teaching approach in problem solving

Don’t Just Tell Students to Solve Problems. Teach Them How.

The positive impact of an innovative uc san diego problem-solving educational curriculum continues to grow.

Daniel Kane - [email protected]

Published Date

Not getting stuck

One of the overarching goals of this project is to teach both problem-identification and problem-solving skills that help students avoid getting stuck during the learning process. Stuck feelings lead to frustration – and when it’s a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) project, that frustration can lead students to feel they don’t belong in a STEM major or a STEM career. Instead, the UC San Diego curriculum is designed to give students the tools that lead to reactions like “this class is hard, but I know I can do this!” – as Ogo, a celebrated high school biomedical sciences and technology teacher, put it.

Three years into the curriculum development effort, the light-hearted energy of the students combined with their intense focus points to success. On the last day of the class, Mourad Mjahed PhD, Director of the MESA Program at Southwestern College’s School of Mathematics, Science and Engineering came to UC San Diego to see the final project presentations made by his 22 MESA students.

“Industry is looking for students who have learned from their failures and who have worked outside of their comfort zones,” said Mjahed. The UC San Diego problem-solving curriculum, Mjahed noted, is an opportunity for students to build the skills and the confidence to learn from their failures and to work outside their comfort zone. “And from there, they see pathways to real careers,” he said.

What does it mean to explicitly teach problem solving?

This approach to teaching problem solving includes a significant focus on learning to identify the problem that actually needs to be solved, in order to avoid solving the wrong problem. The curriculum is organized so that each day is a complete experience. It begins with the teacher introducing the problem-identification or problem-solving strategy of the day. The teacher then presents case studies of that particular strategy in action. Next, the students get introduced to the day’s challenge project. Working in teams, the students compete to win the challenge while integrating the day’s technique. Finally, the class reconvenes to reflect. They discuss what worked and didn't work with their designs as well as how they could have used the day’s problem-identification or problem-solving technique more effectively.

The challenges are designed to be engaging – and over three years, they have been refined to be even more engaging. But the student engagement is about much more than being entertained. Many of the students recognize early on that the problem-identification and problem-solving skills they are learning can be applied not just in the classroom, but in other classes and in life in general.

Gabriel from Southwestern College is one of the students who saw benefits outside the classroom almost immediately. In addition to taking the UC San Diego problem-solving course, Gabriel was concurrently enrolled in an online computer science programming class. He said he immediately started applying the UC San Diego problem-identification and troubleshooting strategies to his coding assignments.

Gabriel noted that he was given a coding-specific troubleshooting strategy in the computer science course, but the more general problem-identification strategies from the UC San Diego class had been extremely helpful. It’s critical to “find the right problem so you can get the right solution. The strategies here,” he said, “they work everywhere.”

Phan echoed this sentiment. “We believe this curriculum can prepare students for the technical workforce. It can prepare students to be impactful for any career path.”

The goal is to be able to offer the course in community colleges for course credit that transfers to the UC, and to possibly offer a version of the course to incoming students at UC San Diego.

As the team continues to work towards integrating the curriculum in both standardized high school courses such as physics, and incorporating the content as a part of the general education curriculum at UC San Diego, the project is expected to impact thousands more students across San Diego annually.

Portrait of the Problem-Solving Curriculum

On a sunny Wednesday in July 2023, an experiential-learning classroom was full of San Diego community college students. They were about half-way through the three-week problem-solving course at UC San Diego, held in the campus’ EnVision Arts and Engineering Maker Studio. On this day, the students were challenged to build a contraption that would propel at least six ping pong balls along a kite string spanning the laboratory. The only propulsive force they could rely on was the air shooting out of a party balloon.

A team of three students from Southwestern College – Valeria, Melissa and Alondra – took an early lead in the classroom competition. They were the first to use a plastic bag instead of disposable cups to hold the ping pong balls. Using a bag, their design got more than half-way to the finish line – better than any other team at the time – but there was more work to do.

As the trio considered what design changes to make next, they returned to the problem-solving theme of the day: unintended consequences. Earlier in the day, all the students had been challenged to consider unintended consequences and ask questions like: When you design to reduce friction, what happens? Do new problems emerge? Did other things improve that you hadn’t anticipated?

Other groups soon followed Valeria, Melissa and Alondra’s lead and began iterating on their own plastic-bag solutions to the day’s challenge. New unintended consequences popped up everywhere. Switching from cups to a bag, for example, reduced friction but sometimes increased wind drag.

Over the course of several iterations, Valeria, Melissa and Alondra made their bag smaller, blew their balloon up bigger, and switched to a different kind of tape to get a better connection with the plastic straw that slid along the kite string, carrying the ping pong balls.

One of the groups on the other side of the room watched the emergence of the plastic-bag solution with great interest.

“We tried everything, then we saw a team using a bag,” said Alexander, a student from City College. His team adopted the plastic-bag strategy as well, and iterated on it like everyone else. They also chose to blow up their balloon with a hand pump after the balloon was already attached to the bag filled with ping pong balls – which was unique.

“I don’t want to be trying to put the balloon in place when it's about to explode,” Alexander explained.

Asked about whether the structured problem solving approaches were useful, Alexander’s teammate Brianna, who is a Southwestern College student, talked about how the problem-solving tools have helped her get over mental blocks. “Sometimes we make the most ridiculous things work,” she said. “It’s a pretty fun class for sure.”

Yoshadara, a City College student who is the third member of this team, described some of the problem solving techniques this way: “It’s about letting yourself be a little absurd.”

Alexander jumped back into the conversation. “The value is in the abstraction. As students, we learn to look at the problem solving that worked and then abstract out the problem solving strategy that can then be applied to other challenges. That’s what mathematicians do all the time,” he said, adding that he is already thinking about how he can apply the process of looking at unintended consequences to improve both how he plays chess and how he goes about solving math problems.

Looking ahead, the goal is to empower as many students as possible in the San Diego area and beyond to learn to problem solve more enjoyably. It’s a concrete way to give students tools that could encourage them to thrive in the growing number of technical careers that require sharp problem-solving skills, whether or not they require a four-year degree.

Campus & Community

Arts & culture, visual storytelling.

Media Resources & Contacts

Signup to get the latest UC San Diego newsletters delivered to your inbox.

Award-winning publication highlighting the distinction, prestige and global impact of UC San Diego.

Popular Searches: Covid-19 Ukraine Campus & Community Arts & Culture Voices

Faculty & Staff

Teaching problem solving

Strategies for teaching problem solving apply across disciplines and instructional contexts. First, introduce the problem and explain how people in your discipline generally make sense of the given information. Then, explain how to apply these approaches to solve the problem.

Introducing the problem

Explaining how people in your discipline understand and interpret these types of problems can help students develop the skills they need to understand the problem (and find a solution). After introducing how you would go about solving a problem, you could then ask students to:

frame the problem in their own words
define key terms and concepts
determine statements that accurately represent the givens of a problem
identify analogous problems
determine what information is needed to solve the problem

Working on solutions

In the solution phase, one develops and then implements a coherent plan for solving the problem. As you help students with this phase, you might ask them to:

identify the general model or procedure they have in mind for solving the problem
set sub-goals for solving the problem
identify necessary operations and steps
draw conclusions
carry out necessary operations

You can help students tackle a problem effectively by asking them to:

systematically explain each step and its rationale
explain how they would approach solving the problem
help you solve the problem by posing questions at key points in the process
work together in small groups (3 to 5 students) to solve the problem and then have the solution presented to the rest of the class (either by you or by a student in the group)

In all cases, the more you get the students to articulate their own understandings of the problem and potential solutions, the more you can help them develop their expertise in approaching problems in your discipline.

Teaching Problem-Solving Skills

Many instructors design opportunities for students to solve “problems”. But are their students solving true problems or merely participating in practice exercises? The former stresses critical thinking and decision making skills whereas the latter requires only the application of previously learned procedures.

Problem solving is often broadly defined as "the ability to understand the environment, identify complex problems, review related information to develop, evaluate strategies and implement solutions to build the desired outcome" (Fissore, C. et al, 2021). True problem solving is the process of applying a method – not known in advance – to a problem that is subject to a specific set of conditions and that the problem solver has not seen before, in order to obtain a satisfactory solution.

Below you will find some basic principles for teaching problem solving and one model to implement in your classroom teaching.

Principles for teaching problem solving

Model a useful problem-solving method . Problem solving can be difficult and sometimes tedious. Show students how to be patient and persistent, and how to follow a structured method, such as Woods’ model described below. Articulate your method as you use it so students see the connections.
Teach within a specific context . Teach problem-solving skills in the context in which they will be used by students (e.g., mole fraction calculations in a chemistry course). Use real-life problems in explanations, examples, and exams. Do not teach problem solving as an independent, abstract skill.
Help students understand the problem . In order to solve problems, students need to define the end goal. This step is crucial to successful learning of problem-solving skills. If you succeed at helping students answer the questions “what?” and “why?”, finding the answer to “how?” will be easier.
Take enough time . When planning a lecture/tutorial, budget enough time for: understanding the problem and defining the goal (both individually and as a class); dealing with questions from you and your students; making, finding, and fixing mistakes; and solving entire problems in a single session.
Ask questions and make suggestions . Ask students to predict “what would happen if …” or explain why something happened. This will help them to develop analytical and deductive thinking skills. Also, ask questions and make suggestions about strategies to encourage students to reflect on the problem-solving strategies that they use.
Link errors to misconceptions . Use errors as evidence of misconceptions, not carelessness or random guessing. Make an effort to isolate the misconception and correct it, then teach students to do this by themselves. We can all learn from mistakes.

Woods’ problem-solving model

Define the problem.

The system . Have students identify the system under study (e.g., a metal bridge subject to certain forces) by interpreting the information provided in the problem statement. Drawing a diagram is a great way to do this.
Known(s) and concepts . List what is known about the problem, and identify the knowledge needed to understand (and eventually) solve it.
Unknown(s) . Once you have a list of knowns, identifying the unknown(s) becomes simpler. One unknown is generally the answer to the problem, but there may be other unknowns. Be sure that students understand what they are expected to find.
Units and symbols . One key aspect in problem solving is teaching students how to select, interpret, and use units and symbols. Emphasize the use of units whenever applicable. Develop a habit of using appropriate units and symbols yourself at all times.
Constraints . All problems have some stated or implied constraints. Teach students to look for the words "only", "must", "neglect", or "assume" to help identify the constraints.
Criteria for success . Help students consider, from the beginning, what a logical type of answer would be. What characteristics will it possess? For example, a quantitative problem will require an answer in some form of numerical units (e.g., $/kg product, square cm, etc.) while an optimization problem requires an answer in the form of either a numerical maximum or minimum.

Think about it

“Let it simmer”. Use this stage to ponder the problem. Ideally, students will develop a mental image of the problem at hand during this stage.
Identify specific pieces of knowledge . Students need to determine by themselves the required background knowledge from illustrations, examples and problems covered in the course.
Collect information . Encourage students to collect pertinent information such as conversion factors, constants, and tables needed to solve the problem.

Plan a solution

Consider possible strategies . Often, the type of solution will be determined by the type of problem. Some common problem-solving strategies are: compute; simplify; use an equation; make a model, diagram, table, or chart; or work backwards.
Choose the best strategy . Help students to choose the best strategy by reminding them again what they are required to find or calculate.

Carry out the plan

Be patient . Most problems are not solved quickly or on the first attempt. In other cases, executing the solution may be the easiest step.
Be persistent . If a plan does not work immediately, do not let students get discouraged. Encourage them to try a different strategy and keep trying.

Encourage students to reflect. Once a solution has been reached, students should ask themselves the following questions:

Does the answer make sense?
Does it fit with the criteria established in step 1?
Did I answer the question(s)?
What did I learn by doing this?
Could I have done the problem another way?

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.

Fissore, C., Marchisio, M., Roman, F., & Sacchet, M. (2021). Development of problem solving skills with Maple in higher education. In: Corless, R.M., Gerhard, J., Kotsireas, I.S. (eds) Maple in Mathematics Education and Research. MC 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1414. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81698-8_15
Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. TRO Learning Inc., Edina MN. (PDF) Principles for Teaching Problem Solving (researchgate.net)
Hayes, J.R. (1989). The Complete Problem Solver. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Woods, D.R., Wright, J.D., Hoffman, T.W., Swartman, R.K., Doig, I.D. (1975). Teaching Problem solving Skills.
Engineering Education. Vol 1, No. 1. p. 238. Washington, DC: The American Society for Engineering Education.

Catalog search

Teaching tip categories.

Assessment and feedback
Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
Career Development
Course Design
Course Implementation
Inclusive Teaching and Learning
Learning activities
Support for Student Learning
Support for TAs
Learning activities ,

Center for Teaching Innovation

Resource library.

Getting Started with Establishing Ground Rules
Sample group work rubric
Problem-Based Learning Clearinghouse of Activities, University of Delaware

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-based learning  (PBL) is a student-centered approach in which students learn about a subject by working in groups to solve an open-ended problem. This problem is what drives the motivation and the learning. 

Why Use Problem-Based Learning?

Nilson (2010) lists the following learning outcomes that are associated with PBL. A well-designed PBL project provides students with the opportunity to develop skills related to:

Working in teams.
Managing projects and holding leadership roles.
Oral and written communication.
Self-awareness and evaluation of group processes.
Working independently.
Critical thinking and analysis.
Explaining concepts.
Self-directed learning.
Applying course content to real-world examples.
Researching and information literacy.
Problem solving across disciplines.

Considerations for Using Problem-Based Learning

Rather than teaching relevant material and subsequently having students apply the knowledge to solve problems, the problem is presented first. PBL assignments can be short, or they can be more involved and take a whole semester. PBL is often group-oriented, so it is beneficial to set aside classroom time to prepare students to  work in groups  and to allow them to engage in their PBL project.

Students generally must:

Examine and define the problem.
Explore what they already know about underlying issues related to it.
Determine what they need to learn and where they can acquire the information and tools necessary to solve the problem.
Evaluate possible ways to solve the problem.
Solve the problem.
Report on their findings.

Getting Started with Problem-Based Learning

Articulate the learning outcomes of the project. What do you want students to know or be able to do as a result of participating in the assignment?
Create the problem. Ideally, this will be a real-world situation that resembles something students may encounter in their future careers or lives. Cases are often the basis of PBL activities. Previously developed PBL activities can be found online through the University of Delaware’s PBL Clearinghouse of Activities .
Establish ground rules at the beginning to prepare students to work effectively in groups.
Introduce students to group processes and do some warm up exercises to allow them to practice assessing both their own work and that of their peers.
Consider having students take on different roles or divide up the work up amongst themselves. Alternatively, the project might require students to assume various perspectives, such as those of government officials, local business owners, etc.
Establish how you will evaluate and assess the assignment. Consider making the self and peer assessments a part of the assignment grade.

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (2nd ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Center for Teaching

Teaching problem solving.

Print Version

Tips and Techniques

Expert vs. novice problem solvers, communicate.

