group problem solving protocol

Professional Learning Services

The SRI community of knowledgeable consultants offer customized professional learning experiences that provide the skills, habits of mind, knowledge, and tools to develop core collaborative learning practices in your educational setting. Continue Reading...

SRI’s tools include protocols that offer structured processes to support focused and productive conversations, build collective understanding, and drive school improvement. Thoughtful use of these protocols is an integral part of building resilient professional learning communities.

Protocols By Tag  | New Protocols  |  Spanish Protocols  |  Portuguese Protocols  |  Protocols For Youth Engagement

Alphabetical List

• CLEE Services
• Other Resources
• Contact CLEE

[ Placeholder content for popup link ] WordPress Download Manager - Best Download Management Plugin

Join a CLEE Open Virtual Session to boost your practice around protocols. Buy Copies of the Resource Book in our store. Please Join our Mailing List to learn more about our resources and events.

• Our Mission

A Protocol for Collaborative Problem-Solving

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

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

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

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

4 Ways Using PDS Can Benefit Your Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-Step PDS Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead an Effective Problem-Solving Meeting

There’s nothing worse than getting a group of smart people together to solve a problem and having the discussion devolve into chaos. This usually happens when people are at different stages of the problem-solving process. To get everyone on the same page, take a methodical approach and conquer one step at a time. First, ask: […]

There’s nothing worse than getting a group of smart people together to solve a problem and having the discussion devolve into chaos. This usually happens when people are at different stages of the problem-solving process. To get everyone on the same page, take a methodical approach and conquer one step at a time. First, ask: Does the team genuinely understand the problem it’s trying to solve? If you can’t clearly articulate it, draft a succinct problem statement. If the group understands the problem, but hasn’t yet produced a set of potential solutions, concentrate on generating as many quality options as possible. If you already have solutions, assess their strengths and weaknesses, and develop a list of pros and cons. Then you can use your time together to do the often difficult work of choosing a solution — and make sure that the final decision is in writing. The last stage, once you’ve selected the solution, is to develop an implementation plan. While conquering just one problem-solving stage at a time may feel a bit underwhelming at first, this methodical approach will often help the group leapfrog ahead, sometimes to the end of the problem-solving cycle.

Source: This tip is adapted from “Why Groups Struggle to Solve Problems Together,” by Al Pittampalli

Partner Center

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

13 Leadership, Roles, and Problem Solving in Groups

Introduction

13.1 Group Member Roles

Task-related roles and behaviors.

Task roles and their related behaviors contribute directly to the group’s completion of a task or achievement of its goal or purpose. Task-related roles typically serve leadership, informational, or procedural functions. In this section, we will discuss the following roles and behaviors: task leader, expediter, information provider, information seeker, gatekeeper, and recorder.

Task Leader

Within any group, there may be a task leader. This person may have a high group status because of his or her maturity, problem-solving abilities, knowledge, and/or leadership experience and skills. This person acts to help the group complete its task (Cragan & Wright, 1991). This person may be a designated or emergent leader, but in either case, task leaders tend to talk more during group interactions than other group members and also tend to do more work in the group. Depending on the number of tasks a group has, there may be more than one task leader, especially if the tasks require different sets of skills or knowledge. Because of the added responsibilities of being a task leader, people in these roles may experience higher levels of stress. A task leader could lessen these stresses, however, through some of the maintenance role behaviors that will be discussed later.

We can divide task-leader behaviors two types: substantive and procedural (Pavitt, 1999). The substantive leader is the “idea person” who communicates “big picture” thoughts and suggestions that feed group discussion. The procedural leader is the person who gives the most guidance, perhaps following up on the ideas generated by the substantive leader. A skilled and experienced task leader may be able to perform both of these roles, but when the roles are filled by two different people, the person considered the procedural leader is more likely than the substantive leader to be viewed by members as the overall group leader. This indicates that task-focused groups assign more status to the person who actually guides the group toward the completion of the task (a “doer”) than the person who comes up with ideas (the “thinker”).

The expediter is a task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals in order to monitor the group’s progress (Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). An expediter doesn’t push group members mindlessly along toward the completion of their task; an expediter must have a good sense of when a topic has been sufficiently discussed or when a group’s extended focus on one area has led to diminishing returns. In such cases, the expediter may say, “Now that we’ve had a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of switching the office from PCs to Macs, which side do you think has more support?” or “We’ve spent half of this meeting looking for examples of what other libraries have done and haven’t found anything useful. Maybe we should switch gears so we can get something concrete done tonight.”

To avoid the perception that group members are being rushed, a skilled expediter can demonstrate good active-listening skills by paraphrasing what has been discussed and summarizing what has been accomplished in such a way that makes it easier for group members to see the need to move on.

Information Provider

The information provider role includes behaviors that are more evenly shared compared to other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). When group members meet, they each possess different types of information. Early group meetings may consist of group members taking turns briefing each other on their area of expertise. In other situations, one group member may be chosen because of his or her specialized knowledge. This person may be the primary information provider for all other group members. For example, one of our colleagues was selected to serve on a university committee reviewing our undergraduate learning goals. Since her official role was to serve as the “faculty expert” on the subcommittee related to speaking, she played a more central information-provider function for the group during most of the initial meetings. Since other people on the subcommittee were not as familiar with speaking and its place within higher education curriculum, it made sense that information-providing behaviors were not as evenly distributed.

Information Seeker

The information seeker asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). The information sought may include facts or group member opinions. In general, information seekers ask questions for clarification, but they can also ask questions that help provide an important evaluative function. Most groups could benefit from more critically oriented information-seeking behaviors. As our discussion of groupthink notes, critical questioning helps increase the quality of ideas and group outcomes and helps avoid groupthink. By asking for more information, people have to defend (in a non-adversarial way) and/or support their claims, which can help ensure that the information is credible, relevant, and thoroughly considered. When information seeking or questioning occurs because of poor listening skills, it risks negatively affecting the group. Skilled information providers and seekers are also good active listeners. They increase all group members’ knowledge when they paraphrase and ask clarifying questions about the information presented.

The gatekeeper manages the flow of conversation in a group in order to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way Burke, Georganta, & Marlow, 2019). The gatekeeper may prompt others to provide information by saying something like “Let’s each share one idea we have for a movie to show during Black History Month.” He or she may also help correct an imbalance between members who have provided much information already and members who have been quiet by saying something like “Aretha, we’ve heard a lot from you today. Let us hear from someone else. Beau, what are your thoughts on Aretha’s suggestion?” Gatekeepers should be cautious about “calling people out” or at least making them feel that way. Instead of scolding someone for not participating, the gatekeeper should be ask a member to contribute something specific instead of just asking if that person has anything to add. Since gatekeepers make group members feel included, they also service the relational aspects of the group.

The recorder takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. The recorder is the only role that is essentially limited to one person at a time since in most cases it would not be necessary or beneficial to have more than one person recording. At less formal meetings, there may be no recorder, while at formal meetings there is usually a person who records meeting minutes, which are an overview of what occurred at the meeting. Each committee will have different rules or norms regarding the level of detail within and availability of the minutes.

Maintenance Roles and Behaviors

Maintenance roles and their corresponding behaviors function to create and maintain social cohesion and fulfill the interpersonal needs of group members. All these role behaviors require strong and sensitive interpersonal skills. The maintenance roles we will discuss in this section include social-emotional leader, supporter, tension releaser, harmonizer, and interpreter.

Social-Emotional Leader

The social-emotional leader within a group may perform a variety of maintenance roles and is generally someone who is well liked by the other group members and whose role behaviors complement but do not compete with the task leader. The social-emotional leader may also reassure and support the task leader when he or she is stressed (Koch, 2013). In general, the social-emotional leader is a reflective thinker who has good perception skills that he or she uses to analyze the group dynamics and climate and then initiate the appropriate role behaviors to maintain a positive climate. This is not a role that shifts from person to person. While all members of the group perform some maintenance role behaviors at various times, the socioemotional leader reliably functions to support group members and maintain a positive relational climate. Social-emotional leadership functions can actually become detrimental to the group and lead to less satisfaction among members when they view maintenance behaviors as redundant or as too distracting from the task (Pavitt, 1999).

The role of supporter is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed (Koch, 2013). The supporter’s work primarily occurs in one-on-one exchanges that are more intimate and in-depth than the exchanges that take place during full group meetings. While many group members may make supporting comments publicly at group meetings, these comments are typically superficial and/or brief. A supporter uses active empathetic listening skills to connect with group members who may seem down or frustrated by saying something like “Tayesha, you seemed kind of down today. Is there anything you’d like to talk about?” Supporters also follow up on previous conversations with group members to maintain the connections they have already established by saying things like “Alan, I remember you said your mom is having surgery this weekend. I hope it goes well. Let me know if you need anything.”

Tension Releaser

The tension releaser is someone who is naturally funny and sensitive to the personalities of the group and the dynamics of any given situation and who uses these qualities to manage the frustration level of the group (Koch, 2013). Being funny is not enough to fulfill this role, as jokes or comments could indeed be humorous to other group members but are delivered at an inopportune time, which ultimately creates rather than releases tension. The healthy use of humor by the tension releaser performs the same maintenance function as the empathy employed by the harmonizer or the social-emotional leader, but it is less intimate and is typically directed toward the whole group instead of just one person.

Group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication plays the harmonizer role (Koch, 2013). They keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates. For example, the harmonizer may sense that one group member’s critique of another member’s idea was not received positively, and he or she may be able to rephrase the critique in a more constructive way, which can help diminish the other group member’s defensiveness. Harmonizers also deescalate conflict once it has already started—for example, by suggesting that the group take a break and then mediating between group members in a side conversation.

These actions can help prevent conflict from spilling over into other group interactions. In cases where the whole group experiences conflict, the harmonizer may help lead the group in perception-checking discussions that help members see an issue from multiple perspectives. For a harmonizer to be effective, he or she must be viewed as impartial and committed to the group as a whole rather than to one side, person, or faction within the larger group. A special kind of harmonizer that helps manage cultural differences within the group is the interpreter.

Interpreter

An interpreter helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared (Koch, 2013). Just as an interpreter at the United Nations acts as a bridge between two different languages, the interpreter can bridge identity differences between group members. Interpreters can help perform the other maintenance roles discussed with a special awareness of and sensitivity toward cultural differences. Interpreters, because of their cultural sensitivity, may also take a proactive role to help address conflict before it emerges—for example, by taking a group member aside and explaining why his or her behavior or comments may be perceived as offensive.

Negative Roles and Behaviors

Group communication scholars began exploring the negative side of group member roles more than sixty years ago (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Studying these negative roles can help us analyze group interactions and potentially better understand why some groups are more successful than others are. It is important to acknowledge that we all perform some negative behaviors within groups but that those behaviors do not necessarily constitute a role. A person may temporarily monopolize a discussion to bring attention to his or her idea. If that behavior gets the attention of the group members and makes them realize they were misinformed or headed in a negative direction, then that behavior may have been warranted. Group members may enact negative behaviors with varying degrees of intensity and regularity, and their effects may range from mild annoyance to group failure. In general, the effects grow increasingly negative as they increase in intensity and frequency.

Self-Centered Roles Central Negative

The central negative argues against most of the ideas and proposals discussed in the group and often emerges because of a leadership challenge during group formation. The failed attempt to lead the group can lead to feelings of resentment toward the leader and/or the purpose of the group, which then manifest in negative behaviors that delay, divert, or block the group’s progress toward achieving its goal. This scenario is unfortunate because the central negative is typically a motivated and intelligent group member who can benefit the group if properly handled by the group leader or other members. Group communication scholars suggest that the group leader or leaders actively incorporate central negatives into group tasks and responsibilities to make them feel valued and to help diminish any residual anger, disappointment, or hurt feelings from the leadership conflict (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). Otherwise, the central negative will continue to argue against the proposals and decisions of the group, even when they may agree. In some cases, the central negative may unintentionally serve a beneficial function if his or her criticisms prevent groupthink.

Monopolizer

The monopolizer is a group member who makes excessive verbal contributions, preventing equal participation by other group members. In short, monopolizers like to hear the sound of their own voice and do not follow typical norms for conversational turn taking. Some people who are well-informed, charismatic, and competent communicators can get away with impromptu lectures and long stories, but monopolizers do not possess the magnetic qualities of such people. A group member’s excessive verbal contributions are more likely to be labeled as monopolizing when they are not related to the task or when they provide unnecessary or redundant elaboration. Some monopolizers do not intentionally speak for longer than they should. Instead, they think they are making a genuine contribution to the group. These folks likely lack sensitivity to nonverbal cues, or they would see that other group members are tired of listening or annoyed. Other monopolizers just like to talk and do not care what others think. Some may be trying to make up for a lack of knowledge or experience. This type of monopolizer is best described as a dilettante, or an amateur who tries to pass himself or herself off as an expert.

Several subgroups of behaviors fall under the monopolizer’s role. The “stage hog” monopolizes discussion with excessive verbal contributions and engages in one-upping and narcissistic listening. Gaining an advantage over is a spotlight-stealing strategy in which people try to verbally “out-do” others by saying something like “You think that’s bad? Listen to what happened to me!” They also listen to others in order to find something they can connect back to themselves, not to understand the message. The stage hog is like the diva that refuses to leave the stage to let the next performer begin. Unlike a monopolizer, who may engage in his or her behaviors unknowingly, stage hogs are usually aware of what they are doing.

The “egghead” monopolizes the discussion with excessive contributions based in actual knowledge. However, those contributions exceed the level of understanding of other group members or the needs of the group (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The egghead is different from the dilettante monopolizer discussed earlier because this person has genuine knowledge and expertise on a subject, which may be useful to the group. Nevertheless, like the monopolizer and stage hog, the egghead’s excessive contributions draw attention away from the task, slow the group down, and may contribute to a negative group climate. The egghead may be like an absentminded professor who is smart but lacks the social sensitivity to tell when he or she has said enough and is now starting to annoy other group members. This type of egghead naively believes that other group members care as much about the subject as he or she does.

The second type of egghead is more pompous and monopolizes the discussion to flaunt his or her intellectual superiority. While the group may tolerate the first type of egghead to a point, the group may perceive the second type of egghead more negatively and as one who will hurt the group. In general, the egghead’s advanced subject knowledge and excessive contributions can hurt the group’s potential for synergy, since other group members may defer to the egghead expert, which can diminish the creativity that comes from outside and non-expert perspectives.

13.2 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Group problem solving.

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes. Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there is not a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These things stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision-making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others do. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may require more creativity. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets due to funding cuts in nearly every sector. When group members are not familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done. They may want to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order implement their solution successfully. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution. They may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that does not have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who or what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification?

At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step, a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, do not evaluate solutions at this point, only propose and clarify. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it? It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution.

Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision-making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several similar models for problem solving, groups can use many varied decision-making techniques. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until they reach a consensus. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the group reaches a final decision, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group agrees. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or a delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene? Will a new group be formed?

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others are. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision-making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision-making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings.

Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because group members expose themselves to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision-making, perhaps thinking that they will work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. Therefore, in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision-making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming Before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people do not follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you will recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. Anyone in the group can initiate the short warm-up. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session should not last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. In order to realize the fourth rule, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there is not really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract, it may be eliminated. As a caution, though, it may be wise not to throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion Before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually, list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This should not take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they should not evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they have finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members could now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before making a decision (Schippers & Rus, 2021). A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread among all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group did not have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who did not. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process.

This type of decision-making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this is not a sign of groupthink. More typically, groups reach consensus only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that is ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

[table id=10 /]

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision-Making

A group’s situational context affects decision-making (Franken & Muris, 2005). One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision-making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members cannot know what other group members are thinking, whether they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. Therefore, the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision-making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation, walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Cultural Context and Decision-Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, culturally heterogeneous groups perform better than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but since all groups experience conflict, this is not solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we have learned about already in this text can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making (Yates & de Oliveira, 2016). Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision-making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (i.e., indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication (like negotiations) begins or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision-making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. Therefore, if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone does not like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group (Hentschel, Heilman, & Peus, 2019). Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters.

Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which does not take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did.

Now, instead of assuming biological sex is a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is common for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their mid-60s to mid-80s, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to mid-60s, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to mid-40s, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just entering into the workforce and have been greatly affected by recent economic crises. They are experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions.

Figure 13.1: Social-emotional leaders are reflective thinkers who use their perception skills to analyze group dynamics and maintain a positive climate. Dim Hou. 2019. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/2P6Q7_uiDr0

Figure 13.2: Common components of group problems. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 13.3: The group problem-solving process. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 13.4: Brainstorming is a good way to generate possible solutions to a problem. Below are some suggestions to make brainstorming more of a decision-making method. Monstera. 2021. Pexels license . https://www.pexels.com/photo/excited-black-woman-using-laptop-9429552/

Figure 13.5: Culturally heterogeneous groups perform better than more homogenous groups. fauxels. 2019. Pexels license . https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-people-near-wooden-table-3184418/

Figure 13.6: It is common to have different generations working together in an organizational setting. Rendy Novantino. 2021. Unsplash license . https://unsplash.com/photos/wJoRe38l8fc

Section 13.1

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues 4(2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x

Bormann, E. G., & Bormann, N.C., (1988). Effective small group communication ( 4th ed.). Burgess International Group.

Burke, C. S., Georganta, E., & Marlow, S. (2019). A bottom up perspective to understanding the dynamics of team roles in mission critical teams. Frontiers in psychology , 10 , 1322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01322

Cragan, J. F., & Wright, D. W. (1991). Communication in small group discussions: An integrated approach (3rd ed.). West Publishing.

Koch, A. (2013, October 24). Individual roles in groups . https://prezi.com/gmbfihtzyjg4/individual-roles-in-groups/

Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication Theory and research (pp. 313-334). Sage.

Section 13.2

Adams, K., and Galanes, G. (2009). Communicating in groups: Applications and skills (7th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.). Waveland Press.

Clarke, G. (1970, June 29). The silent generation revisited. Time, 95 (26), 38-40.

Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 7 (4), 466–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637100700404

Franken, I. H. A., and Muris, P. (2005). Individual differences in decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (5), 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.004

Haslett, B.B., Ruebush, J. (1999). What differences do individual differences in groups make? The effects of individuals, culture, and group composition. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 115–138). Sage.

Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. V. (2019). The multiple dimensions of gender stereotypes: A current look at men’s and women’s characterizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011

Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (2004). Groups: Theory and experience (7th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Osborn, A. F. (1959). Applied imagination. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schippers, M. C., & Rus, D. C. (2021). Majority decision-making works best under conditions of leadership ambiguity and shared task representations. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 519295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.519295

Stanton, C. (2009, November 3). How to deliver group presentations: The unified team approach . http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach/

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(2), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030002006

Yates, J. F., & de Oliveira, S. (2016). Culture and decision making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , 136 , 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.003

A task-related role that functions to keep the group on track toward completing its task by managing the agenda and setting and assessing goals in order to monitor the group’s progress

This role includes behaviors that are more evenly shared compared to other roles, as ideally, all group members present new ideas, initiate discussions of new topics, and contribute their own relevant knowledge and experiences

The person who has this task-related role asks for more information, elaboration, or clarification on items relevant to the group’s task

This person manages the flow of conversation in a group in order to achieve an appropriate balance so that all group members get to participate in a meaningful way

The person who takes notes on the discussion and activities that occur during a group meeting. This role is the only role that is limited to one person at a time

A maintenance role that is characterized by communication behaviors that encourage other group members and provide emotional support as needed

Group members who help manage the various types of group conflict that emerge during group communication, they keep their eyes and ears open for signs of conflict among group members and ideally intervene before it escalates

This person helps manage the diversity within a group by mediating intercultural conflict, articulating common ground between different people, and generally creating a climate where difference is seen as an opportunity rather than as something to be feared

A group member who makes excessive verbal contributions preventing equal participation by other group members. Can include the “egghead” and the “stage hog.”

This technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members

A commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before making the decision

A decision making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members

A decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision

Communication in the Real World Copyright © by Faculty members in the School of Communication Studies, James Madison University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Search form

• Table of Contents
• Troubleshooting Guide
• A Model for Getting Started
• Justice Action Toolkit
• Best Change Processes
• Databases of Best Practices
• Online Courses
• Ask an Advisor
• Subscribe to eNewsletter
• Community Stories
• YouTube Channel
• About the Tool Box
• How to Use the Tool Box
• Privacy Statement
• Workstation/Check Box Sign-In
• Online Training Courses
• Capacity Building Training
• Training Curriculum - Order Now
• Community Check Box Evaluation System
• Build Your Toolbox
• Facilitation of Community Processes
• Community Health Assessment and Planning
• Section 4. Techniques for Leading Group Discussions

Chapter 16 Sections

• Section 1. Conducting Effective Meetings
• Section 2. Developing Facilitation Skills
• Section 3. Capturing What People Say: Tips for Recording a Meeting
• Main Section

A local coalition forms a task force to address the rising HIV rate among teens in the community.  A group of parents meets to wrestle with their feeling that their school district is shortchanging its students.  A college class in human services approaches the topic of dealing with reluctant participants.  Members of an environmental group attend a workshop on the effects of global warming.  A politician convenes a “town hall meeting” of constituents to brainstorm ideas for the economic development of the region.  A community health educator facilitates a smoking cessation support group.

All of these might be examples of group discussions, although they have different purposes, take place in different locations, and probably run in different ways.  Group discussions are common in a democratic society, and, as a community builder, it’s more than likely that you have been and will continue to be involved in many of them.  You also may be in a position to lead one, and that’s what this section is about.  In this last section of a chapter on group facilitation, we’ll examine what it takes to lead a discussion group well, and how you can go about doing it.

What is an effective group discussion?

The literal definition of a group discussion is obvious: a critical conversation about a particular topic, or perhaps a range of topics, conducted in a group of a size that allows participation by all members.  A group of two or three generally doesn’t need a leader to have a good discussion, but once the number reaches five or six, a leader or facilitator can often be helpful.  When the group numbers eight or more, a leader or facilitator, whether formal or informal, is almost always helpful in ensuring an effective discussion.

A group discussion is a type of meeting, but it differs from the formal meetings in a number of ways: It may not have a specific goal – many group discussions are just that: a group kicking around ideas on a particular topic.  That may lead to a goal ultimately...but it may not. It’s less formal, and may have no time constraints, or structured order, or agenda. Its leadership is usually less directive than that of a meeting. It emphasizes process (the consideration of ideas) over product (specific tasks to be accomplished within the confines of the meeting itself. Leading a discussion group is not the same as running a meeting.  It’s much closer to acting as a facilitator, but not exactly the same as that either.

An effective group discussion generally has a number of elements:

• All members of the group have a chance to speak, expressing their own ideas and feelings freely, and to pursue and finish out their thoughts
• All members of the group can hear others’ ideas and feelings stated openly
• Group members can safely test out ideas that are not yet fully formed
• Group members can receive and respond to respectful but honest and constructive feedback.  Feedback could be positive, negative, or merely clarifying or correcting factual questions or errors, but is in all cases delivered respectfully.
• A variety of points of view are put forward and discussed
• The discussion is not dominated by any one person
• Arguments, while they may be spirited, are based on the content of ideas and opinions, not on personalities
• Even in disagreement, there’s an understanding that the group is working together to resolve a dispute, solve a problem, create a plan, make a decision, find principles all can agree on, or come to a conclusion from which it can move on to further discussion

Many group discussions have no specific purpose except the exchange of ideas and opinions.  Ultimately, an effective group discussion is one in which many different ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered.  This allows the group to accomplish its purpose if it has one, or to establish a basis either for ongoing discussion or for further contact and collaboration among its members.

There are many possible purposes for a group discussion, such as:

• Create a new situation – form a coalition, start an initiative, etc.
• Explore cooperative or collaborative arrangements among groups or organizations
• Discuss and/or analyze an issue, with no specific goal in mind but understanding
• Create a strategic plan – for an initiative, an advocacy campaign, an intervention, etc.
• Discuss policy and policy change
• Air concerns and differences among individuals or groups
• Hold public hearings on proposed laws or regulations, development, etc.
• Decide on an action
• Provide mutual support
• Solve a problem
• Resolve a conflict
• Plan your work or an event

Possible leadership styles of a group discussion also vary.  A group leader or facilitator might be directive or non-directive; that is, she might try to control what goes on to a large extent; or she might assume that the group should be in control, and that her job is to facilitate the process.  In most group discussions, leaders who are relatively non-directive make for a more broad-ranging outlay of ideas, and a more satisfying experience for participants.

Directive leaders can be necessary in some situations. If a goal must be reached in a short time period, a directive leader might help to keep the group focused. If the situation is particularly difficult, a directive leader might be needed to keep control of the discussion and make

Why would you lead a group discussion?

There are two ways to look at this question: “What’s the point of group discussion?” and “Why would you, as opposed to someone else, lead a group discussion?”  Let’s examine both.

What’s the point of group discussion?

As explained in the opening paragraphs of this section, group discussions are common in a democratic society.  There are a number of reasons for this, some practical and some philosophical.

A group discussion:

• G ives everyone involved a voice .  Whether the discussion is meant to form a basis for action, or just to play with ideas, it gives all members of the group a chance to speak their opinions, to agree or disagree with others, and to have their thoughts heard.  In many community-building situations, the members of the group might be chosen specifically because they represent a cross-section of the community, or a diversity of points of view.
• Allows for a variety of ideas to be expressed and discussed .  A group is much more likely to come to a good conclusion if a mix of ideas is on the table, and if all members have the opportunity to think about and respond to them.
• Is generally a democratic, egalitarian process .  It reflects the ideals of most grassroots and community groups, and encourages a diversity of views.
• Leads to group ownership of whatever conclusions, plans, or action the group decides upon .  Because everyone has a chance to contribute to the discussion and to be heard, the final result feels like it was arrived at by and belongs to everyone.
• Encourages those who might normally be reluctant to speak their minds .  Often, quiet people have important things to contribute, but aren’t assertive enough to make themselves heard.  A good group discussion will bring them out and support them.
• Can often open communication channels among people who might not communicate in any other way .  People from very different backgrounds, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, from different cultures, who may, under most circumstances, either never make contact or never trust one another enough to try to communicate, might, in a group discussion, find more common ground than they expected.
• Is sometimes simply the obvious, or even the only, way to proceed.  Several of the examples given at the beginning of the section – the group of parents concerned about their school system, for instance, or the college class – fall into this category, as do public hearings and similar gatherings.

Why would you specifically lead a group discussion?

You might choose to lead a group discussion, or you might find yourself drafted for the task.  Some of the most common reasons that you might be in that situation:

• It’s part of your job .  As a mental health counselor, a youth worker, a coalition coordinator, a teacher, the president of a board of directors, etc. you might be expected to lead group discussions regularly.
• You’ve been asked to .  Because of your reputation for objectivity or integrity, because of your position in the community, or because of your skill at leading group discussions, you might be the obvious choice to lead a particular discussion.
• A discussion is necessary, and you’re the logical choice to lead it .  If you’re the chair of a task force to address substance use in the community, for instance, it’s likely that you’ll be expected to conduct that task force’s meetings, and to lead discussion of the issue.
• It was your idea in the first place .  The group discussion, or its purpose, was your idea, and the organization of the process falls to you.

You might find yourself in one of these situations if you fall into one of the categories of people who are often tapped to lead group discussions.  These categories include (but aren’t limited to):

• Directors of organizations
• Public officials
• Coalition coordinators
• Professionals with group-leading skills – counselors, social workers, therapists, etc.
• Health professionals and health educators
• Respected community members.  These folks may be respected for their leadership – president of the Rotary Club, spokesperson for an environmental movement – for their positions in the community – bank president, clergyman – or simply for their personal qualities – integrity, fairness, ability to communicate with all sectors of the community.
• Community activists.  This category could include anyone from “professional” community organizers to average citizens who care about an issue or have an idea they want to pursue.

When might you lead a group discussion?

The need or desire for a group discussion might of course arise anytime, but there are some times when it’s particularly necessary.

• At the start of something new . Whether you’re designing an intervention, starting an initiative, creating a new program, building a coalition, or embarking on an advocacy or other campaign, inclusive discussion is likely to be crucial in generating the best possible plan, and creating community support for and ownership of it.
• When an issue can no longer be ignored . When youth violence reaches a critical point, when the community’s drinking water is declared unsafe, when the HIV infection rate climbs – these are times when groups need to convene to discuss the issue and develop action plans to swing the pendulum in the other direction.
• When groups need to be brought together . One way to deal with racial or ethnic hostility, for instance, is to convene groups made up of representatives of all the factions involved.  The resulting discussions – and the opportunity for people from different backgrounds to make personal connections with one another – can go far to address everyone’s concerns, and to reduce tensions.
• When an existing group is considering its next step or seeking to address an issue of importance to it . The staff of a community service organization, for instance, may want to plan its work for the next few months, or to work out how to deal with people with particular quirks or problems.

How do you lead a group discussion?

In some cases, the opportunity to lead a group discussion can arise on the spur of the moment; in others, it’s a more formal arrangement, planned and expected.  In the latter case, you may have the chance to choose a space and otherwise structure the situation.  In less formal circumstances, you’ll have to make the best of existing conditions.

We’ll begin by looking at what you might consider if you have time to prepare.  Then we’ll examine what it takes to make an effective discussion leader or facilitator, regardless of external circumstances.

