 – 3/15/19 – Collaborative Problem-Solving Tier 1®(MGH) Intensive Training · Marcola School District – Eugene, OR

1/11/19 – Your FBA is a Fantasy: Creating Trauma-Informed FBAs & Behavior Plans · Linn-Benton Lincoln Education Service District (ESD) – Albany, OR

The Bowmans have partnered with our school to bring transformation to the approach we use to help the children with the most serious behavior challenges in the county. They have provided countless hours of time to assist us in developing new ways to reach our students that are based in empathy and compassion. We used to be reactive to the behaviors that occurred and now we are working to get upstream and solve the problems that are getting in the way of the student being able to meet the necessary expectations in order to be successful in school and in their life. Not only are their trainings informative, practical and inspiring, but their hearts and the experience they bring are their greatest asset. We will be forever grateful for the impact they have had on our staff and students!

Resources for Previous Attendees of BCG

Trauma-informed fba & behavior plan trainings, “i’m a teacher, not a therapist” training, “truly trauma-informed” trainings, “revolutionary resilience & self-regulation (full-day) “ training, collaborative problem solving tier 1 trainings, collaborative problem-solving intro training, foundational & actionable concepts in applying trauma-informed practices, “bring healing home for couples” training, “bring healing home for vets” training for veterans & families.

PROVIDER MENU

You want training? We've got training!

Whether you’re new to the Collaborative & Proactive Solutions model or have some existing knowledge — and whether you’re a clinician, educator, or parent — there’s a training option to meet your needs.

Virtual and In-Person Trainings

Schools and Therapeutic Facilities

Individual Educators and Clinicians

Annual Conferences

Collaborative and Proactive Solutions™

Problem Solving Treatment (PST)

The AIMS Center encourages organizations and clinicians to pursue certification in Problem Solving Treatment (PST). Clinicians are taught by expert trainers using procedures and standards set by the National Network of PST Clinicians, Trainers & Researchers. Patrick J. Raue, PhD , Associate Director for Evidence-based Psychosocial Interventions at the AIMS Center, directs the National Network of PST Clinicians, Trainers & Researchers, which was founded by Patricia Areán, PhD . 

Problem Solving Treatment (PST), also known as Problem-Solving Treatment – Primary Care (PST-PC), is a brief, evidence-based approach that is effective with a majority of patient populations, including patients of many different cultures. PST teaches and empowers patients to solve the here-and-now problems contributing to their depression and helps increase their self-efficacy. 

As part of a treatment plan, PST typically involves six to ten sessions, depending on the patient’s needs. The first appointment is approximately one hour long (this can be split into two separate ½ hour sessions if scheduling an hour is difficult) because it includes psychoeducation and an introduction to the PST model. Subsequent appointments are 30 minutes long.

Psychotherapy plays an important part in a patient's treatment plan, given patient preferences and the limitations of antidepressant medications. Organizations implementing an integrated care program should have capacity to offer an evidence-based psychotherapy such as PST. PST sessions can be billed by licensed providers using psychotherapy or CoCM CPT codes.

Evidence Base 

PST is the most widely used intervention to treat depression and anxiety in a primary care environment. Research shows it significantly improves patient outcomes in a wide range of settings and patient populations. PST is effective for depression among all adult populations (aged 18-100), including older adults with mild cognitive impairment. 

The document below contains selected references demonstrating the efficacy of PST in primary care. 

• Problem Solving Treatment: Selected References  

Get Certified in PST

We offer two tiers of PST training for licensed clinicians: a shorter Course in PST (Tier 1) and full PST certification (Tier 2). We encourage clinicians to pursue Tier 2: PST Certification, as skill-based practice and expert feedback are important to meeting fidelity standards. Notably, the evidence base for the effectiveness of PST has been demonstrated using clinicians at this level of clinical skill. For more information on the courses (including pricing and eligibility) click the links below, or download a detailed overview covering both PST training tiers . 

A Course in PST  consists of a series of online modules introducing PST principles, followed by 6 monthly group case presentation calls.

PST Certification  involves online modules followed by individual simulated virtual visits, 6 monthly group case presentation calls, and in-depth expert feedback on application of clinical skills based on session audio recording review. 

Become an Expert PST Trainer

Get certified as a PST Trainer , in these group training sessions participants will learn the skills needed to train others in PST. 

Continuing Education

The University of Washington AIMS Center is approved by the  American Psychological Association  (APA) to sponsor continuing education (CE) for psychologists. The AIMS Center maintains responsibility for this program and its content. APA CE credits can be used by most licensed mental health providers, including psychologists, clinical social workers, professional counselors, and marriage and family therapists. Clinicians should check their specific state requirements to confirm that credits awarded by the APA apply to them.

Participants are eligible for up to 10 CE credits (PST Tier 1) or up to 13 CE credits (PST Tier 2). To receive credits participants must attend the entire course and pass a learning evaluation.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Information

There are no relevant financial relationships to disclose for authors or planners of this content. 

Registration

The certification process provided by the AIMS Center typically requires between 19 to 22 hours of clinician time over the course of seven months and requires demonstration of mastery of the technique.

Please read through the subsequent pages in the left-hand menu for more information about Tiers 1 and 2 of training.

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

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

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

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

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

6559 Accesses

5 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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 (2023)

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

Quick links.

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

OFSN Presents: Collaborative Problem Solving Training Beginning June 21!

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) 8-Week CPS Series for Families

Help for adults raising kids with challenging behaviors.

Online, Facilitated by Signe Miller, with Oregon Family Support Network,  Think:Kids CPS Certified 

Dates: Wednesdays, beginning June 21, 2023 – August 9th, 2023, meeting weekly 12:30 -2:00 pm

FREE to Register HERE

Learn more by contacting Signe Miller, OFSN Family Support Specialist

Email:  [email protected]

Phone: 541-505-2511

• Learn the Collaborative Problem Solving® approach & effective ways to reduce conflict
• Build skills & confidence in using the CPS approach
• Network & share information about community resources
• Develop new understanding of challenging behavior & learn new ways to help your child
• Rethink conventional approaches to behavioral difficulties and strengthen relationships
• Gain support from other parents

The CPS Approach

The Collaborative Problem Solving™ approach is an evidence-based method to managing challenging behavior that promotes the understanding that challenging kids lack the skill – not the will – to behave; specifically, skills related to problem-solving, flexibility and frustration tolerance. Unlike traditional models of discipline, the CPS approach avoids the use of power, control and motivational procedures and instead focuses on collaborating with the child/ youth/ young adult to solve the problems leading to challenging behavior and building the skills they need to succeed.

Disclaimer: This facilitator is Think:Kids CPS Certified and receives ongoing supervision from Think:Kids. This group is independent of, and has no direct affiliation with Think:Kids or Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Information shared by the facilitator reflects their best understanding of the CPS approach. Think:Kids is a program in the Department of Psychiatry at MGH.

Additional resources can be found at: www.thinkkids.org

Designed using Unos . Powered by WordPress .

• Get IGI Global News
• Language: English

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Shortly You Will Be Redirected to Our Partner eContent Pro's Website

eContent Pro powers all IGI Global Author Services. From this website, you will be able to receive your 35% discount (automatically applied at checkout), receive a free quote, place an order, and retrieve your final documents .

What is Collaborative Problem Solving

Related Books View All Books

Related Journals View All Journals