Have students identify specific problems, difficulties, or confusions . Don’t waste time working through problems that students already understand.
If students are unable to articulate their concerns, determine where they are having trouble by asking them to identify the specific concepts or principles associated with the problem.
In a one-on-one tutoring session, ask the student to work his/her problem out loud . This slows down the thinking process, making it more accurate and allowing you to access understanding.
When working with larger groups you can ask students to provide a written “two-column solution.” Have students write up their solution to a problem by putting all their calculations in one column and all of their reasoning (in complete sentences) in the other column. This helps them to think critically about their own problem solving and helps you to more easily identify where they may be having problems. Two-Column Solution (Math) Two-Column Solution (Physics)

Encourage Independence

Model the problem solving process rather than just giving students the answer. As you work through the problem, consider how a novice might struggle with the concepts and make your thinking clear
Have students work through problems on their own. Ask directing questions or give helpful suggestions, but provide only minimal assistance and only when needed to overcome obstacles.
Don’t fear group work ! Students can frequently help each other, and talking about a problem helps them think more critically about the steps needed to solve the problem. Additionally, group work helps students realize that problems often have multiple solution strategies, some that might be more effective than others

Be sensitive

Frequently, when working problems, students are unsure of themselves. This lack of confidence may hamper their learning. It is important to recognize this when students come to us for help, and to give each student some feeling of mastery. Do this by providing positive reinforcement to let students know when they have mastered a new concept or skill.

Encourage Thoroughness and Patience

Try to communicate that the process is more important than the answer so that the student learns that it is OK to not have an instant solution. This is learned through your acceptance of his/her pace of doing things, through your refusal to let anxiety pressure you into giving the right answer, and through your example of problem solving through a step-by step process.

Experts (teachers) in a particular field are often so fluent in solving problems from that field that they can find it difficult to articulate the problem solving principles and strategies they use to novices (students) in their field because these principles and strategies are second nature to the expert. To teach students problem solving skills, a teacher should be aware of principles and strategies of good problem solving in his or her discipline .

The mathematician George Polya captured the problem solving principles and strategies he used in his discipline in the book How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method (Princeton University Press, 1957). The book includes a summary of Polya’s problem solving heuristic as well as advice on the teaching of problem solving.

Teaching Guides

Online Course Development Resources
Principles & Frameworks
Pedagogies & Strategies
Reflecting & Assessing
Challenges & Opportunities
Populations & Contexts

Quick Links

Services for Departments and Schools
Examples of Online Instructional Modules

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

4 Learning as Problem Solving

Carla Jagger

Setting the Stage

We all face countless problems each and every day, whether it is deciding what to wear based on key factors about our day or trying to solve an issue at work. While these seem like rather insignificant problems, we still go through the same processes for these problems as we do for the more complex and challenging issues we inevitably face. When we look at our agriculture programs, we encounter and present problems constantly through our curriculum and even through the basic operations of our classroom. Let’s consider the following situation together:

Your students start noticing that the classroom pet is not eating all their food and they have not needed to fill the pet’s water as frequently either. They are growing concerned and are unsure of how to address the situation or determine the potential causes of the pet’s new behavior.

When students bring this issue forward, it might be easy for us to offer possible causes and answers to their questions based on our knowledge of the pet. However, more in depth learning can take place if we help facilitate and lead the students through an investigation of their own to determine possible solutions.

Within teaching and learning, problem-solving is a key method for us to utilize so we can help our learners practice and master the process of solving complex issues as they arise. You will also see, as we unpack this method of teaching, that the learning process is placed on the students with our guidance, making it a student-centered approach to teaching. By the conclusion of the chapter, you should be able to:

Define the problem-solving approach.
Identify best practices for executing the problem-solving approach.
Utilize problem-solving as a teaching strategy.

Introduction

Problem-solving is not a new concept in Career and Technical Education and agricultural education. Many individuals have contributed to our knowledge of problem-solving in teaching and learning within the agricultural setting over the decades. This list includes Krebs (1967), Crunkilton & Krebs (1982), Gubitz (1984), and Hedges (1996), many of whom link their work back to the foundations of problem-solving laid out by John Dewey.

If we look back at Dewey’s foundational work, we see him place importance on the social nature of learning. He stressed a means of problem-solving that focused on the social role of people and stressed that our society benefits from the broader community and by making connections across cultures. Tanner (1997) evaluated Dewey’s Laboratory School and the concepts that educators should still consider when developing our teaching and learning approach, which includes educating students in the problems of living together. In our agricultural education programs, we have a unique opportunity to connect our content back to issues in our local communities as well as statewide, nationwide, and worldwide. Additionally, there is an opportunity to foster service-involved thinking and social sensitivity and to create socially and civically responsible individuals through our programs. Problem-solving and other heuristic approaches (i.e., inquiry learning, discovery learning) to teaching and learning are a means by which we can achieve some of our internal goals of creating well-rounded, civically engaged students.

While there are many variations when defining problem-solving as a teaching approach, for this chapter, we will use Moore’s (2015) working definition of problem-solving as “the intentional elimination of uncertainty through direct experiences and under supervision” (p. 353)—in other words, creating space for learners to generate new knowledge using problem-solving strategies with guidance. These problems can be planned and prepared for or spontaneous, occurring on their own. The key points of this definition are “direct experiences” and “under supervision.” Problem-solving is an active teaching approach and is student-centered, which means students will be directly involved with the creation of knowledge regarding the problem at hand. Additionally, “under supervision” should not be forgotten as a part of this definition. Although students will encounter problems on their own to work through, we should still provide supervision, guidance, and advice in all situations that are part of our curriculum. As we begin to unpack the problem-solving approach, you will see there is a systematic approach to this teaching technique.

Executing the Problem-Solving Approach

Within our various teaching spaces in agricultural education, we will typically plan for problems and issues we want our students to solve. We do this through creating Units of Instruction and laying out problem areas within the content. Embedding problem areas within our Units of Instruction helps to bring focus to the content and should be connected to other areas of instruction to help with students’ transfer of learning. If we do not properly identify the problem area, our approach may not be as effective. Without proper planning, we could have a problem that is too narrow, which will limit the analysis we can lead our students through, or we could plan for a problem that is too broad, which could result in confusion. Additionally, while planning our overall program of study, it is important to line up our Units of Instruction and problem areas using a seasonal approach based on your regional area and community needs (e.g., developing an integrated pest management plan around the specific plants being grown in your school’s greenhouse, identifying how to protect against common diseases based on the crops currently growing in your area).

While we should plan for problem-solving, we also cannot discount the “teachable moments,” the problems and issues that just naturally arise in our program that can be solved. It is important to involve your students in the generation of solutions and use the problem as a learning experience when possible. If we plan for the problem-solving approach and build our ability to execute this method, it will become natural for us to include students in those other issues that come up on their own (e.g., sick animals, equipment breaking, an immediate school or community need).

Steps to the Problem-Solving Approach

Hopefully by this point you are wondering how to execute this strategy within your teaching. The problem-solving approach includes five basic steps, which you’ll see vary from source to source. In general, these include:

Identify the problem
Analyze the problem and gather information
Generate potential solutions
Select and test solutions
Evaluate the results

Identify the problem. One of the most challenging elements of problem-solving as a teaching approach is clearly defining the problem to be addressed. The problem itself should not be too narrow or too board as both can lead to confusion. Unless a problem naturally arises, we must plan for the problem and clearly present it to our learners. In addition to identifying the problem, we also need to create interest and motivate our learners to want to explore solutions to the problem. Motivating our learners is ultimately the hidden step to the problem-solving approach, but this substep should not go unaddressed. Refer to the Principles of Teaching and Learning related to motivation for good teaching actions for motivating your learners.

Analyze the problem and gather information. Once the problem has been clearly presented, students should move into the next step to explore the problem. As with most behaviors, you will probably need to spend a little time training your learners how to efficiently analyze the problem. Train them on how to track down credible sources, how to critically analyze information, how to look at all possible angles, and how to synthesize the information gathered, just to name a few approaches. Once you help with the collection and analysis of information a few times, you should be able to take a more hands-off approach with that same group of learners as you continue to facilitate more problem-based instruction. The analysis of the problem should help lead to the next step of generating possible solutions.

Generate potential solutions. During this step you should let your learners share all potential solutions no matter the expenses associated or how crazy the idea might sound. Encourage your students to justify their solution based on the information gathered to help keep them on track. Depending on how you design the activity, invite all learners to share potential solutions. For example, if you are solving the problem as a whole class make it an assignment for each student to generate their own solution(s). Or if you have small cooperative groups working on the problem, put in safeguards like assigning student group moderators who will ensure all students have a voice in the process (see the section on group teaching techniques in chapter 8 for more ideas). Do your best not to limit creative thought since you will begin to collectively identify the better solution(s) to test as you move into the fourth step.

Select and test solutions. As you can see this is a two-step action of the problem-solving approach. You will begin this step by evaluating the list of possible solutions based on feasibility as a class. Since students were not limited in their thinking during the previous step, you will need to have the conversation now about what you can test based on your resources. You could start by asking your students to identify any of the solutions that might be too extreme in terms of costs, time, resources, and so on. Once you have narrowed down your list, it will be easier to identify the better solutions to test. If you have multiple feasible and testable solutions, consider splitting up the class to test the possible solutions, or you can test them out together one-by-one as a whole class.

Evaluate the results. Once you have successfully tested your solution(s) have your students evaluate the results. Was the solution successful in addressing the problem? If so, how could the solution be improved to better address the problem? If it was not successful, how could you modify parts of the solution to test it again? These are just a few questions you could have your students address as they reflect on the solution(s) tested. As you know, we can learn a lot from failures during the problem-solving process so do not discount failed solutions, make them a learning opportunity. Even if your first tested solution is successful, have students evaluate the process to identify if a more effective and efficient approach could exist. At a minimum, make sure you evaluate the results as a whole class. If cooperative groups were used during the process, consider having each group share their results so everyone can learn from one another.

Good Practices while Executing the Problem-Solving Approach

Earlier you were introduced to the Principles of Teaching and Learning in chapter 3 ; you’ll therefore be able to identify several of these principles through the good practices laid out below. In other words, as you incorporate the Principles of Teaching and Learning into your lessons you will also be using these good practices and vice versa. While utilizing problem-solving techniques, there are several actions that we can incorporate which will help make our students’ learning meaningful (Krebs, 1967).

Help students connect the parts of the problem situation to the broader issue. Typically, our students hold novice knowledge on topics we cover. As novice learners, students need guidance in making connections between topics and identifying larger issues that may play a role in the problem.
Incorporate the immediate use of knowledge. We know this is an important step for all learning; if immediate action is not taken with a problem situation, students may fail to see the problem’s relevance and importance.
Make the objectives of the problem-solving approach clear. There are several approaches described later in this chapter that can be used when laying out a problem situation for students. All the described techniques will help give the problem situation structure and clarity when presenting the problem to your learners.
Build in transfer of knowledge connections. Each problem situation we present will typically be very specific, so we should aim at building in additional opportunities for students to use the problem-solving techniques in other situations.
Use a variety of activities within the learning situation. Using a variety of learning activities can reach learners in different ways. With the steps of problem-solving laid out earlier, we can utilize a variety of individual and group teaching techniques to help accomplish the objectives of the problem-solving approach.
Connect the problem situation to the students’ personal lives to make the learning more meaningful. Additionally, build in opportunities for your students to set their own problems and inquiry ideas.
Incorporate cooperative learning. We learn from each other with problem-solving so work on making the activity a collective effort.
Allow students to succeed. We know that success is a strong motivating force. Students who experience failure often will tend to shut down in the learning environment. When we start to practice problem-solving with students, we should build in opportunities for our students to be successful in discovering solutions as we train them through the approach.

Pitfalls to Avoid when Executing the Problem-Solving Approach

In addition to the good practices above, there are several pitfalls we should avoid with a problem-solving teaching approach. As we reflect on each problem-solving teaching experience, we begin to recognize these pitfalls that lead to confusion and frustration for both us and our students. Naming these pitfalls in advance and building in supports to avoid them will help with the effectiveness and efficiency of the problem-solving teaching strategy.

Unsuitable unit or problem area. Make sure the unit and problem has relevance to the students and your community. This also ties back to taking a seasonal approach to problem-based learning.
Inadequate teacher analysis of the situation related to the problem area. When planning for the problem situations, we should do our own research of the problem and have a general direction in mind for possible solutions before the students start walking through the steps of problem-solving on their own.
Inadequate teacher objectives. Not introducing appropriate objectives can lead to confusion of the problem situation and execution of the techniques you have tried to plan.
Omission of the interest approach or allowing the interest approach to become the problem-solving situation. Omitting the interest approach may lead to a lack of student motivation in solving the issue. We know that learning is not passive; without motivation there will be no drive for the students to participate in the learning.
Poor discussion-leading technique. We should use appropriate prompting and probing questions during discussion to help facilitate learning while also giving students creative freedom. If we are not careful, we could be too leading in our prompts or completely give away potential solutions which tends to defeat the purpose of the problem-solving approach.
Lack of orientation at the start and the end of the class period. As with any content or approach to teaching we need to include appropriate lesson introductions and summaries that can help students see the larger picture and make cognitive connections.

Overall, there is a lot of variation you can add to all these steps when executing the problem-solving approach. Keeping the basic steps in mind, along with the best practices and pitfalls to avoid, will help to provide overall structure to the activity. In addition to problem-solving, there are several other heuristic teaching strategies we can incorporate in our teaching, including inquiry-based instruction, discovery learning, and experimentation.

Other Heuristic Teaching Strategies

While these approaches are very similar to problem-based instruction, there are differences in the purpose and structure. Moore (2015) lays out each of these additional methods including discovery, inquiry, and project-based learning methods. Discovery learning in essence is a formal approach to problem-solving using the scientific method. The steps involved with discovery learning are nearly identical to the five steps already established for problem-solving. With this approach you would identify a problem, develop possible solutions, collect data, analyze and interpret data, and test conclusions. As you work through this strategy, the steps will ultimately lead to the need for revised solutions or provide supporting evidence for the chosen solution.

Inquiry learning is another problem-solving strategy, where emphasis is typically placed on the process of determining a solution rather than finding a solution for the problem. This approach would be very useful when trying to work through more of a hypothetical problem when you may not have all the resources needed to test possible solutions. There are multiple approaches to inquiry-based instruction (Moore, 2015) including a three-step procedure (identify the problem, work toward solutions, and establish solutions) and the five-E inquiry sequence (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate).

Additionally, project-based instruction, although not always tied to a problem situation, can at times have a natural connection to the problem-solving depending on your approach to student engagement with the problem. For instance, you may decide on a specific product the students need to create as they determine solutions such as case studies, surveys, models, and so on. With all these strategies, you typically have options on how structured or flexible you want to make the active learning for your students.

Encouraging Individual Problem-Solving

In addition to working through problem situations collectively, our learners are also engaged in problem-solving through their Supervised Agricultural Experiences (SAE), in which they will need to solve problems on their own. Problem-solving is a skill which needs to be developed and practiced like any other skill, adding to the value of us incorporating problem-solving to our classroom learning so students can solve their own problems successfully. Gubitz (1984) identified several questions that can be proposed for learners to engage in problem-solving on their own, including:

What is the specific problem?
What really is the source of irritation?
Why is it so bothersome?
Who is involved?
When did it start?
How is the problem “ours” to do something about?

While these questions are somewhat broad, we can tailor them for our students and their situations. We know that students will face many problem situations while carrying out their SAE projects and it is important that we help facilitate their identification of solutions instead of just providing them with a solution. Most of us have the goal of learners becoming independent and being able to establish knowledge on their own, but this ability comes with practice. Several methods for providing practice to learners are laid out in the following section.

How Problem-Solving Looks in Agricultural Education

There are many ways to set up a problem-solving situation for your students. Hedges (1996) created a resource for Career and Technical Education (CTE) that lays out several of these approaches along with lesson vignettes from in-service CTE teachers. All the example approaches explained here are summarized versions of the original work laid out by Hedges and the contributing teachers (1996).