Set the stage

If you have time to prepare beforehand, there are a number of things you may be able to do to make the participants more comfortable, and thus to make discussion easier.

Choose the space

If you have the luxury of choosing your space, you might look for someplace that’s comfortable and informal.  Usually, that means comfortable furniture that can be moved around (so that, for instance, the group can form a circle, allowing everyone to see and hear everyone else easily).  It may also mean a space away from the ordinary.

One organization often held discussions on the terrace of an old mill that had been turned into a bookstore and café.  The sound of water from the mill stream rushing by put everyone at ease, and encouraged creative thought.

Provide food and drink

The ultimate comfort, and one that breaks down barriers among people, is that of eating and drinking.

Bring materials to help the discussion along

Most discussions are aided by the use of newsprint and markers to record ideas, for example.

Become familiar with the purpose and content of the discussion

If you have the opportunity, learn as much as possible about the topic under discussion.  This is not meant to make you the expert, but rather to allow you to ask good questions that will help the group generate ideas.

Make sure everyone gets any necessary information, readings, or other material beforehand

If participants are asked to read something, consider questions, complete a task, or otherwise prepare for the discussion, make sure that the assignment is attended to and used.  Don’t ask people to do something, and then ignore it.

Lead the discussion

Think about leadership style

The first thing you need to think about is leadership style, which we mentioned briefly earlier in the section.  Are you a directive or non-directive leader?  The chances are that, like most of us, you fall somewhere in between the extremes of the leader who sets the agenda and dominates the group completely, and the leader who essentially leads not at all. The point is made that many good group or meeting leaders are, in fact, facilitators, whose main concern is supporting and maintaining the process of the group’s work.  This is particularly true when it comes to group discussion, where the process is, in fact, the purpose of the group’s coming together.

A good facilitator helps the group set rules for itself, makes sure that everyone participates and that no one dominates, encourages the development and expression of all ideas, including “odd” ones, and safeguards an open process, where there are no foregone conclusions and everyone’s ideas are respected.  Facilitators are non-directive, and try to keep themselves out of the discussion, except to ask questions or make statements that advance it.  For most group discussions, the facilitator role is probably a good ideal to strive for.

It’s important to think about what you’re most comfortable with philosophically, and how that fits what you’re comfortable with personally.  If you’re committed to a non-directive style, but you tend to want to control everything in a situation, you may have to learn some new behaviors in order to act on your beliefs.

Put people at ease

Especially if most people in the group don’t know one another, it’s your job as leader to establish a comfortable atmosphere and set the tone for the discussion.

Help the group establish ground rules

The ground rules of a group discussion are the guidelines that help to keep the discussion on track, and prevent it from deteriorating into namecalling or simply argument.  Some you might suggest, if the group has trouble coming up with the first one or two:

• Everyone should treat everyone else with respect : no name-calling, no emotional outbursts, no accusations.
• No arguments directed at people – only at ideas and opinions .  Disagreement should be respectful – no ridicule.
• Don’t interrupt .  Listen to the whole of others’ thoughts – actually listen, rather than just running over your own response in your head.
• Respect the group’s time .  Try to keep your comments reasonably short and to the point, so that others have a chance to respond.
• Consider all comments seriously, and try to evaluate them fairly .  Others’ ideas and comments may change your mind, or vice versa: it’s important to be open to that.
• Don’t be defensive if someone disagrees with you .  Evaluate both positions, and only continue to argue for yours if you continue to believe it’s right.
• Everyone is responsible for following and upholding the ground rules .

Ground rules may also be a place to discuss recording the session.  Who will take notes, record important points, questions for further discussion, areas of agreement or disagreement?  If the recorder is a group member, the group and/or leader should come up with a strategy that allows her to participate fully in the discussion.

Generate an agenda or goals for the session

You might present an agenda for approval, and change it as the group requires, or you and the group can create one together.  There may actually be no need for one, in that the goal may simply be to discuss an issue or idea.  If that’s the case, it should be agreed upon at the outset.

How active you are might depend on your leadership style, but you definitely have some responsibilities here.  They include setting, or helping the group to set the discussion topic; fostering the open process; involving all participants; asking questions or offering ideas to advance the discussion; summarizing or clarifying important points, arguments, and ideas; and wrapping up the session.  Let’s look at these, as well as some do’s and don’t’s for discussion group leaders.

• Setting the topic . If the group is meeting to discuss a specific issue or to plan something, the discussion topic is already set.  If the topic is unclear, then someone needs to help the group define it.  The leader – through asking the right questions, defining the problem, and encouraging ideas from the group – can play that role.
• Fostering the open process . Nurturing the open process means paying attention to the process, content, and interpersonal dynamics of the discussion all at the same time – not a simple matter. As leader, your task is not to tell the group what to do, or to force particular conclusions, but rather to make sure that the group chooses an appropriate topic that meets its needs, that there are no “right” answers to start with (no foregone conclusions), that no one person or small group dominates the discussion, that everyone follows the ground rules, that discussion is civil and organized, and that all ideas are subjected to careful critical analysis.  You might comment on the process of the discussion or on interpersonal issues when it seems helpful (“We all seem to be picking on John here – what’s going on?”), or make reference to the open process itself (“We seem to be assuming that we’re supposed to believe X – is that true?”). Most of your actions as leader should be in the service of modeling or furthering the open process.

Part of your job here is to protect “minority rights,” i.e., unpopular or unusual ideas.  That doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but that you have to make sure that they can be expressed, and that discussion of them is respectful, even in disagreement. (The exceptions are opinions or ideas that are discriminatory or downright false.)  Odd ideas often turn out to be correct, and shouldn’t be stifled.

• Involving all participants . This is part of fostering the open process, but is important enough to deserve its own mention. To involve those who are less assertive or shy, or who simply can’t speak up quickly enough, you might ask directly for their opinion, encourage them with body language (smile when they say anything, lean and look toward them often), and be aware of when they want to speak and can’t break in.  It’s important both for process and for the exchange of ideas that everyone have plenty of opportunity to communicate their thoughts.
• Asking questions or offering ideas to advance the discussion . The leader should be aware of the progress of the discussion, and should be able to ask questions or provide information or arguments that stimulate thinking or take the discussion to the next step when necessary. If participants are having trouble grappling with the topic, getting sidetracked by trivial issues, or simply running out of steam, it’s the leader’s job to carry the discussion forward.

This is especially true when the group is stuck, either because two opposing ideas or factions are at an impasse, or because no one is able or willing to say anything.  In these circumstances, the leader’s ability to identify points of agreement, or to ask the question that will get discussion moving again is crucial to the group’s effectiveness.

• Summarizing or clarifying important points, arguments, or ideas . This task entails making sure that everyone understands a point that was just made, or the two sides of an argument.  It can include restating a conclusion the group has reached, or clarifying a particular idea or point made by an individual (“What I think I heard you say was…”).  The point is to make sure that everyone understands what the individual or group actually meant.
• Wrapping up the session .  As the session ends, the leader should help the group review the discussion and make plans for next steps (more discussion sessions, action, involving other people or groups, etc.). He should also go over any assignments or tasks that were agreed to, make sure that every member knows what her responsibilities are, and review the deadlines for those responsibilities.  Other wrap-up steps include getting feedback on the session – including suggestions for making it better – pointing out the group’s accomplishments, and thanking it for its work.

Even after you’ve wrapped up the discussion, you’re not necessarily through. If you’ve been the recorder, you might want to put the notes from the session in order, type them up, and send them to participants. The notes might also include a summary of conclusions that were reached, as well as any assignments or follow-up activities that were agreed on.

If the session was one-time, or was the last of a series, your job may now be done. If it was the beginning, however, or part of an ongoing discussion, you may have a lot to do before the next session, including contacting people to make sure they’ve done what they promised, and preparing the newsprint notes to be posted at the next session so everyone can remember the discussion.

Leading an effective group discussion takes preparation (if you have the opportunity for it), an understanding of and commitment to an open process, and a willingness to let go of your ego and biases. If you can do these things, the chances are you can become a discussion leader that can help groups achieve the results they want.

Do’s and don’ts for discussion leaders

• Model the behavior and attitudes you want group members to employ . That includes respecting all group members equally; advancing the open process; demonstrating what it means to be a learner (admitting when you’re wrong, or don’t know a fact or an answer, and suggesting ways to find out); asking questions based on others’ statements; focusing on positions rather than on the speaker; listening carefully; restating others’ points; supporting your arguments with fact or logic; acceding when someone else has a good point; accepting criticism; thinking critically; giving up the floor when appropriate; being inclusive and culturally sensitive, etc.
• Use encouraging body language and tone of voice, as well as words .  Lean forward when people are talking, for example, keep your body position open and approachable, smile when appropriate, and attend carefully to everyone, not just to those who are most articulate.
• Give positive feedback for joining the discussion .  Smile, repeat group members’ points, and otherwise show that you value participation.
• Be aware of people’s reactions and feelings, and try to respond appropriately . If a group member is hurt by others’ comments, seems puzzled or confused, is becoming angry or defensive, it’s up to you as discussion leader to use the ground rules or your own sensitivity to deal with the situation. If someone’s hurt, for instance, it may be important to point that out and discuss how to make arguments without getting personal.  If group members are confused, revisiting the comments or points that caused the confusion, or restating them more clearly, may be helpful.  Being aware of the reactions of individuals and of the group as a whole can make it possible to expose and use conflict, or to head off unnecessary emotional situations and misunderstandings.
• Ask open-ended questions .  In advancing the discussion, use questions that can’t be answered with a simple yes or no.  Instead, questions should require some thought from group members, and should ask for answers that include reasons or analysis.  The difference between “Do you think the President’s decision was right?” and “Why do you think the President’s decision was or wasn’t right?” is huge.  Where the first question can be answered with a yes or no, the second requires an analysis supporting the speaker’s opinion, as well as discussion of the context and reasons for the decision.
• Control your own biases .  While you should point out factual errors or ideas that are inaccurate and disrespectful of others, an open process demands that you not impose your views on the group, and that you keep others from doing the same.  Group members should be asked to make rational decisions about the positions or views they want to agree with, and ultimately the ideas that the group agrees on should be those that make the most sense to them – whether they coincide with yours or not.  Pointing out bias – including your own – and discussing it helps both you and group members try to be objective.

A constant question that leaders – and members – of any group have is what to do about racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks, especially in a homogeneous group where most or all of the members except the leader may agree with them.  There is no clear-cut answer, although if they pass unchallenged, it may appear you condone the attitude expressed. How you challenge prejudice is the real question.  The ideal here is that other members of the group do the challenging, and it may be worth waiting long enough before you jump in to see if that’s going to happen.  If it doesn’t, you can essentially say, “That’s wrong, and I won’t allow that kind of talk here,” which may well put an end to the remarks, but isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind.  You can express your strong disagreement or discomfort with such remarks and leave it at that, or follow up with “Let’s talk about it after the group,” which could generate some real discussion about prejudice and stereotypes, and actually change some thinking over time. Your ground rules – the issue of respecting everyone – should address this issue, and it probably won’t come up…but there are no guarantees.  It won’t hurt to think beforehand about how you want to handle it.

• Encourage disagreement, and help the group use it creatively .  Disagreement is not to be smoothed over, but rather to be analyzed and used.  When there are conflicting opinions – especially when both can be backed up by reasonable arguments – the real discussion starts.  If everyone agrees on every point, there’s really no discussion at all.  Disagreement makes people think.  It may not be resolved in one session, or at all, but it’s the key to discussion that means something.

All too often, conflict – whether conflicting opinions, conflicting world views, or conflicting personalities – is so frightening to people that they do their best to ignore it or gloss it over.  That reaction not only leaves the conflict unresolved – and therefore growing, so that it will be much stronger when it surfaces later– but fails to examine the issues that it raises.  If those are brought out in the open and discussed reasonably, the two sides often find that they have as much agreement as disagreement, and can resolve their differences by putting their ideas together.  Even where that’s not the case, facing the conflict reasonably, and looking at the roots of the ideas on each side, can help to focus on the issue at hand and provide solutions far better than if one side or the other simply operated alone.

• Keep your mouth shut as much as possible .  By and large, discussion groups are for the group members.  You may be a member of the group and have been asked by the others to act as leader, in which case you certainly have a right to be part of the discussion (although not to dominate).  If you’re an outside facilitator, or leader by position, it’s best to confine your contributions to observations on process, statements of fact, questions to help propel the discussion, and clarification and summarization.  The simple fact that you’re identified as leader or facilitator gives your comments more force than those of other group members.  If you’re in a position of authority or seen as an expert, that force becomes even greater.  The more active you are in the discussion, the more the group will take your positions and ideas as “right,” and the less it will come to its own conclusions.
• Don’t let one or a small group of individuals dominate the discussion .  People who are particularly articulate or assertive, who have strong feelings that they urgently want to express, or who simply feel the need – and have the ability – to dominate can take up far more than their fair share of a discussion.  This often means that quieter people have little or no chance to speak, and that those who disagree with the dominant individual(s) are shouted down and cease trying to make points.  It’s up to the leader to cut off individuals who take far more than their share of time, or who try to limit discussion.  This can be done in a relatively non-threatening way (“This is an interesting point, and it’s certainly worth the time we’ve spent on it, but there are other points of view that need to be heard as well.  I think Alice has been waiting to speak…”), but it’s crucial to the open process and to the comfort and effectiveness of the group.
• Don’t let one point of view override others , unless it’s based on facts and logic, and is actually convincing group members to change their minds.  If a point of view dominates because of its merits, its appeal to participants’ intellectual and ethical sensibilities, that’s fine.  It’s in fact what you hope will happen in a good group discussion.  If a point of view dominates because of the aggressiveness of its supporters, or because it’s presented as something it’s wrong to oppose (“People who disagree with the President are unpatriotic and hate their country”), that’s intellectual bullying or blackmail, and is the opposite of an open discussion.  As leader, you should point it out when that’s happening, and make sure other points of view are aired and examined.

Sometimes individuals or factions that are trying to dominate can disrupt the process of the group. Both Sections 1 and 2 of this chapter contain some guidelines for dealing with this type of situation.

• Don’t assume that anyone holds particular opinions or positions because of his culture, background, race, personal style, etc .  People are individuals, and can’t be judged by their exteriors.  You can find out what someone thinks by asking, or by listening when he speaks.
• Don’t assume that someone from a particular culture, race, or background speaks for everyone else from that situation .  She may or may not represent the general opinion of people from situations similar to hers…or there may not be a general opinion among them.  In a group discussion, no one should be asked or assumed to represent anything more than herself.

The exception here is when someone has been chosen by her community or group to represent its point of view in a multi-sector discussion.  Even in that situation, the individual may find herself swayed by others’ arguments, or may have ideas of her own.  She may have agreed to sponsor particular ideas that are important to her group, but she may still have her own opinions as well, especially in other areas.

• Don’t be the font of all wisdom .  Even if you know more about the discussion topic than most others in the group (if you’re the teacher of a class, for instance), presenting yourself as the intellectual authority denies group members the chance to discuss the topic freely and without pressure.  Furthermore, some of them may have ideas you haven’t considered, or experiences that give them insights into the topic that you’re never likely to have.  Model learning behavior, not teaching behavior.

If you’re asked your opinion directly, you should answer honestly.  You have some choices about how you do that, however.  One is to state your opinion, but make very clear that it’s an opinion, not a fact, and that other people believe differently.  Another is to ask to hold your opinion until the end of the discussion, so as not to influence anyone’s thinking while it’s going on.  Yet another is to give your opinion after all other members of the group have stated theirs, and then discuss the similarities and differences among all the opinions and people’s reasons for holding them. If you’re asked a direct question, you might want to answer it if it’s a question of fact and you know the answer, and if it’s relevant to the discussion.  If the question is less clear-cut, you might want to throw it back to the group, and use it as a spur to discussion.

Group discussions are common in our society, and have a variety of purposes, from planning an intervention or initiative to mutual support to problem-solving to addressing an issue of local concern.  An effective discussion group depends on a leader or facilitator who can guide it through an open process – the group chooses what it’s discussing, if not already determined, discusses it with no expectation of particular conclusions, encourages civil disagreement and argument, and makes sure that every member is included and no one dominates.  It helps greatly if the leader comes to the task with a democratic or, especially, a collaborative style, and with an understanding of how a group functions.

A good group discussion leader has to pay attention to the process and content of the discussion as well as to the people who make up the group.  She has to prepare the space and the setting to the extent possible; help the group establish ground rules that will keep it moving civilly and comfortably; provide whatever materials are necessary; familiarize herself with the topic; and make sure that any pre-discussion readings or assignments get to participants in plenty of time.  Then she has to guide the discussion, being careful to promote an open process; involve everyone and let no one dominate; attend to the personal issues and needs of individual group members when they affect the group; summarize or clarify when appropriate; ask questions to keep the discussion moving, and put aside her own agenda, ego, and biases.

It’s not an easy task, but it can be extremely rewarding.  An effective group discussion can lay the groundwork for action and real community change.

Online resources

Everyday-Democracy . Study Circles Resource Center. Information and publications related to study circles, participatory discussion groups meant to address community issues.

Facilitating Political Discussions from the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University is designed to assist experienced facilitators in training others to facilitate politically charged conversations. The materials are broken down into "modules" and facilitation trainers can use some or all of them to suit their needs.

Project on Civic Reflection provides information about leading study circles on civic reflection.

“ Suggestions for Leading Small-Group Discussions ,” prepared by Lee Haugen, Center for Teaching Excellence, Iowa State University, 1998. Tips on university teaching, but much of the information is useful in other circumstances as well.

“ Tips for Leading Discussions ,” by Felisa Tibbits, Human Rights Education Associates.

Print resources

Forsyth, D . Group Dynamics . (2006). (4th edition).  Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 

Johnson, D., & Frank P. (2002). Joining Together: Group theory and group skills . (8th edition).  Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

A step-by-step guide to planning a workshop, how to create an unforgettable training session in 8 simple steps, 18 free facilitation resources we think you’ll love.

• 47 useful online tools for workshop planning and meeting facilitation

All teams and organizations encounter challenges as they grow. There are problems that might occur for teams when it comes to miscommunication or resolving business-critical issues . You may face challenges around growth , design , user engagement, and even team culture and happiness. In short, problem-solving techniques should be part of every team’s skillset.

Problem-solving methods are primarily designed to help a group or team through a process of first identifying problems and challenges , ideating possible solutions , and then evaluating the most suitable .

Finding effective solutions to complex problems isn’t easy, but by using the right process and techniques, you can help your team be more efficient in the process.

So how do you develop strategies that are engaging, and empower your team to solve problems effectively?

In this blog post, we share a series of problem-solving tools you can use in your next workshop or team meeting. You’ll also find some tips for facilitating the process and how to enable others to solve complex problems.

Let’s get started! 

How do you identify problems?

How do you identify the right solution.

• Tips for more effective problem-solving

Complete problem-solving methods

• Problem-solving techniques to identify and analyze problems
• Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Closing activities for a problem-solving process.

Before you can move towards finding the right solution for a given problem, you first need to identify and define the problem you wish to solve. 

Here, you want to clearly articulate what the problem is and allow your group to do the same. Remember that everyone in a group is likely to have differing perspectives and alignment is necessary in order to help the group move forward. 

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner. It can be scary for people to stand up and contribute, especially if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Be sure to try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions.

Remember that problem analysis and further discussion are also important. Not taking the time to fully analyze and discuss a challenge can result in the development of solutions that are not fit for purpose or do not address the underlying issue.

Successfully identifying and then analyzing a problem means facilitating a group through activities designed to help them clearly and honestly articulate their thoughts and produce usable insight.

With this data, you might then produce a problem statement that clearly describes the problem you wish to be addressed and also state the goal of any process you undertake to tackle this issue.  

Finding solutions is the end goal of any process. Complex organizational challenges can only be solved with an appropriate solution but discovering them requires using the right problem-solving tool.

After you’ve explored a problem and discussed ideas, you need to help a team discuss and choose the right solution. Consensus tools and methods such as those below help a group explore possible solutions before then voting for the best. They’re a great way to tap into the collective intelligence of the group for great results!

Remember that the process is often iterative. Great problem solvers often roadtest a viable solution in a measured way to see what works too. While you might not get the right solution on your first try, the methods below help teams land on the most likely to succeed solution while also holding space for improvement.

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

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

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

Tips for more effective problem solving

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

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

Clearly define the problem

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

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

Don’t jump to conclusions

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

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

Try different approaches  

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

Don’t take it personally 

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

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

Get the right people in the room

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

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

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

Document everything

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

Bring a facilitator 

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

Develop your problem-solving skills

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

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

Design a great agenda

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

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

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

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

• Six Thinking Hats
• Lightning Decision Jam
• Problem Definition Process
• Discovery & Action Dialogue

Design Sprint 2.0

• Open Space Technology

1. Six Thinking Hats

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

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

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

2. Lightning Decision Jam

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

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

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

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

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

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ)   #action   #decision making   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #innovation   #design   #remote-friendly   The problem with anything that requires creative thinking is that it’s easy to get lost—lose focus and fall into the trap of having useless, open-ended, unstructured discussions. Here’s the most effective solution I’ve found: Replace all open, unstructured discussion with a clear process. What to use this exercise for: Anything which requires a group of people to make decisions, solve problems or discuss challenges. It’s always good to frame an LDJ session with a broad topic, here are some examples: The conversion flow of our checkout Our internal design process How we organise events Keeping up with our competition Improving sales flow

3. Problem Definition Process

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

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

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

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

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

4. The 5 Whys 

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

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

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

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

5. World Cafe

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

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

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

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

6. Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

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

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

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

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

7. Design Sprint 2.0

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

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

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

8. Open space technology

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

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

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

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

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

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

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

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

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

Let’s take a look!

• The Creativity Dice
• Fishbone Analysis
• Problem Tree
• SWOT Analysis
• Agreement-Certainty Matrix
• The Journalistic Six
• LEGO Challenge
• What, So What, Now What?
• Journalists

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

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

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

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

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

10. The Creativity Dice

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

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

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

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

11. Fishbone Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

12. Problem Tree 

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

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

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

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

13. SWOT Analysis

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

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

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

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

14. Agreement-Certainty Matrix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Speed Boat

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

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

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

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

17. The Journalistic Six

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

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

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

18. LEGO Challenge

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

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

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

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

19. What, So What, Now What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. Journalists  

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

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

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

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

Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions 

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to narrow down to the correct solution.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team find consensus, compare possible solutions, and move towards taking action on a particular problem.

• Improved Solutions
• Four-Step Sketch
• 15% Solutions
• How-Now-Wow matrix
• Impact Effort Matrix

21. Mindspin  

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

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

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

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

22. Improved Solutions

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

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

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

23. Four Step Sketch

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

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

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

24. 15% Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

25. How-Now-Wow Matrix

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

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

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

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

26. Impact and Effort Matrix

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

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

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

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

27. Dotmocracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Check-in/Check-out
• Doodling Together
• Show and Tell
• Constellations
• Draw a Tree

28. Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process.

Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute. 

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

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

29. Doodling Together  

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

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

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

30. Show and Tell

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

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

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

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

31. Constellations

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

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

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

32. Draw a Tree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• One Breath Feedback
• Who What When Matrix
• Response Cards

How do I conclude a problem-solving process?

All good things must come to an end. With the bulk of the work done, it can be tempting to conclude your workshop swiftly and without a moment to debrief and align. This can be problematic in that it doesn’t allow your team to fully process the results or reflect on the process.

At the end of an effective session, your team will have gone through a process that, while productive, can be exhausting. It’s important to give your group a moment to take a breath, ensure that they are clear on future actions, and provide short feedback before leaving the space. 

The primary purpose of any problem-solving method is to generate solutions and then implement them. Be sure to take the opportunity to ensure everyone is aligned and ready to effectively implement the solutions you produced in the workshop.

Remember that every process can be improved and by giving a short moment to collect feedback in the session, you can further refine your problem-solving methods and see further success in the future too.

33. One Breath Feedback

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

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

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

34. Who What When Matrix 

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

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

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

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

35. Response cards

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

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

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

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

Save time and effort discovering the right solutions

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

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

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

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

Over to you

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

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

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

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

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

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

Facilitation is more and more recognized as a key component of work, as employers and society are faced with bigger and more complex problems and ideas. From facilitating meetings to big, multi-stakeholder strategy development workshops, the facilitator's skillset is more and more in demand. In this article, we will go through a list of the best online facilitation resources, including newsletters, podcasts, communities, and 10 free toolkits you can bookmark and read to upskill and improve your facilitation practice. When designing activities and workshops, you'll probably start by using templates and methods you are familiar with. Soon enough, you'll need to expand your range and look for facilitation methods and…

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free

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

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

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

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

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

16k Accesses

16 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data sources and search strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eligibility criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data coding design

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

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

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

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

Procedure for extracting and coding data

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

Publication bias test

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

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

Heterogeneity test

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

The analysis of the overall effect size

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

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

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

The analysis of moderator effect size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

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

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

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

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

Implications and limitations

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

Additional information.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

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

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

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

☀️Summer 2024 MTSS Mini Summit: MTSS-Behavior Essentials at Your Fingertips 💙  👉 Sign up now

Data Integrations

NEW: SRSS-IE Integration

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

What Is MTSS?

The multi-tiered system of supports ultimate guide.

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

Get your PDF

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

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

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

What Is the Purpose of MTSS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. MTSS Places a Strong Priority on Prevention

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

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

4. MTSS Improves Student Outcomes Using Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. MTSS Strengthens Capacity Among Educators & Administrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Are MTSS and RTI Similar?

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

A multi-tiered system approach

Universal screening to identify students in need of support

Frequent progress monitoring to track student performance

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

How Is MTSS Different From RTI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multi-Level Prevention System

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

Progress Monitoring

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

Data-Based Decision Making

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

What Does an MTSS Framework Look Like? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are 7 Guiding Principles of MTSS:

MTSS is for ALL students.

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

Leadership is vital .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three types of Response Protocols:

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

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

Data guide instructional decisions.

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

Educators are also respected as diverse learners.

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

MTSS Implementation Fidelity Reference Guide

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

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

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

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

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

3 Types of Response Protocols

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

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

4-Step MTSS Problem Solving Model

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

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

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

Summative Assessments

Universal screening assessments, progress monitoring assessments.

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

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

Tier 1: Core Instruction

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

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

Tier 2: Targeted Group Intervention

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

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

Tier 3: Intensive Individualized Intervention

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

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

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

The key components of successful intervention plans are

Interventions

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

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

PRACTICE SPOTLIGHT

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

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

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

The School Level MTSS Meeting

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

The Grade/Content Team MTSS Meeting

The individual problem-solving mtss meeting.

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

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

MTSS Team Duties Are as Follows: 

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

Review universal screening data;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MTSS Teams: Staff, Roles, and Responsibilities 

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

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

Challenge #1: Analyzing Current Core Curriculum Practices

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

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

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

Are universal screeners being used routinely?

Challenge #2: Creating New MTSS Processes

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge #3: Infrastructure Alignment

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

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

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

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

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

Read more in this article: Infrastructural Alignment for MTSS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenge #5: Managing the Change Management Processes

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

Find exemplars for modeling best practices and collaboration;

Concisely and frequently communicate policy changes;

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

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

Create individual touchpoints with those that may be resistant to change

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

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

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

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

MTSS can help districts:

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

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

Place a strong priority on prevention

Improve student outcomes using research

Integrate academic, behavioral, and social-emotional supports

Strengthen capacity among educators & administrators

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

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

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

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

What Are Some Examples of MTSS?

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

What Is an MTSS Intervention?

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

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

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

What Are the 3 Tiers of RTI?

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

Tier 1: Whole class instruction/core instruction

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

  Tier 2: Small group interventions 

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

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

Tier 3: Intensive interventions

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

How Do You Explain MTSS to Parents?

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

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

MTSS Glossary of Key Terms

Download this MTSS Guide to share with them

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

For more information, check out these resources:

MTSS Guide for Families and Community Members

How To Speak With Families and Communities About MTSS

What Is an MTSS Assessment?

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

Universal Screeners

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

Diagnostic Assessments

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

Progress Monitors

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

Intervention Embedded Assessments

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

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

Formative Assessments

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

Learn more in this article .

What Is the Process of MTSS?

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

What Are the Essential Elements of an Effective Intervention Program?

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

About the Branching Minds Solution

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

Making Protocols Work

Challenge 1. getting it off the ground, challenge 2. pushing through initial discomfort, challenge 3. getting past a plateau, challenge 4. remembering the real goal, authors' notes:.

Two Useful Protocols for Looking at Student Work

The tuning protocol, developed by joseph mcdonald; revised by david allen.

A protocol designed to look at particular teacher-created or school-created tasks, projects, and assessments in order to improve them.

Introduction. Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, norms, and steps.

Presentation. Presenter shares the context for his/her work, supporting documents, and a focusing question for which he/she wants feedback.

Clarifying questions. Participants have an opportunity to ask factual informational questions to better understand the work. Presenter answers briefly.

Examination of the student work. Participants look closely at the presenter's student work samples, as well as task, project, rubric, etc., and prepare to offer warm and cool feedback related to the focusing question. Presenter is silent.

Warm and cool feedback. Participants share feedback. The feedback generally begins with "warm" feedback (observations about how the work relates to the goals), then moves on to "cool" feedback (possible disconnects, gaps, or problems, sometimes phrased in the form of probing questions). Presenter is silent.