The first technique for laying out a problem is key steps , used when there are specific steps required for the successful completion of a task. Typically, the Key Steps technique will be partnered with a demonstration of the needed steps. This technique is extremely useful for objectives centered around using and maintaining equipment. No matter which curriculum we are using, nearly all courses have equipment of some kind that require the set of steps to use it properly.

The second technique is the forked-road approach, where there are two choices for the problem solution, and you need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both options. Looking at an example from animal sciences, you may choose to use this technique when asking students to decide when to keep or cull a cow from the herd, or from veterinary science, when deciding to use euthanasia in determining whether treatment is possible with a sick animal. When carrying out this technique you want to make sure you identify the decision that needs to be made as well as lay out all key factors that should be considered in making an informed decision. As students reach their decision between the two options, it is good practice to have each student justify their choice.

The possibilities-factors technique sets up a problem with more than one solution when several factors must be considered to select the most appropriate solution. You might plan for this approach when asking students to choose the most appropriate harvesting or transplanting method for a specific plant. For this technique, you will want to clearly present the problem statement and have your learners list all the possible choices (this step is also great for review of previously learned content). Once all the possibilities have been listed, you would ask the students to discuss all the factors that should be considered before making their decision.

The situation-to-be-improved approach can be used when specific characteristics or requirements should be considered for a situation. Students are presented with important information about the situation such as the requirements needed for the successful execution of the situation, and they would then give recommendations for improvements. This technique could be used in a natural resources unit when examining the interdependence of an ecosystem. For example, you might present students with the issue that a local landfill will reach its maximum capacity soon, so how can you make it last longer? After the issue is presented, the students would then discuss characteristics to be considered and possibly layout the “ideal” situation. Once that information is identified, they would determine the what and why for all characteristics to help them arrive at recommendations for improvement of the situation.

A fifth approach is the effect-cause technique, where causes of an issue would be evaluated to determine appropriate options for action. For this technique, we can consider an example from landscape or turfgrass management: a mower is not cutting evenly when used on a putting green, what is the cause of the problem? To help students determine the cause, additional information would need to be presented; this information could potentially be presented in a case study format or given more simply, such as by adding that the mower leaves an incline with every pass and the operator has already checked the air in the tires as well as the height of the deck and both were fine. These additional details will help students make a more informed decision when trying to determine the cause of the issue.

Finally, problems could be presented using the four-question interest approach . Four questions should all be considered by the learners:

How important is …?
What problems have we had with …?
What do we need to know or be able to do to correct or prevent these problems?
What related information are we lacking?

Using this technique can help motivate students by involving them in the planning and execution of the lesson. Through their responses to the four questions, as an interest approach, they will develop ownership for the direction and success of the lesson and provide a foundation for critical thinking and selecting which additional problem-solving techniques should be used. An example of this technique would be, if you had a group that has limited knowledge of identifying and interpreting nonverbal messages, the specific questions you would ask the learners would then be: How important is it to be able to recognize and interpret nonverbal communication? What problems are associated with reading nonverbal messages? And what do we need to know and/or be able to do in order to solve and/or prevent these problems? The students would provide answers to all these questions within the interest approach of the lesson, and then you would be able to use additional problem-solving techniques as you move through the actual lesson content. The fourth question—What specific information are we lacking concerning what we said we need to know and/or be able to do?—is more of a lead-in question to begin teaching around the issue or specific skill.

Learning Confirmation

Identify a problem situation you will present to your learners and layout which problem-solving technique you will use for the situation. Make sure you name the technique and establish how you will facilitate each step of the problem-solving approach.
Using a Venn diagram, compare and contrast two problem-solving techniques of your choice and consider the characteristics of the technique and when each technique would be used and why.

Applying the Content

Prepare or adapt a technical lesson that can be taught in a local context utilizing one of the problem-solving techniques.
Utilize one of the problem-solving techniques to create an interest approach for an existing lesson.
Use one of the problem-solving approaches to create a nonformal lesson with a leadership topic.

Reflective Questions

What are the five steps of the problem-solving approach?
What are similar teaching techniques to problem-solving?
Which problem-solving technique would be best when trying to make a decision between two options?
What specific supports will you put into place when designing a problem-solving activity to conduct with your learners?

Glossary of Terms

problem-solving: As a teaching approach, “the intentional elimination of uncertainty through direct experiences and under supervision” (Moore, 2015, p. 353)
key steps : Technique to problem-solving used when there are specific steps required for the successful completion of a task
forked-road: Problem-solving approach where there are two choices for the problem solution, and you need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of both options
possibilities-factors: Problem-solving technique that sets up a problem with more than one solution when several factors must be considered to select the most appropriate solution
situation-to-be-improved: Problem-solving approach that can be used when specific characteristics or requirements should be considered for a situation
effect-cause: Problem-solving technique where causes of an issue would be evaluated to determine appropriate options for action
four-question interest approach : Problem-solving technique composed of the following four questions: How important is …?, What problems have we had with …?, What do we need to know or be able to do, to correct or prevent these problems?, and What related information are we lacking?

Crunkilton, J. R., & Krebs, A. H. (1982). Teaching agriculture through problem solving (3rd ed.). The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.

Gubitz, A. C. (1984). Instant personal problem solving: Simplified approaches for everyone . The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.

Hedges, L. E. (1996). Teaching for connection: Critical thinking skills, problem solving, and academic and occupational competencies . Ohio Agricultural Education Curriculum Materials Service.

Krebs, A. H. (1967). For more effective teaching: A problem-solving approach for teachers of vocational agriculture (2nd ed.). The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc.

Moore, K. D. (2015). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Tanner, L. N. (1997). Dewey’s laboratory school: Lessons for today . Teachers College Press.

The Art and Science of Teaching Agriculture: Four Keys to Dynamic Learning Copyright © 2023 by Carla Jagger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Problem-Solving Method in Teaching

The problem-solving method is a highly effective teaching strategy that is designed to help students develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities . It involves providing students with real-world problems and challenges that require them to apply their knowledge, skills, and creativity to find solutions. This method encourages active learning, promotes collaboration, and allows students to take ownership of their learning.

Definition of problem-solving method.

Problem-solving is a process of identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems. The problem-solving method in teaching involves providing students with real-world problems that they must solve through collaboration and critical thinking. This method encourages students to apply their knowledge and creativity to develop solutions that are effective and practical.

Meaning of Problem-Solving Method

The meaning and Definition of problem-solving are given by different Scholars. These are-

Woodworth and Marquis(1948) : Problem-solving behavior occurs in novel or difficult situations in which a solution is not obtainable by the habitual methods of applying concepts and principles derived from past experience in very similar situations.

Skinner (1968): Problem-solving is a process of overcoming difficulties that appear to interfere with the attainment of a goal. It is the procedure of making adjustments in spite of interference

Benefits of Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method has several benefits for both students and teachers. These benefits include:

Encourages active learning: The problem-solving method encourages students to actively participate in their own learning by engaging them in real-world problems that require critical thinking and collaboration
Promotes collaboration: Problem-solving requires students to work together to find solutions. This promotes teamwork, communication, and cooperation.
Builds critical thinking skills: The problem-solving method helps students develop critical thinking skills by providing them with opportunities to analyze and evaluate problems
Increases motivation: When students are engaged in solving real-world problems, they are more motivated to learn and apply their knowledge.
Enhances creativity: The problem-solving method encourages students to be creative in finding solutions to problems.

Steps in Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method involves several steps that teachers can use to guide their students. These steps include

Identifying the problem: The first step in problem-solving is identifying the problem that needs to be solved. Teachers can present students with a real-world problem or challenge that requires critical thinking and collaboration.
Analyzing the problem: Once the problem is identified, students should analyze it to determine its scope and underlying causes.
Generating solutions: After analyzing the problem, students should generate possible solutions. This step requires creativity and critical thinking.
Evaluating solutions: The next step is to evaluate each solution based on its effectiveness and practicality
Selecting the best solution: The final step is to select the best solution and implement it.

Verification of the concluded solution or Hypothesis

The solution arrived at or the conclusion drawn must be further verified by utilizing it in solving various other likewise problems. In case, the derived solution helps in solving these problems, then and only then if one is free to agree with his finding regarding the solution. The verified solution may then become a useful product of his problem-solving behavior that can be utilized in solving further problems. The above steps can be utilized in solving various problems thereby fostering creative thinking ability in an individual.

The problem-solving method is an effective teaching strategy that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. It provides students with real-world problems that require them to apply their knowledge and skills to find solutions. By using the problem-solving method, teachers can help their students develop the skills they need to succeed in school and in life.

Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01, University of Michigan. Wojcikowski, J. (2013). Solving real-world problems through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 61(4), 153-156

The Lesson Study Group

at Mills College

Teaching Through Problem-solving

An elementary-age male student points while his female teacher stands beside him and observes

TTP in Action

What is Teaching Through Problem-Solving?

In Teaching Through Problem-solving (TTP), students learn new mathematics by solving problems. Students grapple with a novel problem, present and discuss solution strategies, and together build the next concept or procedure in the mathematics curriculum.

Teaching Through Problem-solving is widespread in Japan, where students solve problems before a solution method or procedure is taught. In contrast, U.S. students spend most of their time doing exercises– completing problems for which a solution method has already been taught.

Why Teaching Through Problem-Solving?

As students build their mathematical knowledge, they also:

Learn to reason mathematically, using prior knowledge to build new ideas
See the power of their explanations and carefully written work to spark insights for themselves and their classmates
Expect mathematics to make sense
Enjoy solving unfamiliar problems
Experience mathematical discoveries that naturally deepen their perseverance

Phases of a TTP Lesson

Teaching Through Problem-solving flows through four phases as students 1. Grasp the problem, 2. Try to solve the problem independently, 3. Present and discuss their work (selected strategies), and 4. Summarize and reflect.

Click on the arrows below to find out what students and teachers do during each phase and to see video examples.

1. Grasp the Problem
2. Try to Solve
3. Present & Discuss
4. Summarize & Reflect
New Learning

WHAT STUDENTS DO

Understand the problem and develop interest in solving it.
Consider what they know that might help them solve the problem.

WHAT TEACHERS DO

Show several student journal reflections from the prior lesson.
Pose a problem that students do not yet know how to solve.
Interest students in the problem and in thinking about their own related knowledge.
Independently try to solve the problem.
Do not simply following the teacher’s solution example.
Allow classmates to provide input after some independent thinking time.
Circulate, using seating chart to note each student’s solution approach.
Identify work to be presented and discussed at board.
Ask individual questions to spark more thinking if some students finish quickly or don’t get started.
Present and explain solution ideas at the board, are questioned by classmates and teacher. (2-3 students per lesson)
Actively make sense of the presented work and draw out key mathematical points. (All students)
Strategically select and sequence student presentations of work at the board, to build the new mathematics. (Incorrect approaches may be included.)
Monitor student discussion: Are all students noticing the important mathematical ideas?
Add teacher moves (questions, turn-and-talk, votes) as needed to build important mathematics.
Consider what they learned and share their thoughts with class, to help formulate class summary of learning. Copy summary into journal.
Write journal reflection on their own learning from the lesson.
Write on the board a brief summary of what the class learned during the lesson, using student ideas and words where possible.
Ask students to write in their journals about what they learned during the lesson.

How Do Teachers Support Problem-solving?

Although students do much of the talking and questioning in a TTP lesson, teachers play a crucial role. The widely-known 5 Practices for Orchestrating Mathematical Discussions were based in part on TTP . Teachers study the curriculum, anticipate student thinking, and select and sequence the student presentations that allow the class to build the new mathematics. Classroom routines for presentation and discussion of student work, board organization, and reflective mathematics journals work together to allow students to do the mathematical heavy lifting. To learn more about journals, board work, and discussion in TTP, as well as see other TTP resources and examples of TTP in action, click on the respective tabs near the top of this page.

Additional Readings

Can’t find a resource you need? Get in touch.

What is Lesson Study?
Why Lesson Study?
Teacher Learning
Content Resources
Teaching Through Problem-solving (TTP)
School-wide Lesson Study
U.S. Networks
International Networks

Teaching problem solving: Let students get ‘stuck’ and ‘unstuck’

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, kate mills and km kate mills literacy interventionist - red bank primary school helyn kim helyn kim former brookings expert @helyn_kim.

October 31, 2017

This is the second in a six-part blog series on teaching 21st century skills , including problem solving , metacognition , critical thinking , and collaboration , in classrooms.

In the real world, students encounter problems that are complex, not well defined, and lack a clear solution and approach. They need to be able to identify and apply different strategies to solve these problems. However, problem solving skills do not necessarily develop naturally; they need to be explicitly taught in a way that can be transferred across multiple settings and contexts.

Here’s what Kate Mills, who taught 4 th grade for 10 years at Knollwood School in New Jersey and is now a Literacy Interventionist at Red Bank Primary School, has to say about creating a classroom culture of problem solvers:

Helping my students grow to be people who will be successful outside of the classroom is equally as important as teaching the curriculum. From the first day of school, I intentionally choose language and activities that help to create a classroom culture of problem solvers. I want to produce students who are able to think about achieving a particular goal and manage their mental processes . This is known as metacognition , and research shows that metacognitive skills help students become better problem solvers.

I begin by “normalizing trouble” in the classroom. Peter H. Johnston teaches the importance of normalizing struggle , of naming it, acknowledging it, and calling it what it is: a sign that we’re growing. The goal is for the students to accept challenge and failure as a chance to grow and do better.

I look for every chance to share problems and highlight how the students— not the teachers— worked through those problems. There is, of course, coaching along the way. For example, a science class that is arguing over whose turn it is to build a vehicle will most likely need a teacher to help them find a way to the balance the work in an equitable way. Afterwards, I make it a point to turn it back to the class and say, “Do you see how you …” By naming what it is they did to solve the problem , students can be more independent and productive as they apply and adapt their thinking when engaging in future complex tasks.

After a few weeks, most of the class understands that the teachers aren’t there to solve problems for the students, but to support them in solving the problems themselves. With that important part of our classroom culture established, we can move to focusing on the strategies that students might need.

Here’s one way I do this in the classroom:

I show the broken escalator video to the class. Since my students are fourth graders, they think it’s hilarious and immediately start exclaiming, “Just get off! Walk!”

When the video is over, I say, “Many of us, probably all of us, are like the man in the video yelling for help when we get stuck. When we get stuck, we stop and immediately say ‘Help!’ instead of embracing the challenge and trying new ways to work through it.” I often introduce this lesson during math class, but it can apply to any area of our lives, and I can refer to the experience and conversation we had during any part of our day.

Research shows that just because students know the strategies does not mean they will engage in the appropriate strategies. Therefore, I try to provide opportunities where students can explicitly practice learning how, when, and why to use which strategies effectively so that they can become self-directed learners.

For example, I give students a math problem that will make many of them feel “stuck”. I will say, “Your job is to get yourselves stuck—or to allow yourselves to get stuck on this problem—and then work through it, being mindful of how you’re getting yourselves unstuck.” As students work, I check-in to help them name their process: “How did you get yourself unstuck?” or “What was your first step? What are you doing now? What might you try next?” As students talk about their process, I’ll add to a list of strategies that students are using and, if they are struggling, help students name a specific process. For instance, if a student says he wrote the information from the math problem down and points to a chart, I will say: “Oh that’s interesting. You pulled the important information from the problem out and organized it into a chart.” In this way, I am giving him the language to match what he did, so that he now has a strategy he could use in other times of struggle.

The charts grow with us over time and are something that we refer to when students are stuck or struggling. They become a resource for students and a way for them to talk about their process when they are reflecting on and monitoring what did or did not work.

For me, as a teacher, it is important that I create a classroom environment in which students are problem solvers. This helps tie struggles to strategies so that the students will not only see value in working harder but in working smarter by trying new and different strategies and revising their process. In doing so, they will more successful the next time around.

Where can I learn more?

PBL through the Institute for Transforming Undergraduate Education at the University of Delaware
Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E, & Allen, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). The power of problem-based learning . Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh: Alliance Publishers.

Center for Innovation in Teaching & Learning

249 Armory Building 505 East Armory Avenue Champaign, IL 61820

217 333-1462

Email: [email protected]

Office of the Provost

Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

Make a Gift
Join Our Email List
Problem Solving in STEM

Solving problems is a key component of many science, math, and engineering classes. If a goal of a class is for students to emerge with the ability to solve new kinds of problems or to use new problem-solving techniques, then students need numerous opportunities to develop the skills necessary to approach and answer different types of problems. Problem solving during section or class allows students to develop their confidence in these skills under your guidance, better preparing them to succeed on their homework and exams. This page offers advice about strategies for facilitating problem solving during class.

How do I decide which problems to cover in section or class?

In-class problem solving should reinforce the major concepts from the class and provide the opportunity for theoretical concepts to become more concrete. If students have a problem set for homework, then in-class problem solving should prepare students for the types of problems that they will see on their homework. You may wish to include some simpler problems both in the interest of time and to help students gain confidence, but it is ideal if the complexity of at least some of the in-class problems mirrors the level of difficulty of the homework. You may also want to ask your students ahead of time which skills or concepts they find confusing, and include some problems that are directly targeted to their concerns.

You have given your students a problem to solve in class. What are some strategies to work through it?

Try to give your students a chance to grapple with the problems as much as possible. Offering them the chance to do the problem themselves allows them to learn from their mistakes in the presence of your expertise as their teacher. (If time is limited, they may not be able to get all the way through multi-step problems, in which case it can help to prioritize giving them a chance to tackle the most challenging steps.)
When you do want to teach by solving the problem yourself at the board, talk through the logic of how you choose to apply certain approaches to solve certain problems. This way you can externalize the type of thinking you hope your students internalize when they solve similar problems themselves.
Start by setting up the problem on the board (e.g you might write down key variables and equations; draw a figure illustrating the question). Ask students to start solving the problem, either independently or in small groups. As they are working on the problem, walk around to hear what they are saying and see what they are writing down. If several students seem stuck, it might be a good to collect the whole class again to clarify any confusion. After students have made progress, bring the everyone back together and have students guide you as to what to write on the board.
It can help to first ask students to work on the problem by themselves for a minute, and then get into small groups to work on the problem collaboratively.
If you have ample board space, have students work in small groups at the board while solving the problem. That way you can monitor their progress by standing back and watching what they put up on the board.
If you have several problems you would like to have the students practice, but not enough time for everyone to do all of them, you can assign different groups of students to work on different – but related - problems.

When do you want students to work in groups to solve problems?

Don’t ask students to work in groups for straightforward problems that most students could solve independently in a short amount of time.
Do have students work in groups for thought-provoking problems, where students will benefit from meaningful collaboration.
Even in cases where you plan to have students work in groups, it can be useful to give students some time to work on their own before collaborating with others. This ensures that every student engages with the problem and is ready to contribute to a discussion.

What are some benefits of having students work in groups?

Students bring different strengths, different knowledge, and different ideas for how to solve a problem; collaboration can help students work through problems that are more challenging than they might be able to tackle on their own.
In working in a group, students might consider multiple ways to approach a problem, thus enriching their repertoire of strategies.
Students who think they understand the material will gain a deeper understanding by explaining concepts to their peers.

What are some strategies for helping students to form groups?

Instruct students to work with the person (or people) sitting next to them.
Count off. (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4; all the 1’s find each other and form a group, etc)
Hand out playing cards; students need to find the person with the same number card. (There are many variants to this. For example, you can print pictures of images that go together [rain and umbrella]; each person gets a card and needs to find their partner[s].)
Based on what you know about the students, assign groups in advance. List the groups on the board.
Note: Always have students take the time to introduce themselves to each other in a new group.

What should you do while your students are working on problems?

Walk around and talk to students. Observing their work gives you a sense of what people understand and what they are struggling with. Answer students’ questions, and ask them questions that lead in a productive direction if they are stuck.
If you discover that many people have the same question—or that someone has a misunderstanding that others might have—you might stop everyone and discuss a key idea with the entire class.

After students work on a problem during class, what are strategies to have them share their answers and their thinking?

Ask for volunteers to share answers. Depending on the nature of the problem, student might provide answers verbally or by writing on the board. As a variant, for questions where a variety of answers are relevant, ask for at least three volunteers before anyone shares their ideas.
Use online polling software for students to respond to a multiple-choice question anonymously.
If students are working in groups, assign reporters ahead of time. For example, the person with the next birthday could be responsible for sharing their group’s work with the class.
Cold call. To reduce student anxiety about cold calling, it can help to identify students who seem to have the correct answer as you were walking around the class and checking in on their progress solving the assigned problem. You may even want to warn the student ahead of time: "This is a great answer! Do you mind if I call on you when we come back together as a class?"
Have students write an answer on a notecard that they turn in to you. If your goal is to understand whether students in general solved a problem correctly, the notecards could be submitted anonymously; if you wish to assess individual students’ work, you would want to ask students to put their names on their notecard.
Use a jigsaw strategy, where you rearrange groups such that each new group is comprised of people who came from different initial groups and had solved different problems. Students now are responsible for teaching the other students in their new group how to solve their problem.
Have a representative from each group explain their problem to the class.
Have a representative from each group draw or write the answer on the board.

What happens if a student gives a wrong answer?

Ask for their reasoning so that you can understand where they went wrong.
Ask if anyone else has other ideas. You can also ask this sometimes when an answer is right.
Cultivate an environment where it’s okay to be wrong. Emphasize that you are all learning together, and that you learn through making mistakes.
Do make sure that you clarify what the correct answer is before moving on.
Once the correct answer is given, go through some answer-checking techniques that can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers. This can help prepare students to verify their future work.

How can you make your classroom inclusive?

The goal is that everyone is thinking, talking, and sharing their ideas, and that everyone feels valued and respected. Use a variety of teaching strategies (independent work and group work; allow students to talk to each other before they talk to the class). Create an environment where it is normal to struggle and make mistakes.
See Kimberly Tanner’s article on strategies to promoste student engagement and cultivate classroom equity.

A few final notes…

Make sure that you have worked all of the problems and also thought about alternative approaches to solving them.
Board work matters. You should have a plan beforehand of what you will write on the board, where, when, what needs to be added, and what can be erased when. If students are going to write their answers on the board, you need to also have a plan for making sure that everyone gets to the correct answer. Students will copy what is on the board and use it as their notes for later study, so correct and logical information must be written there.

For more information...

Tipsheet: Problem Solving in STEM Sections

Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity . CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 322-331.

Designing Your Course
A Teaching Timeline: From Pre-Term Planning to the Final Exam
The First Day of Class
Group Agreements
Classroom Debate
Flipped Classrooms
Leading Discussions
Polling & Clickers
Teaching with Cases
Engaged Scholarship
Devices in the Classroom
Beyond the Classroom
On Professionalism
Getting Feedback
Equitable & Inclusive Teaching
Advising and Mentoring
Teaching and Your Career
Teaching Remotely
Tools and Platforms
The Science of Learning
Bok Publications
Other Resources Around Campus

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

5 Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving

Janet Stramel

In his book “How to Solve It,” George Pólya (1945) said, “One of the most important tasks of the teacher is to help his students. This task is not quite easy; it demands time, practice, devotion, and sound principles. The student should acquire as much experience of independent work as possible. But if he is left alone with his problem without any help, he may make no progress at all. If the teacher helps too much, nothing is left to the student. The teacher should help, but not too much and not too little, so that the student shall have a reasonable share of the work.” (page 1)

What is a problem in mathematics? A problem is “any task or activity for which the students have no prescribed or memorized rules or methods, nor is there a perception by students that there is a specific ‘correct’ solution method” (Hiebert, et. al., 1997). Problem solving in mathematics is one of the most important topics to teach; learning to problem solve helps students develop a sense of solving real-life problems and apply mathematics to real world situations. It is also used for a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts. Learning “math facts” is not enough; students must also learn how to use these facts to develop their thinking skills.

According to NCTM (2010), the term “problem solving” refers to mathematical tasks that have the potential to provide intellectual challenges for enhancing students’ mathematical understanding and development. When you first hear “problem solving,” what do you think about? Story problems or word problems? Story problems may be limited to and not “problematic” enough. For example, you may ask students to find the area of a rectangle, given the length and width. This type of problem is an exercise in computation and can be completed mindlessly without understanding the concept of area. Worthwhile problems includes problems that are truly problematic and have the potential to provide contexts for students’ mathematical development.

There are three ways to solve problems: teaching for problem solving, teaching about problem solving, and teaching through problem solving.

Teaching for problem solving begins with learning a skill. For example, students are learning how to multiply a two-digit number by a one-digit number, and the story problems you select are multiplication problems. Be sure when you are teaching for problem solving, you select or develop tasks that can promote the development of mathematical understanding.

Teaching about problem solving begins with suggested strategies to solve a problem. For example, “draw a picture,” “make a table,” etc. You may see posters in teachers’ classrooms of the “Problem Solving Method” such as: 1) Read the problem, 2) Devise a plan, 3) Solve the problem, and 4) Check your work. There is little or no evidence that students’ problem-solving abilities are improved when teaching about problem solving. Students will see a word problem as a separate endeavor and focus on the steps to follow rather than the mathematics. In addition, students will tend to use trial and error instead of focusing on sense making.

Teaching through problem solving focuses students’ attention on ideas and sense making and develops mathematical practices. Teaching through problem solving also develops a student’s confidence and builds on their strengths. It allows for collaboration among students and engages students in their own learning.

Consider the following worthwhile-problem criteria developed by Lappan and Phillips (1998):

The problem has important, useful mathematics embedded in it.
The problem requires high-level thinking and problem solving.
The problem contributes to the conceptual development of students.
The problem creates an opportunity for the teacher to assess what his or her students are learning and where they are experiencing difficulty.
The problem can be approached by students in multiple ways using different solution strategies.
The problem has various solutions or allows different decisions or positions to be taken and defended.
The problem encourages student engagement and discourse.
The problem connects to other important mathematical ideas.
The problem promotes the skillful use of mathematics.
The problem provides an opportunity to practice important skills.

Of course, not every problem will include all of the above. Sometimes, you will choose a problem because your students need an opportunity to practice a certain skill.

Key features of a good mathematics problem includes:

It must begin where the students are mathematically.
The feature of the problem must be the mathematics that students are to learn.
It must require justifications and explanations for both answers and methods of solving.

Problem solving is not a neat and orderly process. Think about needlework. On the front side, it is neat and perfect and pretty.

But look at the b ack.

It is messy and full of knots and loops. Problem solving in mathematics is also like this and we need to help our students be “messy” with problem solving; they need to go through those knots and loops and learn how to solve problems with the teacher’s guidance.

When you teach through problem solving , your students are focused on ideas and sense-making and they develop confidence in mathematics!

Mathematics Tasks and Activities that Promote Teaching through Problem Solving

Choosing the Right Task

Selecting activities and/or tasks is the most significant decision teachers make that will affect students’ learning. Consider the following questions:

Teachers must do the activity first. What is problematic about the activity? What will you need to do BEFORE the activity and AFTER the activity? Additionally, think how your students would do the activity.
What mathematical ideas will the activity develop? Are there connections to other related mathematics topics, or other content areas?
Can the activity accomplish your learning objective/goals?

Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks

By definition, a “ low floor/high ceiling task ” is a mathematical activity where everyone in the group can begin and then work on at their own level of engagement. Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks are activities that everyone can begin and work on based on their own level, and have many possibilities for students to do more challenging mathematics. One gauge of knowing whether an activity is a Low Floor High Ceiling Task is when the work on the problems becomes more important than the answer itself, and leads to rich mathematical discourse [Hover: ways of representing, thinking, talking, agreeing, and disagreeing; the way ideas are exchanged and what the ideas entail; and as being shaped by the tasks in which students engage as well as by the nature of the learning environment].

The strengths of using Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks:

Allows students to show what they can do, not what they can’t.
Provides differentiation to all students.
Promotes a positive classroom environment.
Advances a growth mindset in students
Aligns with the Standards for Mathematical Practice

Examples of some Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks can be found at the following sites:

YouCubed – under grades choose Low Floor High Ceiling
NRICH Creating a Low Threshold High Ceiling Classroom
Inside Mathematics Problems of the Month

Math in 3-Acts

Math in 3-Acts was developed by Dan Meyer to spark an interest in and engage students in thought-provoking mathematical inquiry. Math in 3-Acts is a whole-group mathematics task consisting of three distinct parts:

Act One is about noticing and wondering. The teacher shares with students an image, video, or other situation that is engaging and perplexing. Students then generate questions about the situation.

In Act Two , the teacher offers some information for the students to use as they find the solutions to the problem.

Act Three is the “reveal.” Students share their thinking as well as their solutions.

“Math in 3 Acts” is a fun way to engage your students, there is a low entry point that gives students confidence, there are multiple paths to a solution, and it encourages students to work in groups to solve the problem. Some examples of Math in 3-Acts can be found at the following websites:

Dan Meyer’s Three-Act Math Tasks
Graham Fletcher3-Act Tasks ]
Math in 3-Acts: Real World Math Problems to Make Math Contextual, Visual and Concrete

Number Talks

Number talks are brief, 5-15 minute discussions that focus on student solutions for a mental math computation problem. Students share their different mental math processes aloud while the teacher records their thinking visually on a chart or board. In addition, students learn from each other’s strategies as they question, critique, or build on the strategies that are shared.. To use a “number talk,” you would include the following steps:

The teacher presents a problem for students to solve mentally.
Provide adequate “ wait time .”
The teacher calls on a students and asks, “What were you thinking?” and “Explain your thinking.”
For each student who volunteers to share their strategy, write their thinking on the board. Make sure to accurately record their thinking; do not correct their responses.
Invite students to question each other about their strategies, compare and contrast the strategies, and ask for clarification about strategies that are confusing.

“Number Talks” can be used as an introduction, a warm up to a lesson, or an extension. Some examples of Number Talks can be found at the following websites:

Inside Mathematics Number Talks
Number Talks Build Numerical Reasoning

Saying “This is Easy”

“This is easy.” Three little words that can have a big impact on students. What may be “easy” for one person, may be more “difficult” for someone else. And saying “this is easy” defeats the purpose of a growth mindset classroom, where students are comfortable making mistakes.

When the teacher says, “this is easy,” students may think,

“Everyone else understands and I don’t. I can’t do this!”
Students may just give up and surrender the mathematics to their classmates.
Students may shut down.

Instead, you and your students could say the following:

“I think I can do this.”
“I have an idea I want to try.”
“I’ve seen this kind of problem before.”

Tracy Zager wrote a short article, “This is easy”: The Little Phrase That Causes Big Problems” that can give you more information. Read Tracy Zager’s article here.

Using “Worksheets”

Do you want your students to memorize concepts, or do you want them to understand and apply the mathematics for different situations?