Reflection. Presenter reflects on what he or she heard in participants' feedback.

Debrief. Facilitator leads reflection on the process of using the tuning protocol.

The Collaborative Assessment Conference

Developed by steve seidel and colleagues at harvard project zero.

A protocol for learning in-depth about a particular student's understanding, interests, or skills. It provides a structure for teachers to look at a piece of work together, first to determine what it reveals about the student, and then to consider how the student's issues and concerns relate to the teacher's goals for the student. The facilitator begins by reviewing the steps of the protocol as well as group norms.

Getting started. The presenter shares the student work but says nothing about it, the context in which it was created, or the student. Participants observe or read the work in silence, making notes if they choose.

Describing the work. The facilitator asks the group: "What do you see?" Participants respond by describing the work in specific terms, without interpreting or making judgments about the quality of the work. (Presenter listens.)

Raising questions. The facilitator asks, "What questions does this work raise for you?" Participants state any questions they have about the work, the student, the assignment, and the circumstances under which the work was carried out. (Presenter listens.)

Speculating about the student's focus. The facilitator asks, "What do you think the student is working on?" Participants share ideas about the challenges or issues that the student might have focused on as he/she carried out the work. (Presenter listens.)

Hearing from the presenter. The presenter provides his/her perspective on the student's work, describing what he/she sees in it, sharing a bit about the context and responding (if he/she chooses) to one or more of the questions raised. The presenter also comments on anything unexpected that he/she might have heard during the previous steps.

Discussing implications for teaching and learning. The facilitator invites everyone (participants and presenter) to share any ideas or questions that the conversation has raised for them about their own teaching, their students' learning, or ways to support this particular student in future learning.

Debriefing. Facilitator leads the whole group in reflecting on the process of using the protocol.

Tina Blythe is a senior developer at Project Zero and adjunct lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Sh e is coauthor of  Facilitating for Learning: Tools for Teacher Groups of All Kinds  (Teachers College Press, 2015).

David Allen teaches English education at the College of Staten Island, City University of University of New York. He is coauthor of  Facilitating for Learning: Tools for Teacher Groups of All Kinds  (Teachers College Press, 2015).

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., from our issue.

To process a transaction with a Purchase Order please send to [email protected]

Thank you for adding to your shopping cart! Please note, ASCD will be performing necessary website maintenance and upgrades from May 29 through June 2. During this time, we will be unable to finalize purchases. Learn more

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Steps to Effective Problem-solving in Group Homes

Sarah h. ailey.

a Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Arlene M. Miller

Olimpia paun, michael schoeny, tricia johnson, teresa moro, arthur nezu.

b Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA

Tamar Heller

c University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL

Janet Melby

d Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Aggressive/challenging behaviors (A/CB) are a major public health problem for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). A leading reason for psychiatric hospitalizations and incarcerations, such behaviors are costly to the health care system, agencies, and families. Social problem-solving (SPS) training programs for individuals with ID have had positive behavioral results, but most were conducted in clinical or forensic settings. None was a community-based preventive intervention, none examined whether the behaviors decreased in residential and work settings, and none addressed cost-effectiveness. In preliminary work, we modified an effective SPS training program (ADAPT: Attitude, Define, Alternatives, Predict, and Try out), using input from individuals with ID and residential staff, as a community-based preventive intervention that we delivered in group homes (STEPS: Steps to Effective Problem-solving). Individuals with ID have high rates of obesity, and our attention-control condition is a nutrition intervention: Food for Life. We describe the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to: (1) test the efficacy of the STEPS intervention for improving SPS skills and reducing A/CB compared to an attention-control nutrition intervention in group homes; (2) assess the mediating effect of residential staff SPS skills, group-home level SPS skills, and group cohesiveness on the improvement of SPS skills and reductions in A/CB; and (3) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of STEPS. We expect to show that STEPS is a preventive strategy to reduce A/CBs among individuals with ID and improve the cost-effectiveness of their care.

1. Introduction

Aggressive/challenging behaviors (A/CBs), including destruction of property and threat of or real personal injury, are a major public health issue for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and their support systems. Such behaviors among individuals with ID are a leading reason for emergency department visits [ 1 ], psychiatric hospitalizations [ 2 ], and incarcerations [ 3 ]. A single trip to the ED may cost $1,500 or more [ 4 ].

More than 530,000 individuals with ID in the U.S. now live in nonfamily residential facilities, with 77% residing in small group homes (typically 4–6 residents) [ 5 ]. In group homes, residential staff provide assistance with residents’ many needs. The small group home environment can decrease the social distance between residential staff and residents and encourage social networks among individuals with ID [ 6 ]. If provided with appropriate assistance, the group home has potential to be an ideal environment for individuals with ID to obtain A/CB support. Fewer A/CB problems are reported in group homes than in larger facilities [ 7 ], but individuals with ID living in group homes have higher rates of A/CBs than those who live with their families [ 8 – 10 ].

Intellectual disability is characterized by deficits in social problem-solving (SPS), [ 11 , 12 ]. the cognitive and behavioral activities (attitude and style) one uses to recognize, cope with, and find solutions to problems. Individuals with ID who have A/CBs tend to have a negative attitude and to view interpersonal situations as hostile [ 12 ]. Individuals with ID who do not use A/CBs use more assertive responses (rational style) [ 13 ]. Individuals with ID who have A/CBs respond to situations with hostile actions more frequently than non-aggressive individuals with ID, and, in stressful situations, use more aggressive responses (impulsive style) [ 13 ].

SPS training interventions have shown some success in reducing A/CBs among individuals with ID, but were conducted in clinical treatment and forensic settings [ 14 – 20 ]. Our modification, Steps to Effective Problem-Solving (STEPS), is a community preventive intervention. It is a 6-session, 12-week program with one booster session at 18 weeks that uses the group home support system, including residential staff [ 21 ]. STEPS is based on the ADAPT model (Attitude, Define, Alternatives, Predict, and Tryout)[ 12 ]. We pilot tested STEPS in two group homes. Findings from our pilot indicated that individuals with ID could provide examples of problems likely to lead to A/CBs and, with prompting, identify immediate emotional responses likely to trigger A/CBs. Among individuals with ID, the intervention improved SPS skills and decreased A/CBs with effect sizes of d = .6 for each. Residential staff also improved SPS skills with an effect size of d = .6. Findings indicated that SPS interventions can decrease A/CBs and have effects on residential staff skills [ 21 , 22 ].

In this paper, we describe the research protocol for our ongoing clinical trial of STEPS, including development of the intervention, how we identify homes that meet criteria, how we identify individuals with ID and residential staff in the homes who meet criteria, our randomization procedure to the intervention and attention-control nutrition program, and the training and fidelity plans for the clinical trial.

2. STEPS Conceptual Framework

The STEPS Framework ( Figure 1 ) was used in our preliminary work and is now used in our clinical trial. The STEPS Framework is based on the Interaction Model of Client Health Behavior [ 23 , 24 ] and the Relational/Social Problem-Solving Model [ 12 ] which are both grounded in the broad philosophic construct of human agency, which addresses the capacity of humans to adapt, change, make choices, and make things happen by their own actions [ 25 ]. Elements of the STEPS Framework include baseline determinants of the A/CBs of individuals with ID, intervention strategies, the support environment for SPS, and subsequent outcomes (SPS skills and behaviors). The framework specifies that participant outcomes (i.e., SPS and A/CBs) are dynamically related: the greater the improvement of SPS skills, the greater the likelihood of decreased A/CBs.

Steps to Effective Problem-Solving (STEPS) Framework

2.1. Determinants of A/CBs

Background characteristics include demographics, past life events, environment, current health, including depressive symptoms and medication use, and baseline SPS skills.

2.2. Intervention strategies

SPS is made up of two independent but interrelated dimensions: attitude (positive or negative) and style (rational, avoidant, or impulsive) [ 12 ]. The intervention’s strategies are targeted to SPS skills, specifically to increase positive attitude and rational SPS style [ 12 ]. The dimension of attitude includes positive and negative attitudes. Positive attitude involves recognizing problems and their sources and believing in one’s ability to manage or solve problems. Negative attitude involves thinking of problems as a threat, inaccurately describing their sources, and believing that one is unable to solve or manage the problems [ 12 ]. The three SPS styles are rational, avoidant, and impulsive. Defining problems, generating and thinking through alternatives, and systematically carrying out and verifying solutions are part of the rational problem-solving style [ 12 ]. Inaction, dependence, and passivity toward problems are part of the avoidant style. Immediate emotional responses to problems are part of the incomplete, hurried, and careless impulsive style of SPS. Aggressive/challenging behaviors are associated with negative attitude and impulsive SPS styles [ 13 ].

The STEPS intervention affects relationship between the baseline background characteristics and the outcomes of SPS skills and A/CBs. Targeting SPS skills for improvement can reduce A/CB outcomes. Aggressive/challenging behaviors were measured through a coded videotape of a group problem-solving interaction, scores on the General Maladaptive Index, and incident reports.

2.3. Support environment for SPS.

The results of two previous studies addressing A/CBs suggested that outcomes were better for individuals who had a staff member from a program setting accompany them, but staff were not included as an integral part of the interventions [ 26 , 27 ], so the relationship between residential staff SPS skills and the SPS skills and A/CBs of individuals with ID residing in the home is not known. Our study systematically involves residential staff and addresses the mediating effect of residential staff SPS on the SPS skills and A/CBs of individuals with ID living in the home.

Group training in SPS skills may encourage individuals with ID to think about the point of view of others and identify alternatives for problem solutions [ 19 ]. Previous research showed that when individuals with mild or moderate ID living in residential facilities made decisions as a group about common problems, the decision-making skills of the individuals improved [ 28 ]. We measure group SPS from coding a videotape of a group problem-solving interaction. Our study systematically addresses the mediating effect of group SPS skills on the SPS skills and A/CBs of the individuals with ID residing in the homes.

• 2.3.3 Factors in the group environment, such as group cohesiveness, have been shown to affect outcomes of research [ 29 ].

3. Developing the STEPS Intervention

Developing the STEPS intervention took place in two phases: tailoring ADAPT concepts for individuals with ID and their residential staff and piloting the tailored program.

3.1. Tailoring ADAPT model

In our work to develop the STEPS program, we used multiple sequential methods and sought input from four groups of stakeholders to modify and tailor the ADAPT model of SPS as a community preventive intervention for individuals with ID living in group homes. In work previous to developing the STEPS program, we found the views of individuals with ID on their mood and experiences differed from those of their support staff from various settings and caregivers [ 30 – 32 ]. Individuals with ID answer questions about their experiences of depression than staff answer questions about them [30=32]. Also, translating clinical research to community settings included obtaining input from community members on how they understood materials and how they would like interventions delivered [ 33 ]. The multi-step process included that: (1) initial modifications to the ADAPT program were made and the initial STEPS manual was developed, and presented to an advisory committee of 6 residential agency program directors (from 4 different agencies) who were responsible for developing behavioral programs for individuals with ID. Revisions were made based on their feedback. (2) We conducted cognitive interviews with three individuals with ID who lived in group homes and who had a history of A/CBs. Cognitive interviews are a way to get information on how populations understand, process, and respond to information, and on what might not be understandable, and where there might be breakdown in the delivery of a program [ 34 , 35 ]. Our cognitive interviews with individuals with ID provided examples of problems likely to lead to A/CBs and ways the individuals might respond, alternative wording, and ideas for the logistics of the program. Based on the cognitive interviews, further revisions were made to the STEPS manual. (3) Cognitive interviews were conducted with three group home residential staff. (4) After all of the cognitive interviews were completed, an expert panel and a methodological consultant were convened to edit and approve the program used during the pilot study. (5) After the pilot was concluded, we conducted follow-up satisfaction interviews with residents and residential staff who participated in the pilot and further modified the STEPS program. (6) The same three individuals with ID who participated in the cognitive interviews during development of the manual then reviewed the modifications and gave approval to the program [ 21 ]. The intervention was then offered in two homes with high rates of A/CBs to residents and residential staff as a group, with the expectation that the same staff would participate regularly. Each session was approximately one hour in length [ 21 , 22 ].

3.2. STEPS pilot research

Following development of the STEPS manual, a pilot test of the STEPS intervention was conducted using a pre-post design [ 22 ]. Approval for the study was given by the IRB at Rush University Medical Center.

For the pilot, we first recruited two group homes (one male, one female) with high rates of A/CBs. The homes had to have at least an average of one incident report per month over the last three months, and at least 30% of the residents engaged in A/CBs that warranted an incident report.

After recruiting homes, we recruited staff in the home and individuals with ID in the homes. We recruited four staff from the homes (two from each home) and 12 adults with ID, five in a female home and seven in a male home, (out of 14 residents in the two homes).

In the pilot, we used the same measures now being used in the clinical trial ( Table 1 ). The measurement tools measure the elements of the STEPS Framework. It should be noted that the Iowa Family Interactions Rating Scales (IFIRS) [ 36 , 37 ] are used to measure four constructs: (1) individual SPS skills, (2) individual A/CBs, (3) residential staff SPS skills, and (4) group SPS skills. Thus, rating of the IFIRS is an important aspect of our measures. For the IFIRS, a videotape of a problem-solving interaction of the group (individuals with ID and residential staff) is made in each group home. The data collector has the group choose a problem to discuss, including discussing what they think the problem is, what happens, when it happens, who is involved, what they want to happen, what they think are solutions, and what they think are the best solutions. The discussion lasts about 7–11 minutes, and no more than 11 minutes are coded.

Concepts/Measures, Reliability/Validity, Participant Burden, Source, and Data Collection Time Point for Behaviors

The videos are sent to Iowa State University for rating. Rating procedures for the videos include detailed directions on what interaction behaviors to assess, rating frequencies, intensity, affective tone, context of behaviors, and rating the proportions of interactions in which behaviors are displayed. Each item is scored on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all characteristic to 9 = mainly characteristic ). Raters receive intensive and ongoing training. Interrater reliability is measured on 5% of the videotapes. If there is greater than one-point difference between scores on an item, the raters meet to determine a consensus score [ 36 , 37 ]. The IFIRS is a well-established measure that has predictive validity across basic and applied research [ 36 , 37 ]. Research indicates three factors of underlying types of communication in the interactions: negativity (such as anger and hostility), positivity (such as warmth and closeness), and problem-solving effectiveness (evidence of working toward a solution) [ 38 ]. Although observational ratings are costly, because raters are naïve to condition, the IFIRS has the advantage of providing objective ratings of SPS and A/CBs versus subjective self-report or caregiver report. Though raters are naïve to study condition when coding videotapes, it is possible that something within the video may reveal condition. This is expected to be rare and should have minimal impact on the behavioral ratings.

SPS skills are assessed in two ways.