What is a “worksheet” in mathematics? It is a paper and pencil assignment when no other materials are used. A worksheet does not allow your students to use hands-on materials/manipulatives [Hover: physical objects that are used as teaching tools to engage students in the hands-on learning of mathematics]; and worksheets are many times “naked number” with no context. And a worksheet should not be used to enhance a hands-on activity.

Students need time to explore and manipulate materials in order to learn the mathematics concept. Worksheets are just a test of rote memory. Students need to develop those higher-order thinking skills, and worksheets will not allow them to do that.

One productive belief from the NCTM publication, Principles to Action (2014), states, “Students at all grade levels can benefit from the use of physical and virtual manipulative materials to provide visual models of a range of mathematical ideas.”

You may need an “activity sheet,” a “graphic organizer,” etc. as you plan your mathematics activities/lessons, but be sure to include hands-on manipulatives. Using manipulatives can

Provide your students a bridge between the concrete and abstract
Serve as models that support students’ thinking
Provide another representation
Support student engagement
Give students ownership of their own learning.

Adapted from “ The Top 5 Reasons for Using Manipulatives in the Classroom ”.

any task or activity for which the students have no prescribed or memorized rules or methods, nor is there a perception by students that there is a specific ‘correct’ solution method

should be intriguing and contain a level of challenge that invites speculation and hard work, and directs students to investigate important mathematical ideas and ways of thinking toward the learning

involves teaching a skill so that a student can later solve a story problem

when we teach students how to problem solve

teaching mathematics content through real contexts, problems, situations, and models

a mathematical activity where everyone in the group can begin and then work on at their own level of engagement

20 seconds to 2 minutes for students to make sense of questions

Share This Book

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
Front Psychol

Challenges of teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills are essential as the skills can improve the ability to deal with various mathematical problems in daily life, increase the imagination, develop creativity, and develop an individual’s comprehension skills. However, mastery of these skills among students is still unsatisfactory because students often find it difficult to understand mathematical problems in verse, are weak at planning the correct solution strategy, and often make mistakes in their calculations. This study was conducted to identify the challenges that mathematics teachers face when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used to address these challenges. This study was conducted qualitatively in the form of a case study. The data were collected through observations and interviews with two respondents who teach mathematics to year four students in a Chinese national primary school in Kuala Lumpur. This study shows that the teachers have faced three challenges, specifically low mastery skills among the students, insufficient teaching time, and a lack of ICT infrastructure. The teachers addressed these challenges with creativity and enthusiasm to diversify the teaching approaches to face the challenges and develop interest and skills as part of solving sentence-based mathematics problems among year four students. These findings allow mathematics teachers to understand the challenges faced while teaching sentence-based mathematics problem solving in depth as part of delivering quality education for every student. Nevertheless, further studies involving many respondents are needed to understand the problems and challenges of different situations and approaches that can be used when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

1. Introduction

To keep track of the development of the current world, education has changed over time to create a more robust and effective system for producing a competent and competitive generation ( Hashim and Wan, 2020 ). The education system of a country is a significant determinant of the growth and development of the said country ( Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013 ). In the Malaysian context, the education system has undergone repeated changes alongside the latest curriculum, namely the revised Primary School Standard Curriculum (KSSR) and the revised Secondary School Standard Curriculum (KSSM). These changes have been implemented to ensure that Malaysian education is improving continually so then the students can guide the country to compete globally ( Adam and Halim, 2019 ). However, Malaysian students have shown limited skills in international assessments such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

According to the PISA 2018 results, the students’ performance in mathematics is still below the average level of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; Avvisati et al., 2019 ). The results show that almost half of the students in Malaysia have still not mastered mathematical skills fully. Meanwhile, the TIMSS results in 2019 have shown there to be a descent in the achievements of Malaysian students compared to the results in 2015 ( Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2020b ). This situation is worrying as most students from other countries such as China, Singapore, Korea, Japan, and others have a higher level of mathematical skills than Malaysian students. According to Mullis et al. (2016) , these two international assessments have in common that both assessments test the level of the students’ skills when solving real-world problems. In short, PISA and TIMSS have proven that Malaysian students are still weak when it comes to solving sentence-based mathematics problems.

According to Hassan et al. (2019) , teachers must emphasize the mastery of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and apply it in mathematics teaching in primary school. Sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills can improve the students’ skills when dealing with various mathematical problems in daily life ( Gurat, 2018 ), increase the students’ imagination ( Wibowo et al., 2017 ), develop the students’ creativity ( Suastika, 2017 ), and develop the students’ comprehension skills ( Mulyati et al., 2017 ). The importance of sentence-based mathematic problem-solving skills is also supported by Ismail et al. (2021) . They stated that mathematics problem-solving skills are similar to high-level thinking skills when it comes to guiding students with how to deal with problems creatively and critically. Moreover, problem-solving skills are also an activity that requires an individual to select an appropriate strategy to be performed by the individual to ensure that movement occurs between the current state to the expected state ( Sudarmo and Mariyati, 2017 ). There are various strategies that can be used by teachers to guide students when developing their problem-solving skills such as problem-solving strategies based on Polya’s Problem-Solving Model (1957). Various research studies have used problem-solving models to solve specific problems to improve the students’ mathematical skills. Polya (1957) , Lester (1980) , Gick (1986) , and DeMuth (2007) are examples. One of the oldest problem-solving models is the George Polya model (1957). The model is divided into four major stages: (i) understanding the problem; (ii) devising a plan that will lead to the solution; (iii) Carrying out the plan; and (iv) looking back. In contrast to traditional mathematics classroom environments, Polya’s Problem-Solving Process allows the students to practice adapting and changing strategies to match new scenarios. As a result, the teachers must assist the students to help them recognize whether the strategy is appropriate, including where and how to apply the technique.

In addition, problem-solving skills are one of the 21st-century skills that need to be mastered by students through education now so then they are prepared to face the challenges of daily life ( Khoiriyah and Husamah., 2018 ). This statement is also supported by Widodo et al. (2018) who put forward four main reasons why students need to master problem-solving skills through mathematics learning. One reason is that sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills are closely related to daily life ( Wong, 2015 ). Such skills can be used to formulate concepts and develop mathematical ideas, a skill that needs to be conveyed according to the school’s content standards. The younger generation is expected to develop critical, logical, systematic, accurate, and efficient thinking when solving a problem. Accordingly, problem solving has become an element that current employers emphasize when looking to acquire new energy sources ( Zainuddin et al., 2018 ). This clearly shows that problem-solving skills are essential skills that must be mastered by students and taken care of by mathematics teachers in primary school.

In the context of mathematics learning in Malaysia, students are required to solve sentence-based mathematics problems by applying mathematical concepts learned at the end of each topic. Two types of sentence-based mathematics problems are presented when teaching mathematics: routine and non-routine ( Wong and Matore, 2020 ). According to Nurkaeti (2018) , routine sentence-based math problems are questions that require the students to solve problems using algorithmic calculations to obtain answers. For non-routine sentence-based math problems, thinking skills and the ability to apply more than one method or solution step are needed by the student to solve the problem ( Shawan et al., 2021 ). According to Rohmah and Sutiarso (2018) , problem-solving skills when solving a non-routine sentence-based mathematical problem is a high-level intellectual skill where the students need to use logical thinking and reasoning. This statement also aligns with Wilson's (1997) opinion that solving non-routine sentence-based mathematics always involves high-order thinking skills (HOTS). To solve non-routine and HOTS fundamental sentence-based math problems, a student is required to know various problem-solving strategies for solving the problems ( Wong and Matore, 2020 ). This situation has indirectly made the mastery of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills among students more challenging ( Mahmud, 2019 ).

According to Alkhawaldeh and Khasawneh’s findings (2021) , the failure of students stems from the teachers’ inability to perform their role effectively in the classroom. This statement is also supported by Abdullah (2020) . He argues that the failure of students in mastering non-routine sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills is due to the teachers rarely supplying these types of questions during the process of learning mathematics in class. A mathematics teacher should consider this issue because the quality of their teaching will affect the students’ mastery level of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

In addition, the teachers’ efforts to encourage the students to engage in social interactions with the teachers ( Jatisunda, 2017 ) and the teachers’ method of teaching and assessing the level of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Buschman, 2004 ) are also challenges that the teachers must face. Strategies that are not appropriate for the students will affect the quality of delivery of the sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills as well as cause one-way interactions to exist in the classroom. According to Rusdin and Ali (2019) , a practical teaching approach plays a vital role in developing the students’ skills when mastering specific knowledge. However, based on previous studies, the main challenges that mathematics teachers face when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem solving are due to the students. These challenges include the students having difficulty understanding sentence-based math problems, lacking knowledge about basic mathematical concepts, not calculating accurately, and not transforming the sentence-based mathematics problems into an operational form ( Yoong and Nasri, 2021 ). This also means that they cannot transform the sentence-based math problems into an operational form ( Yoong and Nasri, 2021 ). As a result, the teacher should diversify his or her teaching strategy by emphasizing understanding the mathematical concepts rather than procedural teaching to reinforce basic mathematical concepts, to encourage the students to work on any practice problems assigned by the teacher before completing any assignments to help them do the calculation correctly, and engaging in the use of effective oral questioning to stimulate student thinking related to the operational need when problem solving. All of these strategies actually help the teachers facilitate and lessen the students’ difficulty understanding sentence-based math problems ( Subramaniam et al., 2022 ).

Meanwhile, Dirgantoro et al. (2019) stated several challenges that the students posed while solving the sentence-based problem. For example, students do not read the questions carefully, the students lack mastery of mathematical concepts, the students solve problems in a hurry due to poor time management, the students are not used to making hypotheses and conclusions, as well as the students, being less skilled at using a scientific calculator. These factors have caused the students to have difficulty mastering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills, which goes on to become an inevitable challenge in maths classes. Therefore, teachers need to study these challenges to self-reflect so then their self-professionalism can be further developed ( Dirgantoro et al., 2019 ).

As for the school factor, challenges such as limited teaching resources, a lack of infrastructure facilities, and a large number of students in a class ( Rusdin and Ali, 2019 ) have meant that a conducive learning environment for learning sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills cannot be created. According to Ersoy (2016) , problem-solving skills can be learned if an appropriate learning environment is provided for the students to help them undergo a continuous and systematic problem-solving process.

To develop sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills among students, various models, pedagogies, activities, etc. have been introduced to assist mathematics teachers in delivering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills more effectively ( Gurat, 2018 ; Khoiriyah and Husamah., 2018 ; Özreçberoğlu and Çağanağa, 2018 ; Hasibuan et al., 2019 ). However, students nowadays still face difficulties when trying to master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. This situation occurs due to the lack of studies examining the challenges faced by these mathematics teachers and how teachers use teaching approaches to overcome said challenges. This has led to various issues during the teaching and facilitation of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in mathematics classes. According to Rusdin and Ali (2019) , these issues need to be addressed by a teacher wisely so then the quality of teaching can reach the best level. Therefore, mathematics teachers must understand and address these challenges to improve their teaching.

However, so far, not much is known about how primary school mathematics teachers face the challenges encountered when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and what approaches are used to address the challenges in the context of education in Malaysia. Therefore, this study needs to be carried out to help understand the teaching of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in primary schools ( Pazin et al., 2022 ). Due to the challenges when teaching mathematics as stipulated in the Mathematics Curriculum and Assessment Standard Document ( Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2020a ) which emphasizes mathematical problem-solving skills as one of the main skills that students need to master in comprehensive mathematics learning, this study focuses on identifying the challenges faced by mathematics teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that mathematics teachers have used to overcome those challenges. The results of this study can provide information to mathematics teachers to help them understand the challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that can be applied to overcome the challenges faced. Therefore, it is very important for this study to be carried out so then all the visions set within the framework of the Malaysian National Mathematics Curriculum can be successfully achieved.

2. Conceptual framework

The issue of students lacking mastery of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills is closely related to the challenges that teachers face and the teaching approach used. Based on the overall findings of the previous studies, the factors that pose a challenge to teachers when delivering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills include challenges from the teacher ( Buschman, 2004 ; Jatisunda, 2017 ; Abdullah, 2020 ), challenges from the pupils ( Dirgantoro et al., 2019 ), and challenges from the school ( Rusdin and Ali, 2019 ). As for the teaching approach, previous studies have suggested teaching approaches such as mastery learning, contextual learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, simulation, discovery inquiry, the modular approach, the STEM approach ( Curriculum Development Division, 2019 ), game-based teaching which uses digital games ( Muhamad et al., 2018 ), and where a combination of the modular approach especially the flipped classroom is applied alongside the problem-based learning approach when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem solving ( Alias et al., 2020 ). This is as well as the constructivism approach ( Jatisunda, 2017 ). The conceptual framework in Figure 1 illustrates that the teachers will face various challenges during the ongoing teaching and facilitation of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-1074202-g001.jpg

Conceptual framework of the study.

3. Methodology

The objective of this study was to determine the challenges that teachers face while teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used when teaching those skills. Therefore, a qualitative research approach in the form of a case study was used to collect data from the participants in a Chinese national type of school (SJKC) in Bangsar and Pudu, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The school, SJKC, in the districts of Bangsar and Pudu, was chosen as the location of this study because the school is implementing the School Transformation Program 2025 (TS25). One of the main objectives of the TS25 program is to apply the best teaching concepts and practices so then the quality of the learning and teaching in the classes is improved. Thus, schools that go through the program are believed to be able to diversify their teachers’ teaching and supply more of the data needed to answer the questions of this study. This is because case studies can develop an in-depth description and analysis of the case to be studied ( Creswell and Poth, 2018 ). All data collected through the observations, interviews, audio-visual materials, documents, and reports can be reported on in terms of both depth and detail based on the theme of the case. Therefore, this study collected data related to the challenges and approaches of SJKC mathematics teachers through observations, interviews, and document analysis.

Two primary school mathematics teachers who teach year four mathematics were selected to be the participants of this research using the purposive sampling technique to identify the challenges faced and the approaches used to overcome those challenges. The number of research participants in this study was sufficient enough to allow the researcher to explore the real picture of the challenges found when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that can be applied when teaching to overcome the challenges faced. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018) , the small number of study participants is sufficient when considering that the main purpose of the study is to obtain findings that can give a holistic and meaningful picture of the teaching and learning process in the classroom. However, based on the data analysis for both study participants, the researcher considered repeated information until it reached a saturation point. The characteristics of the study participants required when they were supplying the information for this study were as follows:

New or experienced teachers.
Year four math teacher.
Teachers teach in primary schools.
The teacher teaches the topic of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

The types of instruments used in the study were the observation protocol, field notes, interview protocol, and participants’ documents. In this study, the researcher used participatory type observations to observe the teaching style of the teachers when engaged in sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills lessons. Before conducting the study, the researcher obtained consent to conduct the study from the school as well as informed consent from the study participants to observe their teaching. During the observation, the teacher’s teaching process was recorded and transcribed using the field notes provided. Then, the study participants submitted and validated the field notes to avoid biased data. After that, the field notes were analyzed based on the observation protocol to identify the teachers’ challenges and teaching approaches in relation to sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Throughout the observation process of this study, the researcher observed the teaching of mathematics teachers online at least four times during the 2 months of the data collection at the research location.

Semi-structured interviews were used to identify the teachers’ perspectives and views on teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in terms of the challenges faced when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used by the teachers to overcome those challenges. To ensure that the interview data collected could answer the research questions, an interview protocol was prepared so then the required data could be collected from the study participants ( Cohen et al., 2007 ). Two experts validated the interview protocol, and a pilot study was conducted to ensure that the questions were easy to understand and would obtain the necessary data. Before the interview sessions began, the participants were informed of their rights and of the related research ethics. Throughout the interview sessions, the participants were asked two questions, namely:

What are the challenges faced when teaching mathematical problem-solving skills earlier?
What teaching approaches are used by teachers when facing these challenges? Why?

Semi-structured interviews were used to interview the study participants for 30 min every interview session. The timing ensured sufficient time for both parties to complete the question-and-answer process. Finally, the entire interview process was recorded in audio form. The audio recordings were then transcribed into text form and verified by the study participants.

The types of document collected in this study included informal documents, namely the daily lesson plan documents of the study participants, the work of the students of the study participants, and any teaching aids used. All of the documents were analyzed and used to ensure that the triangulation of the data occurred between the data collected from observations, interviews, and document analysis.

All data collected through the observations, interviews, and documentary analyses were entered into the NVIVO 11 software to ensure that the coding process took place simultaneously. The data in this study were analyzed using the constant comparative analysis method including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding to obtain the themes and subthemes related to the focus of the study ( Kolb, 2012 ). The NVIVO 11 software was also used to manage the data stack obtained from the interviews, observations, and document analysis during the data analysis process itself. In order to ensure that the themes generated from all of the data were accurate, the researcher carried out a repetitive reading process. The process of theme development involved numerous steps. First, the researcher examined the verbatim instruction data several times while looking for statements or paragraphs that could summarize a theme in a nutshell. This process had already been completed during the verbatim formation process of the teaching, while preparing the transcription. Second, the researcher kept reading (either from the same or different data), and if the researcher found a sentence that painted a similar picture to the theme that had been developed, the sentence was added to the same theme. This process is called “pattern matching” because the coding of the sentences refers to the existing categories ( Yin, 2003 ). Third, if the identified sentence was incompatible with an existing theme, a new theme was created. Fourth, this coding procedure continued throughout each data set’s theme analysis. The repeated reading process was used to select sentences able to explain the theme or help establish a new one. In short, the researcher conducted the data analysis process based on the data analysis steps proposed by Creswell and Creswell (2018) , as shown in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-1074202-g002.jpg

Data analysis steps ( Creswell and Creswell, 2018 ).

4. Findings

The findings of this study are presented based on the objective of the study, which was to identify the challenges faced by teachers and the approaches used to addressing those challenges when imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills to students in year four. Several themes were formed based on the analysis of the field notes, interview transcripts, and daily lesson plans of the study participants. This study found that teachers will face challenges that stem from the readiness of students to master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills, the teachers’ teaching style, and the equipment used for delivering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Due to facing these challenges, teachers have diversified their teaching approaches ( Figure 3 ; Table 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-1074202-g003.jpg

Sentence-based mathematics problem-solving teaching approaches.

Teacher challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

5. Discussion

5.1. challenges for teachers when imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

A mathematics teacher will face three challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. The first challenge stems from the low mastery skills held by a student. Pupils can fail to solve sentence-based mathematics problems because they have poor reading skills, there is a poor medium of instruction used, or they have a poor mastery of mathematical concepts ( Johari et al., 2022 ). This indicates that students who are not ready or reach a minimum level of proficiency in a language, comprehension, mathematical concepts, and calculations will result in them not being able to solve sentence-based mathematics problems smoothly.

These findings are consistent with the findings of the studies by Raifana et al. (2016) and Dirgantoro et al. (2019) who showed that students who are unprepared in terms of language skills, comprehension, mathematical concepts, and calculations are likely to make mistakes when solving sentence-based mathematics problems. If these challenges are not faced well, the students will become passive and not interact when learning sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. This situation occurs because students who frequently make mistakes will incur low self-confidence in mathematics ( Jailani et al., 2017 ). This situation should be avoided by teachers and social interaction should be encouraged during the learning process because the interaction between students and teachers can ensure that the learning outcomes are achieved by the students optimally ( Jatisunda, 2017 ).

The next challenge stems from the teacher-teaching factor. This study found that how teachers convey problem-solving skills has been challenging in terms of ensuring that their students master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Nang et al., 2022 ). The mastery teaching approach has caused the teaching time spent on mathematical content to be insufficient. Based on the findings of this study, the allocation of time spent ensuring that the students master the skills of solving sentence-based mathematics problems through a mastery approach has caused the teaching process not to follow the rate set in the annual lesson plan.

In this study, the participants spent a long time correcting the students’ mathematical concepts and allowing students to apply the skills learned. The actions of the participants of this study are in line with the statement of Adam and Halim (2019) that teachers need more time to arouse their students’ curiosity and ensure that students understand the correct ideas and concepts before doing more challenging activities. However, this approach has indirectly posed challenges regarding time allocation and ensuring that the students master the skills of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving. Aside from ensuring that the students’ master problem-solving skills, the participants must also complete the syllabus set in the annual lesson plan.

Finally, teachers also face challenges in terms of the lack of information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure when implementing the teaching and facilitation of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. In this study, mathematics teachers were found to face challenges caused by an unstable internet connection such as the problem of their students dropping out of class activities and whiteboard links not working. These problems have caused one mathematics class to run poorly ( Mahmud and Law, 2022 ). Throughout the implementation of teaching and its facilitation, ICT infrastructure equipment in terms of hardware, software, and internet services has become an element that will affect the effectiveness of virtual teaching ( Saifudin and Hamzah, 2021 ). In this regard, a mathematics teacher must be wise when selecting a teaching approach and diversifying the learning activities to implement a suitable mathematics class for students such as systematically using tables, charts, or lists, creating digital simulations, using analogies, working back over the work, involving reasoning activities and logic, and using various new applications such as Geogebra and Kahoot to help enable their students’ understanding.

5.2. Teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills—Approaches

In this study, various approaches have been used by the teachers facing challenges while imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Among the approaches that the mathematics teachers have used when teaching problem-solving skills are the oral questioning approach, mastery learning approach, contextual learning approach, game approach, and modular approach. This situation has shown that mathematics teachers have diversified their teaching approaches when facing the challenges associated with teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. This action is also in line with the excellent teaching and facilitation of mathematics proposal in the Curriculum and Assessment Standards Document revised KSSR Mathematics Year 4 ( Curriculum Development Division, 2019 ), stating that teaching activities should be carefully planned by the teachers and combine a variety of approaches that allow the students not only to understand the content in depth but also to think at a higher level. Therefore, a teacher needs to ensure that this teaching approach is applied when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills so then the students can learn sentence-based mathematics problem-solving teaching skills in a more fun, meaningful, and challenging environment ( Mahmud et al., 2022 ).

Through the findings of this study, the teaching approach used by mathematics teachers was found to have a specific purpose, namely facing the challenges associated with teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in the classroom. First of all, the oral questioning approach has been used by teachers facing the challenge of students having a poor understanding of the medium of instruction. The participants stated that questioning the students in stages can guide them to understanding the question and helping them plan appropriate problem-solving strategies. This opinion is also supported by Maat (2015) who stated that low-level oral questions could help the students achieve a minimum level of understanding, in particular remembering, and strengthening abstract mathematical concepts. The teacher’s action of guiding the students when solving sentence-based mathematics problems through oral questioning has ensured that the learning takes place in a student-centered manner, providing opportunities for the students to think and solve problems independently ( Mahmud and Yunus, 2018 ). This action is highly encouraged because teaching mathematics through the conventional approach is only effective for a short period, as the students can lack an understanding or fail to remember the mathematical concepts presented by the teacher ( Ali et al., 2021 ).

In addition, this study also found that the participants used the mastery approach to overcome the challenges of poor reading skills and poor mastery of mathematical concepts among the students. The mastery approach was used because it can provide more opportunities and time for the students to improve their reading skills and mastery of mathematical concepts ( Shawan et al., 2021 ). This approach has ensured that all students achieve the teaching objectives and that the teachers have time to provide enrichment and rehabilitation to the students as part of mastering the basic skills needed to solve sentence-based mathematics problems. This approach is very effective at adapting students to solving sentence-based mathematics problems according to the solution steps of the Polya model as well as the mathematical concepts learned in relation to a particular topic. The finding is in line with Ranggoana et al. (2018) and Mahmud (2019) study, which has shown that teaching through a mastery approach can enhance the student’s learning activities. This situation clearly shows that the mastery approach has ensured that the students have time to learn at their own pace, where they often try to emulate the solution shown by the teacher to solve a sentence-based mathematics problem.

Besides that, this study also found that mathematics teachers apply contextual learning approaches when teaching and facilitating sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. In this study, mathematics teachers have linked non-routine problems with examples from everyday life to guide the students with poor language literacy to help them understand non-routine problems and plan appropriate solution strategies. Such relationships can help the students process non-routine problems or mathematical concepts in a more meaningful context where the problem is relevant to real situations ( Siew et al., 2016 ). This situation can develop the students’ skill of solving sentence-based math problems where they can choose the right solution strategy to solve a non-routine problem. This finding is consistent with the results of Afni and Hartono (2020) . They showed that the contextual approach applied in learning could guide the students in determining appropriate strategies for solving sentence-based math problems. These findings are also supported by Seliaman and Dollah (2018) who stated that the practice of teachers giving examples that exist around the students and in real situations could make teaching and the subject facilitation easier to understand and fun.

Furthermore, the game approach was also used by the participants when imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. According to Sari et al. (2018) , the game approach to teaching mathematics can improve the student learning outcomes because the game approach facilitates the learning process and provides a more enjoyable learning environment for achieving the learning objectives. In this study, the game approach was used by the teachers to overcome the challenge of mastering the concept of unit conversion, which was not strong among the students ( Tobias et al., 2015 ; Hui and Mahmud, 2022 ). The participants used the game approach to teach induction sets that guided the students in recalling mathematical concepts. The action provided a fun learning environment and attracted the students to learning mathematical concepts, especially in the beginning of the class. This situation is consistent with the findings of Muhamad et al. (2018) . They showed that the game approach improved the students’ problem-solving skills, interests, and motivation to find a solution to the problem.

Regarding the challenge of insufficient teaching time and a lack of ICT infrastructure, modular approaches such as flipped classrooms have been used to encourage students to learn in a situation that focuses on self-development ( UNESCO, 2020 ). In this study, the participants used instructional videos with related content, clear instructions, and worksheets as part of the Google classroom learning platform. The students can follow the instructions to engage in revision or self-paced learning in their spare time. This modular approach has ensured that teachers can deliver mathematical content and increase the effectiveness of learning a skill ( Alias et al., 2020 ). For students with unstable internet connections, the participants have used a modular approach to ensure that the students continue learning and send work through other channels such as WhatsApp, by email, or as a hand-in hardcopy. In short, an appropriate teaching approach needs to be planned and implemented by the mathematics teachers to help students master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

6. Conclusion

Overall, this study has expanded the literature related to the challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that can be applied while teaching to overcome the challenges faced. This study has shown that students have difficulty mastering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills because they do not achieve the minimum mastery of factual knowledge, procedural skills, conceptual understanding, and the ability to choose appropriate strategies ( Collins and Stevens, 1983 ). This situation needs to be taken into account because sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills train the students to always be prepared to deal with problems that they will be faced with in their daily life. Through this study, teachers were found to play an essential role in overcoming the challenges faced by choosing the most appropriate teaching approach ( Baul and Mahmud, 2021 ). An appropriate teaching approach can improve the students’ sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Wulandari et al., 2020 ). Teachers need to work hard to equip themselves with varied knowledge and skills to ensure that sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills can be delivered to the students more effectively. Finally, the findings of this study were part of obtaining extensive data regarding the challenges that mathematics teachers face when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used to address those challenges in the process of teaching mathematics. It is suggested that a quantitative study be conducted to find out whether the findings obtained can be generalized to other populations. This is because this study is a qualitative one, and the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other populations.

The findings of this study can be used as a reference to develop the professionalism of mathematics teachers when teaching mathematical problem-solving skills. However, the study’s findings, due to being formulated from a small sample size, cannot be generalized to all mathematics teachers in Malaysia. Further studies are proposed to involve more respondents to better understand the different challenges and approaches used when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

This study was reviewed and approved by The Malaysian Ministry of Education. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AL conceived and designed the study, collected and organized the database, and performed the analysis. AL and MM co-wrote the manuscript and contributed to manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final submitted version.

The publication of this article is fully sponsored by the Faculty of Education Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and University Research Grant: GUP-2022-030, GGPM-2021-014, and GG-2022-022.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the commitment from the respondent. Thank you to the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, and University Research Grant: GUP-2022-030, GGPM-2021-014, and GG-2022-022 for sponsoring the publication of this article. Thanks also to all parties directly involved in helping the publication of this article to success.