• 3.2.3.1.1 The IFIRS Individual-level Problem-solving Scales [ 36 , 37 ] are used to objectively assess solution quantity, solution quality, effective process, disruptive process, and negotiation/compromise at the individual level from the videotapes (see 3.2.3 for rating of the IFIRS).
• 3.2.3.1.2 The Problem-Solving Task (PST) [ 15 ] is used to objectively measure the problem-solving skills of individuals with ID. This measure has four questions on each of five problem vignettes that measure SPS skills. The vignettes are read by our data collectors to the individuals, and responses are audiotaped. In our preliminary work, graduate nursing students were successfully trained to rate the PST.

Aggressive/challenging behaviors are measured in three ways.

• 3.2.3.2.1 The IFIRS Dyadic-Interaction Scales [ 36 , 37 ] are used to measure hostility, verbal attack, physical attack, contempt, etc. (total 22 items), of each individual with ID. The same procedures are used as above with the IFIRS and scored by staff at Iowa State University.
• 3.2.3.2.2 General Maladaptive Index (GMI; subjective) is part of the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP), an instrument that agencies in this study must use by State regulation [ 39 ]. The GMI was used because it is already part of agency records and is a well-established measure which has good convergent validity with the Behavior Problems Inventory, which in turn has good convergent validity with the Aberrant Behavior Checklist, Diagnostic Assessment for the Severely Handicapped-II, and Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form [ 40 , 41 ]. Qualified Intellectual Disability Professionals at the residential agency and the work setting supervisor (sheltered workshops and employment) are asked to fill out the GMI on participants with ID at the intervals required by our study. The GMI measures the frequency (0 = never to 5 = one or more times an hour ) and severity (0 = not serious to 4 = extremely serious ) of problem behaviors in eight domains (hurtful to self or others, destructive, disruptive, socially offensive, unusual/repetitive, withdrawn/inattentive, uncooperative). The GMI has a mean of 0, SD of 10, and scores above −11 are considered “normal” [ 39 ]. Reported test/retest reliability is 0.80, and inter-rater reliability is 0.80 [ 39 ]. For the purposes of this research, the GMI is scored using ICAP CompuScore software with an algorithm that compares participants’ scores to standardized scores in different age groups.
• 3.2.3.2.3 Incident reports are the third measure (objective) of A/CBs. Incident reports are obtained from agency records. Agency incident reports have common elements, including checklists of key aspects of the incidents (type of problem, who was involved, location of incident, interventions, if third party involvement [police, paramedics], and outcomes [injury, property damage, hospitalization]). Body figures to mark locations of any injuries are included. Residential staff members fill out incident reports. The reports are reviewed by Qualified Intellectual Disability Professionals, kept in resident files, and tracked by the agencies. Data are abstracted from agency tracking records and de-identified. We analyze counts of incidents for outcomes and summarize descriptive data of key elements of the incident reports for the 24 weeks prior to baseline and Weeks 12, 24, and 36 (Week 36 is 24 weeks after the intervention).
• 3.2.3.3.1 Demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, and level of ID) are obtained from agency records. Epidemiologic studies show that, among individuals with ID, A/CBs are more of a problem among males [ 42 ].
• 3.2.3.3.2 Life events Life events are measured by the Life Events section of the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with Developmental Disabilities. Qualified intellectual disability professional staff at the agency respond to this measure [ 43 ]. Among individuals with ID, it is predictive of emergency department visits for A/CBs, of psychopathology, and of psychiatric events [ 44 – 46 ].
• 3.2.3.3.3 Environment includes whether homes are urban/suburban and the number of people living in the homes.
• 3.2.3.3.3 Current health. Current health includes depressive symptoms of individuals with ID and medication management. Depressive symptoms. The Glasgow Depression Scale for People with Learning Disabilities [GDS-LD]) [ 47 ] was developed for use among individuals with ID (called “learning disabilities” in the UK). Items are scored on a 3-point Likert scale, with potential scores ranging from 0–40. In screening for depression, 13 is a useful cutoff score for referral, and, at that score, the GDS-LD has sensitivity ranging 90–96% and specificity ranging 83.9–90% [ 30 , 47 ]. Aggressive/challenging behaviors may be an atypical feature of depression in this population [ 21 ]. Rates of depressive symptoms are as high as 28%−39% in individuals with ID [ 30 , 48 – 50 ], and more common among females [ 51 ]. Medication management. Information on psychotropic medications is gathered from agency records.

This includes the residential staff SPS, group SPS, and group cohesiveness.

The residential staff SPS is measured in two ways. The IFIRS individual-level problem-solving scales [ 36 , 37 ] are the same instrument used with individuals with ID, and are also score for residential staff. Also, a self-report problem-solving measure, the Social Problem-Solving Inventory Revised – Short Form (SPSI-R SF), is used [ 52 ]. The five dimensions of this measure are positive attitude, negative attitude, rational style, impulsive/careless style, and avoidant style.

• 3.2.3.4.2 Group SPS is measured with IFIRS group-level problem-solving scales [ 36 , 37 ]. The scales include problem-solving enjoyment, agreement on problem description/solution, implementation, and problem difficulty for group, and are scored by staff at Iowa State University.
• 3.2.3.4.3 Group cohesiveness is measured using the cohesiveness subscale of the Group Environment for the Intervention Scale (GEIS) [ 29 ]. The GEIS is a 25-item measure of group environments. The three subscales are implementation and preparedness, counterproductive activity, and cohesiveness [ 29 ]. In previous research, GEIS scores related to health behavior outcomes [ 29 ]. In our study, The GEIS is scored by trained research assistants using audiotapes from Sessions 1 and 6. In our pilot study, graduate nursing students were trained to do GEIS rating, and we are doing the same in the clinical trial [ 22 ].

A psychiatric nurse conducted the intervention with a research assistant who was present to help the interventionist during intervention sessions. There were six weekly sessions and one booster session at 12 weeks. All of the sessions lasted about 60 minutes and were conducted in the evenings with the group of adults with ID and the residential staff in their group homes.

The mean age of individuals with ID in the pilot study was 36.6 (SD 10.5). The four residential staff and 5 of the 12 individuals with ID were women. Two residential staff (50%) and three individuals with ID (25%) were minorities. The staff and residents were expected to attend all 7 sessions. One individual with ID dropped out over the 12 weeks due to lack of interest, one residential staff member moved to a different home, and another staff member left the employ of the agency midway through the study. Participants with ID attended 70% of the sessions, and residential staff attended 67%. Both the participants with ID (91%) and residential staff (87%) reported being highly satisfied. The effect size for improvement in social problem skills using the IFIRS was d = .60 for individuals with ID and residential staff. The effect size for decrease in A/CBs exhibited by individuals with ID using the IFIRS was d = .60. Effect sizes for improvement were d = .51 in group-level problem-solving (based on IFIRS scores) and d = 1.43 in cohesiveness (Sessions 1–6) using the cohesiveness subscale of the GEIS [ 29 ]. According to residential staff, the training in breaking down problems and getting to know how individuals with ID related to each other were the most helpful aspects of the intervention [ 22 ].

The results of the pilot study indicated that it was feasible to implement STEPS in a clinical trial within a small community group home with high levels of satisfaction for both adults with ID and residential staff. Based on our work, we finalized the STEPS Framework for our clinical trial (see Figure 1 and explanation in Section 2 ).

4. STEPS Clinical Trial Research

4.1. specific aims and hypotheses.

The specific aims of the STEPS clinical trial are listed below.

Assess the efficacy of the STEPS intervention in group homes to improve social problem-solving skills and reduce A/CBs of individuals with ID compared to the attention-control nutrition intervention: Food for Life. We address this aim by comparing longitudinal data collected four times over 36 weeks (at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 weeks).

• We hypothesize that individuals with ID in the STEPS condition will have: (a) improved social problem-solving skills at 12 and 24 weeks and (b) decreased A/CBs in both group homes and in their work settings (e.g., work centers, shelter workshops, supported employment, and independent community employment) compared to the attention-control condition at 12, 24, and 36 weeks, controlling for behavioral determinants of A/CBs.

Assess the mediating effect of the support environment for SPS (residential staff SPS skills, group home level SPS skills, and group cohesiveness) on the improvement of SPS skills and reductions in A/CBs of the individuals with ID.

• We hypothesize that the support environment for SPS will mediate intervention effects on SPS skills and A/CBs in individuals with ID.

Evaluate cost effectiveness of STEPS relative to usual care for A/CB incidents in group homes.

• We hypothesize that STEPS will be cost-effective, taking into account costs of A/CBs borne by the agencies, health care system, public services, and participant and family, compared to usual care (control group costs of A/CBs excluding the costs of the nutrition intervention).

4.2. Methods

Based on residential staff recommendations and review by residential staff involved in Phases 1 and 2 and our field notes, we developed an orientation manual for residential staff. Based on our experience in the pilot, orientation for residential staff in the clinical trial is conducted before the start of the intervention, and we guide residential staff throughout the program. Also, we now space out the six content sessions over 12 weeks (1 every other week) to allow time to assimilate and practice problem-solving skills, and we have one booster session six weeks later (midway through the maintenance phase, at Week 18). Residential staff suggested that issues such as conflict with relatives are more sensitive, so sessions should start with “easier” issues (e.g., who will sit in the front passenger seat of the van on the way to work) and move to increasingly difficult topics. They also suggested that the research team should ask them about which topics are more sensitive for the residents in the home. For sustainability, and with consultation from our advisory group and others, we also determined to use interventionists with the qualifications of Qualified Intellectual Disability Professionals, not psychiatric nurses. Qualified Intellectual Disability Professionals typically provide service coordination and case management for residents with ID, and are required to have a bachelor’s degree in a human service field with at least one year of experience working with individuals with ID [ 53 ]. Going into the clinical trial, this meant further scripting of the interventions.

The STEPS project uses a two-group intervention, attention-control clinical trial. One group receives the STEPS intervention and the other the Food for Life nutrition intervention. A cluster-randomized clinical trial design is being used, in which 36 group homes (18 male and 18 female) are randomly assigned to either the STEPS intervention ( n = 18; 9 male, 9 female homes) or the attention-control Food for Life condition ( n = 18; 9 male, 9 female homes). We expect to complete 9 rounds of the interventions with four homes in each round. For each round, we plan to have 2 female homes (1 in the STEPS intervention, 1 in the Food for Life intervention) and 2 male homes (1 in the STEPS intervention, 1 in the Food for Life intervention).

Statistical power was estimated using Optimal Design for Longitudinal and Multilevel Research software [ 54 ]. In our preliminary study, an effect size of d = .60 was obtained for improvement in SPS scores of individuals with ID. In a community-based SPS intervention study with a wait-list control group among individuals with personality disorders (and no ID), an effect size of d = .56 [ 55 ] was found (similar to the effect size of d = .6 for changes in SPS in our pilot study). Our baseline data suggests that SPS and A/CBs had site intraclass correlations (ICCs) close to .00. Considering that effect sizes might have been smaller in our pilot data if we had a control group, for the clinical trial, we use the more conservative effect size of d = .56 [ 55 ] for changes in problem-solving. Also, due to the small sample size in our pilot study, an ICC of .02 may be too low; thus, we use a more conservative estimated ICC of .06. With this effect size ( d = .56) and ICC (.06), an average cluster size of four residents, assuming α = .05 and 32 sites, the power of the clinical trial is .81. This represents a sample of 144 Individuals with ID. Based on previous research, we conservatively estimate 20% attrition [ 15 , 55 , 56 ]. Thus, we expect to recruit 180 individuals with ID (an average of 5 per group home × 36 homes) and 36–108 residential staff (1–3 per group home).

The study participants are adults (over age 18) with mild to moderate ID living in group homes located in a major metropolitan area in the United States and the residential staff who work with them. Individuals with mild to moderate ID have an IQ of 50–75 [ 57 ] and basic reading and writing skills ranging from being able to write their names and addresses to writing simple sentences; hold jobs in work centers, supported employment, or independent community employment; may take public transportation independently; and need support in instrumental activities of daily living such as budgeting, making appointments, and nutrition planning. The homes that participate in the STEPS study are gender-specific, and each home generally has two or more residential staff working in the evening. Most of the small community group homes were formerly single-family homes and look like other homes in the neighborhoods.

The inclusion criteria for the group homes are that they have (1) individuals with mild to moderate ID; (2) at least 10 A/CB incident reports during the prior six-months; (3) at least 30% of participants with A/CB incidents during the prior six months;(4) five or more residents; and (5) a minimum of three residents and one residential staff who agree to participate. Group homes are excluded if they exclusively serve individuals with ID who also have serious mental health issues (e.g., schizophrenia or bipolar disorder), homes exclusively for people with ID who are on a forensic program, and homes exclusively for people with ID and autism. (We do not exclude individuals with serious mental illness, who are in forensic programs, and/or who have autism if they live in homes that serve individuals with ID in general).

The inclusion criteria for the individuals with ID include: (1) mild to moderate ID (operationalized as IQ 50–75 [ 57 ] per agency records and mild to moderate limitations in adaptive functioning [measured by the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning [ 39 ]]); (2) aged 18 or older; and (3) able to speak English and communicate verbally.

The inclusion criteria for residential staff include: (1) employed as residential staff in the chosen group homes; (2) aged 18 or older; and (3) able to speak English and communicate verbally.

4.3. Recruitment strategy

We have three steps in recruitment: recruitment of agencies, recruitment of homes, and recruitment of staff and residents in the home. We have two randomization steps, the first being agencies and the second of homes within agencies (See Figure 2 [CONSORT])

CONSORT Flow Diagram for STEPS

We initially approached 11 agencies and received letters of support from all of them. We randomly ordered the 11 agencies for participation. However, some of the agencies that initially agreed to participate in this study have undergone changes that make participation difficult, including state budget cuts that meant that they closed some group homes, residential staff shortages, and merging with other agencies. We were unable to recruit homes at all of the initial 11 agencies. Keeping the initial order for the remaining randomized agencies, the research team are approaching additional local agencies to discuss the research and are randomizing those agencies that agree. We are recruiting until we have a total of 36 homes: 18 in the STEPS condition (9 male and 9 female) and 18 in the Food for Life condition (9 male and 9 female).

Once agencies agree to be sites for the research, agency administrators identify homes that meet our criteria. We next randomize homes that meet criteria. We hope to get at least a cohort of four homes (two of each gender) that meet criteria. Two homes are assigned to STEPS (1 male, 1 female) and 2 to Food for Life (1 male, 1 female). In the event that an agency has fewer than four eligible homes (two for each gender), we randomize the eligible homes with homes from another agency where four homes are also unavailable. If necessary, we adjust ordering of agencies to allow all participating homes within an agency to participate within the same cohort. Group homes (residents and residential staff) are recruited after randomization to simplify the process of explaining the study to individuals with ID.