Abdullah N. A. (2020). Kompetensi Penyelesaian Masalah Dan Pengetahuan Konseptual guru Matematik Sekolah Menengah [Problem solving competence and conceptual knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers] . Jurnal Kurikulum Pengajaran ASIA Pasifik 8 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
Adam N. A. B., Halim L. B.. (2019). “The challenge of integrating STEM education into the Malaysian curriculum,” in Seminar Wacana Pendidikan 2019 (SWAPEN 2.0) . 252–260.
Afni N., Hartono (2020). “Contextual teaching and learning (CTL) as a strategy to improve students mathematical literacy,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: The 3rd International Seminar on Innovation in Mathematics and Mathematics Education (ISIMMED 2019) .
Ali S., Shanmugam S. K. S., Kamaludin F. A. (2021). Effectiveness of teacher facilitation skills and breakouts room for problem-based learning methods in enhancing student involvement during mathematics online classes . Pract. Res. 3 , 191–210. doi: 10.32890/pr2021.3.10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alias M., Iksan Z. H., Karim A. A., Nawawi A. M. H. M., Nawawi S. R. M. (2020). A novel approach in problem-solving skills using flipped classroom technique . Creat. Educ. 11 , 38–53. doi: 10.4236/ce.2020.111003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alkhawaldeh M. A., Khasawneh M. A. S. (2021). Learning disabilities in English at the primary stage: a qualitative study from the students’ perspective . Int. J. Multi-Discip. Res. Publ. 4 , 42–45. [ Google Scholar ]
Avvisati F., Echazarra P., Givord P., Schwabe M.. (2019). Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018 . OECD Secretaries-General, Paris, France: Avvisati’s publisher. [ Google Scholar ]
Baul A. L. N., Mahmud M. S. (2021). “Sentence-based mathematics problem solving skills in primary school mathematics learning: a literature review,” in International Virtual Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Technology 2021 , 3, 123–134.
Buschman L. (2004). Teaching problem solving in mathematics . Teach. Child. Math. 10 , 302–309. doi: 10.5951/TCM.10.6.0302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K.. (2007). Research methods in education . Vol. 55 . (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Collins A., Stevens A. L. (1983). “ A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching ” in Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status . Vol. 247 . ed. Reigeluth C. M. (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 247–278. [ Google Scholar ]
Creswell J. W., Creswell J. D. (2018). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . 5th Edn (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Creswell J. W., Poth C. (2018). Qualitative inguiry research design choosing among five approaches . 5th Edn (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Curriculum Development Division (2019). Dokumen standard Kurikulum Dan Pentaksiran KSSR Semakan 2017 Matematik Tahun 5 [revised KSSR 2017 standard document for year 5 mathematics curriculum and assessment] . Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, putrajaya: Curriculum Development Division publisher. [ Google Scholar ]
DeMuth D. (2007). A logical problem-solving strategy . New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
Dirgantoro K. P., Sepdikasari M. J. S., Listiani T. (2019). Analisis Kesalahan Mahasiswa Pgsd Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Statistika Penelitian Pendidikan Ditinjau Dari Prosedur Newman an analysis of primary teacher education students solving problems in statistics for educational research using the Newman procedure . JOHME: J. Holistic Math. Educ. 2 , 83–96. doi: 10.19166/johme.v2i2.1203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ersoy E. (2016). Problem solving and its teaching in mathematics . Online J. New Horiz. Educ. 6 , 79–87. [ Google Scholar ]
Gick K. (1986). Problem Solving Process, in Principles for teaching Problem Solving . New York: Plato Learning Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Gurat M. G. (2018). Mathematical problem-solving strategies among student teachers . J. Effic. Responsibility Educ. Sci. 11 , 53–64. doi: 10.7160/eriesj.2018.110302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hashim M. I., Wan M. W. M. R. (2020). Faktor Ketidaksediaan guru Terhadap Pelaksanaan Kelas Bercampur Aras murid [Factors of teacher unpreparedness of classroom mixed student implementation] . J. Dunia Pendidikan 2 , 196–204. [ Google Scholar ]
Hasibuan A. M., Saragih S., Amry Z. (2019). Development of learning devices based on realistic mathematics education to improve students’ spatial ability and motivation . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 14 , 243–252. doi: 10.29333/iejme/4000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hassan N. H., Hussin Z., Siraj S., Sapar A. A., Ismail Z. (2019). Kemahiran Berfikir Kritis Dalam Buku Teks Bahasa Melayu Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Tahap II [Critical Thinking Skills in Malay Language Textbooks Primary School Curriculum Standard Level II] . Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran ASIA Pasifik (JuKu) 7 , 18–29. [ Google Scholar ]
Hui H. B., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Teachers’ perception towards DELIMa learning platform for mathematics online teaching and learning in Sibu District teachers’ perception towards DELIMa learning platform for mathematics online teaching and learning in Sibu District . Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Social Sci. 12 , 1888–1908. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i11/15240 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ismail F., Nasir A. A., Haron R., Kelewon N. A.. (2021). Mendominasi Kemahiran Penyelesaian Masalah [Dominate Problem Solving Skills] . Res. Manag. Technol. Bus. 2 , 446–455. [ Google Scholar ]
Jailani J., Sugiman S., Apino E. (2017). Implementing the problem-based learning in order to improve the students’ HOTS and characters . Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika 4 , 247–259. doi: 10.21831/jrpm.v4i2.17674 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jatisunda M. G. (2017). Pengaruh Pendekatan Konstruktivisme Terhadap Pemecahan Masalah Matematik Peserta Didik [The influence of constructivism approach on students’ mathematical problem solving] . Jurnal THEOREMS (The Original Research Of Mathematics) 2 , 57–66. doi: 10.31949/th.v2i1.574 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Johari M. I., Rosli R., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S., Capraro M. M., Capraro R. M. (2022). Integrated professional development for mathematics teachers: a systematic review . Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 12 , 226–234. doi: 10.47750/pegegog.12.04.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Khoiriyah A. J., Husamah (2018). Problem-based learning: creative thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and learning outcome of seventh grade students . J. Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia 4 , 151–160. doi: 10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5804 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kolb S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators . J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 3 , 83–86. [ Google Scholar ]
Lester F. K. (1980). “ Issues in teaching mathematical problem solving in the elementary grades . Sch. Sci. Math. 82 , 93–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1982.tb11532.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maat S. M. (2015). “ Implementation KBAT issues and challenges in mathematics education ,” in Isu Dan Cabaran Dalam Pendidikan Matematik . 37–52. [ Google Scholar ]
Mahmud M. S. (2019). The role of wait time in the process of Oral questioning in the teaching and learning process of mathematics . Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 28 , 691–697. [ Google Scholar ]
Mahmud M. S., Law M. L. (2022). Mathematics teachers’ perception s on the implementation of the Quizizz application . Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 21 , 134–149. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.4.8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mahmud M. S., Maat S. M., Rosli R., Sulaiman N. A., Mohamed S. B. (2022). The application of entrepreneurial elements in mathematics teaching: challenges for primary school mathematics teachers . Front. Psychol. 13 , 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.753561, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mahmud M. S., Yunus A. S. M. (2018). The practice of giving feedback of primary school mathematics teachers in Oral questioning activities . J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 10 , 1336–1343. [ Google Scholar ]
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 . Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. [ Google Scholar ]
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2020a). Laporan Kebangsaan TIMSS (2019) [TIMSS National Report 2019].
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2020b). TIMSS National Report 2019-Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study . Putrajaya: Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan. [ Google Scholar ]
Muhamad N., Zakaria M. A. Z. M., Shaharudin M., Salleh, Harun J. (2018). Using digital games in the classroom to enhance creativity in mathematical problems solving . Sains Humanika 10 , 39–45. doi: 10.11113/sh.v10n3-2.1486 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mullis I. V. S., Martin M. O., Foy P., Hooper M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics . Chestnut Hill, MA, United States: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. [ Google Scholar ]
Mulyati T., Wahyudin T. H., Mulyana T. (2017). Effect of integrating Children’s literature and SQRQCQ problem solving learning on elementary school Student’s mathematical Reading comprehension skill . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 12 , 217–232. doi: 10.29333/iejme/610 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nang A. F. M., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Teacher technostress and coping mechanisms during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review . Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi 12 , 200–212. doi: 10.47750/pegegog.12.02.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nurkaeti N. (2018). Polya’S strategy: an analysis of mathematical problem solving difficulty in 5Th grade elementary school . Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar 10 , 140–147. doi: 10.17509/eh.v10i2.10868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Özreçberoğlu N., Çağanağa Ç. K. (2018). Making it count: strategies for improving problem-solving skills in mathematics for students and teachers’ classroom management . EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14 , 1253–1261. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/82536 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pazin A. H., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Factor influencing teachers’ creative teaching: a systematic review . Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 15 , 1–17. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v17i1.6696 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Polya G. (1957). How to Solve it. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method . 2nd Princeton: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Raifana S. N., Saad N. S., Dollah M. U. (2016). Types through the Newman error method in the solution of mathematical problems among year 5 students . Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Matematik Malaysia 6 , 109–119. [ Google Scholar ]
Ranggoana N., Maulidiya D., Rahimah D. (2018). Learning strategy (mastery learning) with the help of learning videos to improve learning activity of students class vii Smp N 22 Kotabengkulu . Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Matematika Sekolah (JP2MS) 2 , 90–96. doi: 10.33369/jp2ms.2.1.90-96 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rohmah M., Sutiarso S. (2018). Analysis problem solving in mathematical using theory Newman . EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14 , 671–681. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/80630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rusdin N. M., Ali S. R.. (2019). “Amalan Dan Cabaran Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran Abad Ke-21 [practices and challenges of 21st century learning implementation],” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Islamic Civilization and Technology Management , 87–105.
Saifudin N. H. A., Hamzah M. I. (2021). Challenges in implementing home teaching and learning (PdPR) among primary school students . Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan 3 , 250–264. [ Google Scholar ]
Sari N. R., Anggo M., Kodirun (2018). Design of learning numbers through game-Sut Sut using PMRI approach in class III elementary school . Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika 9 , 33–42. doi: 10.36709/jpm.v9i1.5758 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Seliaman N., Dollah M. U. (2018). Teaching of primary school mathematics using a contextual approach: a case study . Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia 8 , 27–34. doi: 10.37134/jpsmm.vol8.2.3.2018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shawan M., Osman S., Abu M. S. (2021). Difficulties in solving non-routine problems: preliminary analysis and results . ASM Sci. J. 16 , 1–14. doi: 10.32802/asmscj.2021.800 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Siew N. M., Geofrey J., Lee B. N. (2016). Students’ algebraic thinking and attitudes towards algebra: the effects of game-based learning using Dragonbox 12 + app . Res. J. Math. Technol. 5 , 66–79. [ Google Scholar ]
Suastika K. (2017). Mathematics learning model of open problem solving to develop students’ creativity . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 12 , 569–577. doi: 10.29333/iejme/633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Subramaniam S., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Computational thinking in mathematics education: a systematic review . Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 17 , 2029–2044. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v17i6.7494 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sudarmo M. N. P., Mariyati L. I. (2017). Problem solving ability with readiness to enter elementary school . Psikologia: Jurnal Psikologi 2 , 38–51. doi: 10.21070/psikologia.v2i1.1267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tobias S., Fletcher J. D., Chen F. (2015). Digital games as educational technology: promise and challenges in the use of games to teach . Educ. Technol. 55 , 3–12. [ Google Scholar ]
UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 response-remote learning strategy. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/unesco-covid-19-response-toolkit-remote-learning-strategy.pdf [ PubMed ]
Wibowo T., Sutawidjaja A., Asari A. R., Sulandra I. M. (2017). Characteristics of students sensory mathematical imagination in solving mathematics problem . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 12 , 609–619. doi: 10.29333/iejme/637 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Widodo S. A., Darhim, Ikhwanudin T. (2018). Improving mathematical problem solving skills through visual media . J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 948 :012004. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wilson J.. (1997). “Beyond the basis: Assesing students’ metacognitions,” in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Hong Kong Educational Research Association . 14. Hong Kong.
Wong K. Y. (2015). “ Use of student mathematics questioning to promote active learning and metacognition ” in Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education . ed. Cho S. J. (Cham: Springer International Publishing; ), 877–895. [ Google Scholar ]
Wong W. T., Matore M. E. E. M. (2020). Kemahiran Penyelesaian Masalah Berayat Matematik Melalui model Bar: Sorotan Literatur Bersistematik [mathematical problem solving through Bar model: systematic literature review] . Malays. J. Social Sci. Humanit. (MJSSH) 5 , 144–159. doi: 10.47405/mjssh.v5i12.569 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wulandari N. P., Rizky N. D., Antara P. A. (2020). Pendekatan Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Berbasis Open EndedTerhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa . Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar 4 , 131–142. doi: 10.23887/jisd.v4i2.25103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yin R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods . 3rd ed.. Thousand oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
Yoong Y. Q., Nasri N. F. M. (2021). Analisis Kesilapan Newman Dalam Penyelesaian Masalah Matematik Berayat [Error Analysis Newman in Mathematical Word Problem Solving] . Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan 3 , 373–380. [ Google Scholar ]
Zainuddin S. A., Mohamed M. A., Aziz A., Zaman H. A. (2018). Tahap Kemahiran Penyelesaian Masalah Pelajar Sarjana Muda Teknologi Kejuruteraan Pembuatan (Rekabentuk automotif) Setelah Menjalani work based learning level of problem solving skills of bachelor of manufacturing engineering technology automotive design . Politeknik Kolej Komuniti J. Social Sci. Humanit. 3 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]

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

12k Accesses

9 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.

Computer programmers show distinct, expertise-dependent brain responses to violations in form and meaning when reading code

Chu-Hsuan Kuo & Chantel S. Prat

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Lisa Messeri & M. J. Crockett

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

Sayed Fayaz Ahmad, Heesup Han, … Antonio Ariza-Montes

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

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

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

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

Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
Hung Phu Bui
Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Elementary teachers’ experience of engaging with Teaching Through Problem Solving using Lesson Study

Original Article
Published: 13 May 2022
Volume 35 , pages 901–927, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Mairéad Hourigan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6895-1895 1 &
Aisling M. Leavy ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1816-0091 1

4515 Accesses

4 Citations

13 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

For many decades, problem solving has been a focus of elementary mathematics education reforms. Despite this, in many education systems, the prevalent approach to mathematics problem solving treats it as an isolated activity instead of an integral part of teaching and learning. In this study, two mathematics teacher educators introduced 19 Irish elementary teachers to an alternative problem solving approach, namely Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP), using Lesson Study (LS) as the professional development model. The findings suggest that the opportunity to experience TTP first-hand within their schools supported teachers in appreciating the affordances of various TTP practices. In particular, teachers reported changes in their beliefs regarding problem solving practice alongside developing problem posing knowledge. Of particular note was teachers’ contention that engaging with TTP practices through LS facilitated them to appreciate their students’ problem solving potential to the fullest extent. However, the planning implications of the TTP approach presented as a persistent barrier.

Lesson Study and Its Role in the Implementation of Curriculum Reform in China

Learning to Teach Mathematics Through Problem Solving

Judy Bailey

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

A fundamental goal of mathematics education is to develop students’ ability to engage in mathematical problem solving. Despite curricular emphasis internationally on problem solving, many teachers are uncertain how to harness students’ problem solving potential (Cheeseman, 2018 ). While many problem solving programmes focus on providing students with step-by-step supports through modelling, heuristics, and other structures (Polya, 1957 ), Goldenberg et al. ( 2001 ) suggest that the most effective approach to developing students’ problem solving ability is by providing them with frequent opportunities over a prolonged period to solve worthwhile open-ended problems that are challenging yet accessible to all. This viewpoint is in close alignment with reform mathematics perspectives that promote conceptual understanding, where students actively construct their knowledge and relate new ideas to prior knowledge, creating a web of connected knowledge (Hiebert, 2003 ; Lester, 2013 ; Takahashi, 2006 ; Watanabe, 2001 ).

There is consensus in the mathematics education community that problem solving should not be taught as an isolated topic focused solely on developing problem solving skills and strategies or presented as an end-of-chapter activity (Takahashi, 2006 , 2016 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). Instead, problem solving should be integrated across the curriculum as a fundamental part of mathematics teaching and learning (Cai & Lester, 2010 ; Takahashi, 2016 ).

A ‘Teaching Through Problem Solving’ (TTP) approach, a problem solving style of instruction that originated in elementary education in Japan, meets these criteria treating problem solving as a core practice rather than an ‘add-on’ to mathematics instruction.

Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP)

Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP) is considered a powerful means of promoting mathematical understanding as a by-product of solving problems, where the teacher presents students with a specially designed problem that targets certain mathematics content (Stacey, 2018 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). The lesson implementation starts with the teacher presenting a problem and ensuring that students understand what is required. Students then solve the problem either individually or in groups, inventing their approaches. At this stage, the teacher does not model or suggest a solution procedure. Instead, they take on the role of facilitator, providing support to students only at the right time (Hiebert, 2003 ; Lester, 2013 ; Takahashi, 2006 ). As students solve the problem, the teacher circulates, observes the range of student strategies, and identifies work that illustrates desired features. However, the problem solving lesson does not end when the students find a solution. The subsequent sharing phase, called Neriage (polishing ideas), is considered by Japanese teachers to be the heart of the lesson rather than its culmination. During Neriage, the teacher purposefully selects students to share their strategies, compares various approaches, and introduces increasingly sophisticated solution methods. Effective questioning is central to this process, alongside careful recording of the multiple solutions on the board. The teacher concludes the lesson by formalising and consolidating the lesson’s main points. This process promotes learning for all students (Hiebert, 2003 ; Stacey, 2018 ; Takahashi, 2016 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ; Watanabe, 2001 ).

The TTP approach assumes that students develop, extend, and enrich their understandings as they confront problematic situations using existing knowledge. Therefore, TTP fosters the symbiotic relationship between conceptual understanding and problem solving, as conceptual understanding is required to solve challenging problems and make sense of new ideas by connecting them with existing knowledge. Equally, problem solving promotes conceptual understanding through the active construction of knowledge (Hiebert, 2003 ; Lambdin, 2003 ; Takahashi, 2006 ). Consequently, students simultaneously develop more profound understandings of the mathematics content while cultivating problem solving skills (Kapur, 2010 ; Stacey, 2018 ).