Once homes are randomized, residential staff are recruited first because there must be at least one residential staff person enrolled from the home to include the residents with ID. Agency administrators first identify staff and then distribute a recruitment flyer and the consent forms for review. Once consent to contact is completed, a research team member meets the staff member to explain the study, confirm eligibility, answer questions, and complete the consent process. If no residential staff are willing to consent to participation, that group home is ineligible and another group home serving the same gender is approached for recruitment.

Once at least one staff member from the home agrees to participate, agency administrators obtain consent to contact from the guardians or individuals who are their own guardian. Then a research team member contacts guardians and individuals with ID who are their own guardians to explain the study and answer questions. If the person is interested, a consent form is given to them. In some cases, the agency administrators prefer to obtain consent and then send the completed consents to the research team. Individuals with ID who are not their own guardians are asked to assent for the study. For individuals with ID, regardless of whether they have a guardian, a research team member uses an assessment informed by Fisher and Cea’s [ 58 ] to assess ability of individuals with ID to consent/assent to participate in the research. Individuals with ID who are unable to consent/assent are not accepted. If fewer than three residents have consent for participation, that group home is ineligible and another group home serving the same gender is approached for recruitment.

4.4. STEPS intervention.

The STEPS intervention is delivered to individuals with ID residing in the group home and their residential staff as one group. In the intervention, there are six sessions delivered over 12 weeks and one booster session at 18 weeks, for a total of 7 sessions. In the sessions, we discuss the aspects of ADAPT. Interventionists have scripted modules for presentation of the materials, and the script is left in the home for staff. The scripted participant manual is aimed at second grade reading level and presents basic concepts with pictures to enhance comprehension of the concepts. The manual includes worksheets for practice between sessions.

Participants are taught ADAPT model content in the following areas: in Session 1, participants are taught to work as a group, and the group process is facilitated by choosing a group name. In Session 2, participants are taught to stop and slow down, to recognize problems, and to be positive about being able to solve or manage the problems. In Session 3, participants learn how to define and break down problems. We cover questions such as whether they consider a problem big or small, whether they can change a problem or need to accept the problem and live with it, whether the problem involves one or many people. In Session 4, participants think about possible alternative ways to solve or deal with their problems and decide what they want to happen and whether that is reasonable. In Session 5, participants work on predicting possible outcomes and try out solutions. The material is cumulative, and each session builds upon the last. Sessions 6 and 7 are a review of all of the previous material. As in the pilot, the intervention sessions last approximately one hour and are generally conducted in the residences after dinner and before evening medications are handed out. Based on our previous work [ 21 , 22 ], at Sessions 2–6, we provide highlights of the previous sessions that are written by the project director and research assistant in consultation with the interventionists using a standardized format developed during our pilot. The highlights are brought to the following session to help with engagement and provide cues for retention of materials. The highlights are only for the residents and residential staff in the group home.

4.6. Attention-control: Food for life nutrition intervention

A nutrition intervention was chosen for the attention-control because nutrition is an issue among individuals with ID. The prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults with intellectual disabilities is higher than that of the general population and reportedly higher among individuals with ID living in community-based settings [ 59 ]. As with the STEPS intervention, the intervention is delivered to the individuals with ID residing in the group home and their residential staff as one group. As with STEPS, there are six sessions over 12 weeks, with a booster session at 18 weeks. Interventionist and participant manuals are standardized, and we cover aspects of My Plate [ 60 ] and recommendations from the American Heart Association on reduction of sugar [ 61 ]. At Sessions 2–6, we provide highlights of the previous sessions that are written by the project director and research assistant in consultation with the interventionists using a standardized format similar to STEPS highlights. For individuals with ID in both STEPS and attention-control Food for Life conditions, we are measuring weight and nutrition knowledge using the Nutrition and Activity Knowledge Scale, a measure specifically developed for individuals with ID [ 62 , 63 ]. For residential staff in both conditions, we are measuring nutrition knowledge and attitudes using two subscales of the USDA Diet and Nutrition Knowledge Survey [ 64 , 65 ].

4.7. Intervention staff

Intervention staff include data collectors, IFIRS problem-solving discussion videography team, interventionists, research assistants for the intervention, and assistants who rate the Problem-solving Task, the GEIS, and Breitenstein’s Fidelity Checklist from audiotapes.

As in the pilot study [ 21 , 22 ], social workers or nurses with experience interview individuals with ID. This is to ensure high-quality data and to have staff able to address any mental health issues that arise during administration of the data collection tools, which include the Glasgow Depression Inventory. Data collectors are separate staff from staff conducting the intervention. The same data collector gathers measurement data for both the intervention and attention-control conditions. Every attempt is made to conceal which condition the participant is in from the data collectors [ 66 ].

• 4.7.2. IFIRS problem-solving discussion videography team (See Section 3.2.3). This team includes a research assistant who facilitates a problem-solving discussion and a videographer.

Different from our pilot, for sustainability, and with consultation from our advisory group and others, we determined to use interventionists with the qualifications of Qualified Intellectual Disability Professionals, not psychiatric nurses. Qualified Intellectual Disability Professionals are required to have a bachelor’s degree in a human service field, with at least one year of experience working with individuals with ID; they typically provide service coordination and case management for residents with ID [ 53 ]. Interventionists are assigned to either the STEPS intervention or the attention-control Food for Life intervention, to minimize cross-over of the interventions.

• 4.7.4. Research assistants are graduate nursing students or assistants with experience in other research. They assist with the interventions by conducting such tasks as bringing materials, assisting with hand-out of highlights, and collecting satisfaction surveys. They are also assigned to either the STEPS intervention or the attention-control Food for Life intervention, to minimize cross-over of the interventions. Research assistants also assist with coding the Problem-Solving Task, the Group Environment for the Intervention Scale, and the Fidelity Checklist.

4.8. Fidelity plan

Treatment fidelity is assessed using the Behavior Change Consortium model [ 67 ], which assesses design, training, delivery, receipt, and enactment. As well, we modified Breitenstein’s Fidelity Checklist [ 68 ] to assess adherence to the STEPS and attention-control Food for Life interventions and competence in delivery.

The intervention has been standardized with scheduled sessions and manuals outlining all session activities and length, facilitating maintenance of fidelity.

Delivery is assessed. All 7 sessions for STEPS and the Food for Life attention-control are digitally audiotaped. We randomly select 25% of session audiotapes for research staff to score with Breitenstein’s Fidelity Checklist and observe in-person 10% of intervention sessions. This information is used to update training of research staff and prevent drift.

Receipt is assessed in two ways. Attendance at the 6 sessions and 1 booster session is tracked. Attendance rates for individuals with ID and residential staff are calculated as the number of sessions attended divided by total number of sessions, based on attendance taken at each session. Reasons for not attending, if known, are collected throughout the intervention from individuals with ID and residential staff, and a log is kept. In addition, using a checklist we developed in our pilot study, we randomly select 25% of audiotaped sessions to determine the number of times each individual participated in discussion of a covered skill and whether the individual gave an example of how he/she used or would use the skill.

• 4.8.4 Enactment is assessed by counting the number of completed and returned practice worksheets (total = 8 per individual with ID). We are writing an amendment to interview residential staff who participated in the intervention and administrative staff who assisted in setting up the intervention from our first two cohorts of homes about their involvement with the intervention, what they think they learned/gained from it, and how easy/hard it was for them to participate.

4.9. Training

The PI and the Project Coordinator (a social worker) train all interventionists, intervention research assistants, and data collectors. All are trained how to deal with adverse events, abuse, high depression scores, respond to suicidal intentions, and defuse and/or manage A/CBs displayed during group sessions or data collection. Standardized training manuals have been developed for (1) interventionists and intervention research assistants; (2) data collectors; and (3) problem-solving task raters. Interventionists and intervention research assistants in both conditions receive four hours of initial training and ongoing training in delivering either the STEPS or Food for Life intervention. Interventionists usually serve as research assistants for a few sessions before taking over the intervention. Members of the research team meet separately with STEPS interventionists and the Food for Life interventionists and research assistants to discuss any implementation issues. Data collectors receive four hours of initial training and ongoing training. The videography team is trained in the videotaping procedures for the Iowa Family Interactions Rating Scales. All training and supervision of data collectors and video data collectors is conducted separately from that of intervention staff. For staff coding the Problem-solving Task, the Group Environment for the Intervention Scale and Breitenstein’s Fidelity Checklist (all coded from audiotapes), training takes place with pre-scored audiotapes until at least 80% congruence with scores is achieved, and 15% of scores are checked for interrater reliability. Training of staff is ongoing to reinforce procedures. We keep and review notes of the training sessions and of research team meetings about training.

5. Data Analytic Plan

5.1. data analysis.

Data are entered into the REDCap database. Data management and analyses are conducted using SPSS for Windows (v. 24) and SAS (v. 9.4). Descriptive statistics for all variables are obtained, and t tests and chi-square analyses are performed on demographics, baseline life events, environment, and current health (depression symptoms and medication management) to verify that intervention and control groups are comparable. Missing data are imputed using SAS software using the multiple imputation strategy described by Rubin [ 69 ]. While we expect that all of the outcome measures will be close to normally distributed based on previous research, Tukey’s ladder of transformation [ 70 ] will be used to achieve normality as needed. If an outcome measure cannot be successfully transformed to achieve normality, it will be analyzed separately using the generalized multilevel analysis available in SAS.

• 5.1.1 Specific aim 1 is to assess the efficacy of the STEPS intervention in group homes to improve social problem-solving skills and reduce A/CBs of individuals with ID compared to the attention-control Food for Life nutrition intervention. Because multiple dependent variables are being examined, a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance is being conducted to ensure control of experiment-wise α and to perform an initial assessment of intervention effects [ 71 ]. Intervention efficacy on individual measures of SPS skills and A/CBs of individuals with ID are calculated using a multilevel model with assessment. This assessment is nested within individuals nested within group homes. All analyses are performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Intervention condition is dummy-coded (treatment vs. control) at the level of the group home. To control for the effects of background characteristics on the intervention, measures associated with background variables are entered into the model as two propensity measures: one based on individual measures, and one based on group home measures. We use a two-level propensity analysis, a well-validated statistical approach useful in balancing groups on observed covariates, so that analyses of treatment effects are more accurate [ 72 ]. If a propensity measure has a nonsignificant effect, it is discarded; if significant, it is included in the final model. Categorical covariates (e.g., gender, ethnicity) are dummy-coded and entered into the model as a block. Propensity scores are estimated using individual participant (e.g., age, length of residence) and group home level measures (e.g. location [urban or suburban] and number of residents in the home) that could influence outcomes. We also check for differences in baseline SPS and A/CBs by agency and by interventionist; when found, we enter these into the propensity score analysis. This final set of variables (the direct predictors) constitute an optimal model for assessing each outcome measure.

Aim 2 is to assess the mediating effect of the support environment for SPS (residential staff SPS skills, group home level SPS skills, and group cohesiveness) on the improvement of SPS skills and reductions in the A/CBs of the individuals with ID. We expect the support environment for SPS (residential staff SPS, group SPS, and group cohesiveness) to mediate improvements that occur in the individuals with ID. To assess the mediating effects, we are modifying MacKinnon’s [ 73 ] regression models, which generate three regression equations and then examine the impact of a single mediator in terms of reduced variance explained in the outcome from the direct predictor variable when the mediator variable is included in the model. The same approach is used in this analysis, except that we examine multilevel regression instead of simple regression models [ 74 , 75 ]. With this modified approach, we estimate three sets of regression equations for each of the three potential mediators making up the support environment for SPS, crossed with each measure of SPS skills and A/CBs of individuals with ID. Intervention conditions are included as predictor variables in these mediation models. The first set of regression equations estimates the simple effect of the intervention on the SPS skills and A/CBs of the individuals with ID (Aim 1). The second set estimates the effect of the intervention on the mediator variables (residential SPS, group SPS, or group cohesiveness). The third set estimates the combined effects of the intervention and mediators on the group measures of SPS skills and A/CBs of the individuals with ID. We examine the impact of the change in the estimated coefficients associated with the introduction of each mediator. Significant mediators are left out of subsequent models because of concerns about collinearity. Retention of a significant mediator may make it difficult to detect mediation effects in subsequent analyses. Though several mediation models are being estimated in this aim, the analysis is based on the assumption that significance values are of limited use in analysis to find mediation effects [ 76 ]. Our analyses allows us to evaluate whether the support environment for SPS mediates the relation between the intervention and the outcomes and should give us information about which mediation variables are responsible for the effect [ 77 , 78 ].

Aim 3 is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of STEPS relative to usual care for A/CBs incidents in group homes. This includes the cost from the societal perspective, taking into account costs borne by the program, group home, health care system, public services, participant, and family. The STEPS intervention is compared to usual care (control group costs of A/CBs excluding costs of the nutrition intervention). We conduct additional analyses separately from the perspective of the program, group home, health care system, public services, and participant. For cost measurement, the quantities of resources used and their associated prices are collected for the program (either prices paid or value of residential and administrative staff time), group home (value of residential and administrative staff time) and participant (value of participant’s time to participate in STEPS). For the effectiveness measurement, effectiveness is measured using the number of A/CB incidents. We also quantify the cost of each A/CB incident to calculate the net cost (or savings) of STEPS relative to standard of care. A/CB costs include for group home, participant and family members, public service (value of police officer time, ambulance), and health care system (cost per hospital emergency room visit, urgent care or other physician visit, hospitalization) costs. To calculate total program-related costs, the program, group home, and participant costs are summed to calculate total cost per participant. Similarly, total A/CB costs are summed across the group home, participant and family, public service and health care system. All costs are valued in 2016 dollars. Data for the cost-effectiveness analysis are drawn from study records and incident reports, which include such issues as how many phone calls were necessary, if staff meetings were necessary, if physicians were contacted. Cost-effectiveness is evaluated by combining the mean total program-related cost per participant with the number of A/CBs. We calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for STEPS relative to usual care, such that ICER = (C1 − C0)⁄(E1 − E0), where C is program cost and E is effectiveness. Subscript 1 denotes STEPS and subscript 0 denotes usual care. 95% confidence intervals for the ICERs will be calculated to evaluate the uncertainty of these results [ 77 – 79 ]. We conduct one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses for the key parameters to evaluate whether the ICERs are sensitive to plausible changes in their values. The sensitivity analysis is a check on the robustness and determines the key parameters affecting the ICERs. We also plot acceptability curves based on varying threshold (willingness to pay) values for a one-incident reduction in the number of A/CBs. Also, because A/CB incident costs are collected, we calculate the net cost (or net savings) associated with the STEPS intervention, such that the net cost = program-related cost – A/CB incident cost.

6. Limitations and Challenges

Potential limitations in the clinical trial include:

• Although we are assessing the mediation effects of the support environment for social problem-solving in our analysis, we are using an attention-control condition rather than an assessment-only control, which may affect our findings.
• The attention-control group may also be affected by being in a group intervention. To minimize this, we trained the interventionists for the Food for Life nutrition intervention separately from the STEPS interventionists. In their training, these interventionists focused exclusively on the nutrition content and not on group process.
• The assessment process may affect the social problem-solving skills of residents and residential staff and the A/CBs exhibited by residents. To minimize this possibility, no feedback is given on responses to the data collection measures, and problem-solving is not practiced in the assessment process.
• Incident reports are filled out by residential staff and reviewed by administrative staff. Bias in reporting by residential staff based on intervention condition is possible. However, the potential for bias is mitigated because community agencies have preexisting internal protocols for reporting incidents. During the initial discussions with agency administrators and residential staff participants, we explicitly instruct them to continue to use their existing protocols. In addition, we are collecting data on behaviors from non-residential (day or work program) staff where informants are naïve to study conditions.
• We have chosen to randomize the homes prior to recruitment so that individuals with ID can be told about the intervention to which they are assigned. While randomization after recruitment and baseline data collection would be ideal, having to explain both conditions and the idea of random assignment to a condition would likely be confusing for adults with ID.

7. Discussion

The clinical trial of the STEPS intervention is an ongoing evidence-based, preventive intervention to decrease aggressive and challenging among people with ID. This intervention is an important step because previous studies using social problem-solving interventions with people with ID were conducted in clinical and forensic settings. In the STEPS project, adults with ID and staff in small community residences receive the intervention together in the home. By systematically involving residential staff in this intervention, we are able to test the mediating effects of the STEPS intervention on improvement in social problem-solving and decrease in A/CBs for both individuals with ID and the home as a whole. We are also able to look at the impact the STEPS intervention has on group cohesiveness. If the clinical trial data validate our hypotheses, the STEPS intervention will be an efficient, innovative, and cost-effective preventive intervention that will successfully reduce A/CBs for people with ID in small community group home settings. In addition, this intervention has the potential to reduce the public health impact that these behaviors have on individuals with ID and their caregivers.

Acknowledgments

This study is funded by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Institutes of Health 1R01HD086211-01A1.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

• Intervention

Understanding the MTSS Problem-Solving Process: What You Need to Know

The terms MTSS (Multi-Tier System of Supports) and RTI (Response to Intervention) are often used interchangeably among educators, but the truth is these two frameworks are NOT one in the same. MTSS is a set of evidence-based practices implemented across a system to meet the needs of all learners (Kansas Multi-Tier System of Supports [MTSS]: Academic Structuring Guide, 2011). The MTSS framework is broader than Response to Intervention or a problem-solving process alone. It establishes a paradigm of support service delivery focused on leadership, professional development, and empowering culture within the context of assessment, curriculum, and instruction.

Within this system, there are typically three tiers of supports where students receive instruction and interventions to help them on their path to achievement. Determining the appropriate interventions for each student is vital to the success of this system, and MTSS utilizes a data-driven decision-making process to aid in those determinations.

The MTSS problem-solving process consists of four important steps:

Define the problem or goal

Analyze the problem and relevant data

Implement an intervention plan

Evaluate the intervention for effectiveness

1.  Define the problem

The first step in the decision-making process determines the goal and direction of the rest of the process. A team must identify what problem needs to be solved—such as lack of adequate academic progress or a non-academic situation such as poor attendance or behavior. Teams may look at the difference between the desired outcome in an area and the actual performance of a student in order to select the appropriate problem to highlight.

2.  Analyze the data

MTSS is a system driven by data. After a problem has been defined, it is necessary to review the data to determine the cause. The cause could be a specific skill deficit or various gaps in a particular domain of learning, or, alternatively, it could be based on a non-academic factor. In the second step of the problem-solving process, team members gather relevant information and data and then analyze it to not only determine the problem, but also pinpoint what barriers may exist to successfully achieving the goal.

The ICEL/RIOT matrix is a useful tool for identifying the proper type of data needed for decision-making.  

ICEL stands for four domains of learning to be assessed during the problem-solving process:

I  - Instruction

C - Curriculum

E - Environment

L - Learner  

RIOT includes four potential sources of data:

R - Review of records

I - Interviews of key stakeholders who are familiar with the student

O - Observation of student in a regular setting

T - Test student using various methods of measurement

The data collected provides a good overview of the student’s needs and is helpful in explaining the occurrence of a problem. It also serves as a foundation for designing an appropriate intervention plan in the next step of the process.

3.  Implement an intervention plan

Having focused on the process of defining the problem and analyzing the data, the problem-solving team is then ready to design and implement an intervention plan that is appropriate for a student’s specific needs as shown by the data.

The Florida Department of Education identifies specific criteria for interventions in “A Teacher’s Guide to Problem Solving Within the MTSS Framework.” These specific criteria indicate that interventions should:

Consist of evidence-based programs, strategies, and techniques

Be delivered with integrity and fidelity

Allow for intensified instruction

Be implemented for a sufficient time and an evaluated frequently, and be integrated across the tiers

Using the problem-solving process for decision-making allows for interventions to be designed to address the unique needs and situation of each student, and provides for flexibility in both intensity and implementation of a plan. Frequent progress-monitoring during implementation is important for proper execution of the last step of the process—evaluating the intervention.

4.  Evaluate the intervention

After spending time to create and implement an intervention, it is essential for teams to spend time evaluating. In this step, the decision-making team must determine if the intervention was considered successful and whether the student responded well to the intervention strategy.

If the data is showing adequate progress, the team can decide if continuing the intervention is necessary. If the data is not showing as much progress as expected, team members can make changes to the intervention plan. If evaluation shows that the intervention was not successful, the team can re-engage in the problem-solving process to complete further analysis of both the problem and the data to ensure that proper interventions are put in place.  

The MTSS problem-solving process allows teams to determine the appropriate interventions within a multi-tiered structure to provide for the academic and non-academic needs of all students. Each step of the process is necessary for ensuring that students are given the right interventions at the right time, allowing for the best possible path to achievement.

You Might Also Like

Illinois Illuminated: Reading Revolution in The Land of Lincoln

The Prairie State’s innovative Comprehensive Literacy Plan ushers in a new educational framework and reshapes all future reading instruction. Discover what this inevitable transition means for your district and what you can do now to prepare for the state’s guidelines.

What the Science of Reading Is Not

Discover the truth behind common misconceptions in education. Is reading natural? Can you purchase the science of reading? And is it all about phonics? Gain insight from educational professional Jeanne Schopf about reshaping teaching practices for student success.

Five Reasons Your District Needs to Adopt the Science of Reading

Read five compelling research-backed reasons why embracing the science of reading is paramount to student success and learn how to improve literacy outcomes, ensure compliance, and see academic gains in your district with this evidence-based methodology.

A Cambium Learning® Group Brand

Initial Thoughts

Perspectives & resources, what procedures do you think rosa parks elementary is using to provide services to struggling students why are school personnel dissatisfied with this process (opinion question: no resources), what approaches are available to schools to help struggling readers and to efficiently identify students who need special education services.

• Page 1: Struggling Readers
• Page 2: The IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Model
• Page 3: The Response-to-Intervention Approach (RTI)

What other information might a school find helpful when choosing which approach to adopt?

• Page 4: The Rationale for RTI: Early Intervening and Identification of Learning Disabilities

Page 5: Approaches to RTI

What steps might the s-team propose to help its struggling readers.

• Page 6: Steps to This RTI Approach
• Page 7: The Rosa Parks RTI Framework
• Page 8: Practice with the Tiers
• Page 9: References & Additional Resources
• Page 10: Credits

Click on the movie below and find out what other choices the S-Team has to make about RTI (time: 0:40).

View Transcript

Transcript: Other Choices

The S-Team members now think that RTI might solve the problems they have faced trying to expedite help to students with weak reading skills. They also think that RTI may well solve many of their frustrations with the current method for identifying students with learning disabilities. But the S-Team has more decisions to make. Ms. Jacobs tells her colleagues that there are a couple approaches to RTI being used across the country and even in different districts in their state. Before moving forward, the team needs to learn more about the two basic approaches to RTI. One is called the problem-solving approach; the other is called the standard protocol approach.

If a school or district elects to utilize an RTI approach to intervene early and to identify students with learning disabilities, the federal government requires a multi-tiered model, though it does not specify a requisite set of procedures. Because of this, many options are available for the implementation of RTI, though in general two basic approaches to RTI are followed. These are described below.

Descriptions of Two RTI Approaches

The two most commonly used RTI approaches are problem solving and standard protocol . Although these two approaches are sometimes described as being very different from one another, they actually have several elements in common. In practice, many schools and districts combine or blend aspects of the two approaches to fit their needs. Regardless, to better understand them, these two approaches are described separately.

The Problem Solving Approach to RTI

• Identify the problem and determine its cause
• Develop a plan to address the problem
• Implement the plan
• Evaluate the plan’s effectiveness

The utilization of a team for selecting interventions and making decisions allows for more brainstorming and flexibility throughout the problem solving approach process. Because the school-based team has a wide variety of intervention options from which to choose, a student can receive instruction that is aligned more closely with his or her individual or specific academic needs. On the other hand, the quality of the instruction depends on the skills, knowledge, and training of the team personnel who plan each individualized program.

Click here to learn more about the Problem Solving Approach.

Universal Screening or Class-Wide Assessment. Universal screenings are used to identify students’ current levels of academic achievement. Students whose achievement is less than desired are identified.

Tier 1: Class- or School-Wide Interventions (Primary Prevention) . All students receive high-quality classroom instruction using empirically validated techniques. Students receive frequent progress monitoring of academic skills, and those who do not meet desired benchmarks become eligible for Tier 2 services.

empirically validated

Condition or characteristic of having been proven through high-quality research to be accurate or to produce positive results.

Tier 2: Targeted Interventions (Secondary Prevention) . Students who do not make adequate progress in response to Tier 1 instruction receive more targeted instruction (i.e., Tier 2). The school-based team selects individually tailored, evidence-based interventions because it is assumed that each student will respond to an intervention differently. Students with similar needs, as identified by the assessments, can receive small-group instruction together. For example, students who exhibit phonemic awareness difficulties can be grouped together, while students with fluency problems can receive separate small-group instruction. Student progress is monitored frequently (1-2 times per week) in order to determine the effectiveness of the intervention plan. Interventions are not implemented for set periods of time but, rather, are modified or discontinued based on student progress data.

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions (Tertiary Prevention) . State and district policies determine the options at Tier 3. In one option, students who still do not make adequate progress in response to Tier 2 instruction can receive more intensive instruction. A school-based team makes decisions about the validated techniques used to provide more intensive instruction. In another option, students receive special education services if abbreviated or comprehensive evaluation results verify the existence of a disability.

Standard Protocol Approach to RTI

The second major approach is called the standard protocol approach (sometimes referred to as standard treatment protocol ) and is supported by a strong research base. The words standard (that is, consistent, the same for all students) and protocol (that is, predetermined format or delivery system) describe this approach to RTI. This option uses one validated intervention, selected by the school, to improve the academic skills of its struggling students.

To learn more about the Standard Protocol Approach, click here.

Universal Screening or Class-Wide Assessment . Universal screenings are used to identify students’ current levels of academic achievement. Students whose achievement is less than desired are identified.

Tier 2: Targeted Interventions (Secondary Prevention) . The standard protocol provides all students receiving Tier 2 with the same, empirically validated intervention. This intervention is often provided in a small-group setting for a set period (anywhere between 10–20 weeks), with frequent progress monitoring. Students within the small groups may possess heterogeneous or homogeneous skills. Typically, the validated standard protocol includes instruction in several sets of skills so that each child’s needs can be met, even with heterogeneous grouping. For example, a small group might include one student who has problems with reading fluency, another who has poor phonemic awareness, and another who has difficulties with phonics skills. The intervention the group members receive is the same, with time devoted to each skill area (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension).

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Interventions (Tertiary Prevention) . State and district policies determine the options at Tier 3. In one of these, students who still do not make adequate progress with Tier 2 intervention can receive more intensive interventions. In another option, students receive special education services if abbreviated or comprehensive evaluation results verify the existence of a disability.

Because a single, consistent intervention is used, it is easier to ensure accurate implementation or fidelity . Additionally, a variety of support staff (such as paraprofessionals, tutors, or parent volunteers) can deliver the instruction; however, it is critical that they receive comprehensive training before assuming their instructional responsibilities. They also need to receive ongoing support and professional development while implementing the standard protocol procedures to ensure that the intervention is correctly provided.

The degree to which an intervention is implemented accurately, following the guidelines of its developers.

Comparison Between Problem Solving and Standard Protocol

The table below reviews some key features of these two basic approaches to RTI. Notice that both utilize universal screening, multiple tiers, early intervening services, validated interventions, and student progress monitoring to inform decisions. The main differences between the two approaches (also highlighted in the table) lie in how instructional decisions and placement are made and in the number of interventions used with individual students.

Let’s highlight some of the major points found in the table comparing the problem solving and the standard protocol approaches:

Major Similarities:

• The use of validated practices in the core classroom instruction
• The provision of instructional intervention to those who need it early
• Progress monitoring to inform decision making
• Evidence-based interventions in multiple tiers/ phases
• Reduced inappropriate referrals for special education services

Major Differences:

• Teams, not instructors, making instructional and placement decisions
• The number of interventions used with individual students

Click to hear Sharon Vaughn’s perspective on a balanced approach to RTI (time: 1:55).

Sharon Vaughn, PhD Professor of special education Director of the Vaughn Gross Reading Center University of Texas, Austin

Transcript: Sharon Vaughn, PhD

It seems to me that there are several advantages to standard protocols. Perhaps most important, we have evidence that standard protocols have demonstrated effectiveness with the majority of students at risk. And, when these approaches are ineffective, we then have greater confidence that the students for whom they were less successful really require a special education or special instruction. Thus, when students don’t respond to these standard protocols, it could be for reasons other than lack of instruction. That’s why I advantage standard protocols when providing response-to-intervention. In my judgment, it doesn’t mean that people want to give up the interactive problem-solving process of thinking as a professional community for children and about what practices make sense for these students. Nor does it mean that we will do all of these in the absence of considering the context in which children learn, and the context of classrooms, communities, and teachers. But I do think schools that lead without a standard protocol type are vulnerable because they do not provide reliable information about discerning whether risk is a result of poor instruction or whether students have special needs. At this time, we simply do not know enough to say there is just one answer or one approach. It actually reminds me of a joke that people say which is, “You know, before I had any children, I had one theory about child rearing. But after I had three children, I had fifteen theories about child rearing.” And I think it’s very much the same thing with RTI. We can come up with one idea about how Tier 2 and Tier 3 are going to work, and then as we start implementing it, the craft knowledge from expert professionals with the day-to-day problems that come up with real children in real settings will give us the opportunity to adjust these approaches.