Relevant research affirms that teachers acknowledge the merits of this approach (Sullivan et al., 2014 ) and most students report positive experiences (Russo & Minas, 2020 ). The process is considered to make students’ thinking and learning visible (Ingram et al., 2020 ). Engagement in TTP has resulted in teachers becoming more aware of and confident in their students’ problem solving abilities and subsequently expecting more from them (Crespo & Featherstone, 2006 ; Sakshaug & Wohlhuter, 2010 ).

Demands of TTP

Adopting a TTP approach challenges pre-existing beliefs and poses additional knowledge demands for elementary teachers, both content and pedagogical (Takahashi, 2008 ).

Research has consistently reported a relationship between teacher beliefs and the instructional techniques used, with evidence of more rule-based, teacher-directed strategies used by teachers with traditional mathematics beliefs (Stipek et al., 2001 ; Swan, 2006 ; Thompson, 1985 ). These teachers tend to address problem solving separately from concept and skill development and possess a simplistic view of problem solving as translating a problem into abstract mathematical terms to solve it. Consequently, such teachers ‘are very concerned about developing skilfulness in translating (so-called) real-world problems into mathematical representations and vice versa’ (Lester, 2013 , p. 254). Early studies of problem solving practice reported direct instructional techniques where the teacher would model how to solve the problem followed by students practicing similar problems (Chapman, 2015 ; Hiebert, 2003 ; Lester, 2013 ). This naïve conception of problem solving is reflected in many textbook problems that simply require students to apply previously learned routine procedures to solve problems that are merely thinly disguised number operations (Lester, 2013 ; Singer & Voica, 2013 ). Hence, the TTP approach requires a significant shift for teachers who previously considered problem solving as an extra activity conducted after the new mathematics concepts are introduced (Lester, 2013 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ) or whose personal experience of problem solving was confined to applying routine procedures to word problems (Sakshaug &Wohlhuter, 2010 ).

Alongside beliefs, teachers’ knowledge influences their problem solving practices. Teachers require a deep understanding of the nature of problem solving, in particular viewing problem solving as a process (Chapman, 2015 ). To be able to understand the stages problem solvers go through and appreciate what successful problem solving involves, teachers benefit from experiencing solving problems from the problem solver’s perspective (Chapman, 2015 ; Lester, 2013 ).

It is also essential that teachers understand what constitutes a worthwhile problem when selecting or posing problems (Cai, 2003 ; Chapman, 2015 ; Lester, 2013 ; O’Shea & Leavy, 2013 ). This requires an understanding that problems are ‘mathematical tasks for which the student does not have an obvious way to solve it’ (Chapman, 2015 , p. 22). Teachers need to appreciate the variety of problem characteristics that contribute to the richness of a problem, e.g. problem structures and cognitive demand (Klein & Leiken, 2020 ; O’Shea & Leavy, 2013 ). Such understandings are extensive, and rather than invest heavily in the time taken to construct their mathematics problems, teachers use pre-made textbook problems or make cosmetic changes to make cosmetic changes to these (Koichu et al., 2013 ). In TTP, due consideration must also be given to the problem characteristics that best support students in strengthening existing understandings and experiencing new learning of the target concept, process, or skill (Cai, 2003 ; Takahashi, 2008 ). Specialised content knowledge is also crucial for teachers to accurately predict and interpret various solution strategies and misconceptions/errors, to determine the validity of alternative approaches and the source of errors, to sequence student approaches, and to synthesise approaches and new learning during the TTP lesson (Ball et al., 2008 ; Cai, 2003 ; Leavy & Hourigan, 2018 ).

Teachers should also be knowledgeable regarding appropriate problem solving instruction. It is common for teachers to teach for problem solving (i.e., focusing on developing students’ problem solving skills and strategies). Teachers adopting a TTP approach engage in reform classroom practices that reflect a constructivist-oriented approach to problem solving instruction where the teacher guides students to work collaboratively to construct meaning, deciding when and how to support students without removing their autonomy (Chapman, 2015 ; Hiebert, 2003 ; Lester, 2013 ). Teachers ought to be aware of the various relevant models of problem solving, including Polya’s ( 1957 ) model that supports teaching for problem solving (Understand the problem-Devise a plan-Carry out the plan-Look back) alongside models that support TTP (e.g., Launch-Explore-Summarise) (Lester, 2013 ; Sullivan et al., 2021 ). While knowledge of heuristics and strategies may support teachers’ problem solving practices, there is consensus that teaching heuristics and strategies or teaching about problem solving does not significantly improve students’ problem solving ability. Teachers require a thorough knowledge of their students as problem solvers, for example, being aware of their abilities and factors that hinder their success, including language (Chapman, 2015 ). Knowledge of content and student, alongside content and teaching (Ball et al., 2008 ), is essential during TTP planning when predicting student approaches and errors. Such knowledge is also crucial during TTP implementation when determining the validity of alternative approaches, identifying the source of errors (Explore phase), sequencing student approaches, and synthesising the range of approaches and new learning effectively (Summarise phase) (Cai, 2003 ; Leavy & Hourigan, 2018 ).

Supports for teachers

Given the extensive demands of TTP, adopting this approach is arduous in terms of the planning time required to problem pose, predict approaches, and design questions and resources (Lester, 2013 ; Sullivan et al., 2010 ; Takahashi, 2008 ). Consequently, it is necessary to support teachers who adopt a TTP approach (Hiebert, 2003 ). Professional development must facilitate them to experience the approach themselves as learners and then provide classroom implementation opportunities that incorporate collaborative planning and reflection when trialling the approach (Watanabe, 2001 ). In Japan, a common form of professional development to promote, develop, and refine TTP implementation among teachers and test potential problems for TTP is Japanese Lesson Study (LS) (Stacey, 2018 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). Another valuable support is access to a repository of worthwhile problems. In Japan, government-authorised textbooks and teacher manuals provide a sequence of lessons with rich well-tested problems to introduce new concepts. They also detail alternative strategies used by students and highlight the key mathematical aspects of these strategies (Takahashi, 2016 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ).

Teachers’ reservations about TTP

Despite the acknowledged benefits of TTP for students, some teachers report reluctance to employ TTP, identifying a range of obstacles. These include limited mathematics content knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge (Charalambous, 2008 ; Sakshaug & Wohlhuter, 2010 ) and a lack of access to resources or time to develop or modify appropriate resources (Ingram et al., 2020 ; Russo & Hopkins, 2019 ; Sullivan et al., 2015 ). Other barriers for teachers with limited experience of TTP include giving up control, struggling to support students without directing them, and a tendency to demonstrate how to solve the problem (Cheeseman, 2018 ; Crespo & Featherstone, 2006 ; Klein & Leiken, 2020 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). Resistance to TTP is also associated with some teachers’ perception that this approach would lead to student disengagement and hence be unsuitable for lower-performing students (Ingram et al., 2020 ; Russo & Hopkins, 2019 ; Sullivan et al., 2010 ).

Problem solving practices in Irish elementary mathematics education

Within the Irish context, problem solving is a central tenet of elementary mathematics curriculum documents (Department of Education and Science (DES), 1999 ) with recommendations that problem solving should be integral to students’ mathematical learning. However, research reveals a mismatch between intended and implemented problem solving practices (Dooley et al., 2014 ; Dunphy et al., 2014 ), where classroom practices reflect a narrow approach limited to problem solving as an ‘add on’, only applied after mathematical procedures had been learned and where problems are predominantly sourced from dedicated sections of textbooks (Department of Education and Skills (DES), 2011 ; Dooley et al., 2014 ; National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), 2016 ; O’Shea & Leavy, 2013 ). Regarding the attained curriculum, Irish students have underperformed in mathematical problem solving, relative to other skills, in national and international assessments (NCCA, 2016 ; Shiel et al., 2014 ). Consensus exists that there is scope for improvement of problem solving practices, with ongoing calls for Irish primary teachers to receive support through school-based professional development models alongside creating a repository of quality problems (DES, 2011 ; Dooley et al., 2014 ; NCCA, 2016 ).

Lesson Study (LS) as a professional development model

Reform mathematics practices, such as TTP, challenge many elementary teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, practices, and cultural norms, particularly if they have not experienced the approach themselves as learners. To support teachers in enacting reform approaches, they require opportunities to engage in extended and targeted professional development involving collaborative and practice-centred experiences (Dudley et al., 2019 ; Murata et al., 2012 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). Lesson Study (LS) possesses the characteristics of effective professional development as it embeds ‘…teachers’ learning in their everyday work…increasing the likelihood that their learning will be meaningful’ (Fernandez et al., 2003 , p. 171).

In Japan, LS was developed in the 1980s to support teachers to use more student-centred practices. LS is a school-based, collaborative, reflective, iterative, and research-based form of professional development (Dudley et al., 2019 ; Murata et al., 2012 ). In Japan, LS is an integral part of teaching and is typically conducted as part of a school-wide project focused on addressing an identified teaching–learning challenge (Takahashi & McDougal, 2016 ). It involves a group of qualified teachers, generally within a single school, working together as part of a LS group to examine and better understand effective teaching practices. Within the four phases of the LS cycle, the LS group works collaboratively to study and plan a research lesson that addresses a pre-established goal before implementing (teach) and reflecting (observe, analyse and revise) on the impact of the lesson activities on students’ learning.

LS has become an increasingly popular professional development model outside of Japan in the last two decades. In these educational contexts, it is necessary to find a balance between fidelity to LS as originally envisaged and developing a LS approach that fits the cultural context of a country’s education system (Takahashi & McDougal, 2016 ).

Relevant research examining the impact of LS on qualified primary mathematics teachers reports many benefits. Several studies reveal that teachers demonstrated transformed beliefs regarding effective pedagogy and increased self-efficacy in their use due to engaging in LS (Cajkler et al., 2015 ; Dudley et al., 2019 ; Fernandez, 2005 ; Gutierez, 2016 ). Enhancements in participating teachers’ knowledge have also been reported (Cajkler et al., 2015 ; Dudley et al., 2019 ; Fernandez, 2005 ; Gutierez, 2016 ; Murata et al., 2012 ). Other gains recounted include improvements in practice with a greater focus on students (Cajkler et al., 2015 ; Dudley et al., 2019 ; Flanagan, 2021 ).

Context of this study

A cluster of urban schools, coordinated by their local Education Centre, engaged in an initiative to enhance teachers’ mathematics problem solving practices. The co-ordinator of the initiative approached the researchers, both mathematics teacher educators (MTEs), seeking a relevant professional development opportunity. Aware of the challenges of problem solving practice within the Irish context, the MTEs proposed an alternative perspective on problem solving: the Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP) approach. Given Cai’s ( 2003 ) recommendation that teachers can best learn to teach through problem solving by teaching and reflecting as opposed to taking more courses, the MTEs identified LS as the best fit in terms of a supportive professional development model, as it is collaborative, experiential, and school-based (Dudley et al., 2019 ; Murata et al., 2012 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). Consequently, LS would promote teachers to work collaboratively to understand the TTP approach, plan TTP practices for their educational context, observe what it looks like in practice, and assess the impact on their students’ thinking (Takahashi et al., 2013 ). In particular, the MTEs believed that the LS phases and practices would naturally support TTP structures, emphasizing task selection and anticipating students’ solutions. Given Lester’s ( 2013 ) assertion that each problem solving experience a teacher engages in can potentially alter their knowledge for teaching problem solving, the MTEs sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of the impact of engaging with TTP through LS on their beliefs regarding problem solving and their knowledge for teaching problem solving.

Research questions

This paper examines two research questions:

Research question 1: What are elementary teachers’ reported problem solving practices prior to engaging in LS?

Research question 2: What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of what they learned from engaging with TTP through LS?

Methodology

Participants.

The MTEs worked with 19 elementary teachers (16 female, three male) from eight urban schools. Schools were paired to create four LS groups on the basis of the grade taught by participating class teachers, e.g. Grade 3 teacher from school 1 paired with Grade 4 teacher from school 2. Each LS group generally consisted of 4–5 teachers, with a minimum of two teachers from each school, along with the two MTEs. For most teachers, LS and TTP were new practices being implemented concurrently. However, given the acknowledged overlap between the features of the TTP and LS approaches, for example, the focus on problem posing and predicting student strategies, the researchers were confident that the content and structure were compatible. Also, in Japan, LS is commonly used to promote TTP implementation among teachers (Stacey, 2018 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ).

All ethical obligations were adhered to throughout the research process, and the study received ethical approval from the researchers’ institutional board. Of the 19 participating LS teachers invited to partake in the research study, 16 provided informed consent to use their data for research purposes.

Over eight weeks, the MTEs worked with teachers, guiding each LS group through the four LS phases involving study, design, implementation, and reflection of a research lesson that focused on TTP while assuming the role of ‘knowledgeable others’ (Dudley et al., 2019 ; Hourigan & Leavy, 2021 ; Takahashi & McDougal, 2016 ). An overview of the timeline and summary of each LS phase is presented in Table 1 .

LS phase 1: Study

This initial study phase involved a one-day workshop. The process and benefits of LS as a school-based form of professional development were discussed in the morning session and the afternoon component was spent focusing on the characteristics of TTP. Teachers experienced the TPP approach first-hand by engaging in the various lesson stages. For example, they solved a problem (growing pattern problem) themselves in pairs and shared their strategies. They also predicted children’s approaches to the problem and possible misconceptions and watched the video cases of TTP classroom practice for this problem. Particular focus was placed on the importance of problem selection and prediction of student strategies before the lesson implementation and the Neriage stage of the lesson. Teachers also discussed readings related to LS practices (e.g. Lewis & Tsuchida, 1998 ) and TTP (e.g., Takahashi, 2008 ). At the end of the workshop, members of each LS group were asked to communicate among themselves and the MTEs, before the planning phase, to decide the specific mathematics focus of their LS group’s TTP lesson (Table 1 ).

LS phase 2: Planning

The planning phase was four weeks in duration and included two 1½ hour face-to-face planning sessions (i.e. planning meetings 1 and 2) between the MTEs and each LS group (Table 1 ). Meetings took place in one of the LS group’s schools. At the start of the first planning meeting, time was dedicated to Takahashi’s ( 2008 ) work focusing on the importance of problem selection and prediction of student strategies to plan the Neriage stage of the TTP lesson. The research lesson plan structure was also introduced. Ertle et al.’s ( 2001 ) four column lesson plan template was used. It was considered particularly compatible with the TTP approach, given the explicit attention to expected student response and the teacher’s response to student activity/response.

The planning then moved onto the content focus of each LS group’s TTP research lesson. LS groups selected TTP research lessons focusing on number (group A), growing patterns (group B), money (group C), and 3D shapes (group D). Across the planning phase, teachers invested substantial time extensively discussing the TTP lesson goals in terms of target mathematics content, developing or modifying a problem to address these goals, and exploring considerations for the various lesson stages. Drawing on Takahashi’s ( 2008 ) article, it was re-emphasised that no strategies would be explicitly taught before students engaged with the problem. While one LS group modified an existing problem (group B) (Hourigan & Leavy, 2015 ), the other three LS groups posed an original problem. To promote optimum teacher readiness to lead the Neriage stage, each LS group was encouraged to solve the problem themselves in various ways considering possible student strategies and their level of mathematical complexity, thus identifying the most appropriate sequence of sharing solutions.

LS phase 3: Implementation

The implementation phase involved one teacher in each LS group teaching the research lesson (teach 1) in their school. The remaining group members and MTEs observed and recorded students’ responses. Each LS group and the MTEs met immediately for a post-lesson discussion to evaluate the research lesson. The MTEs presented teachers with a series of focus questions: What were your observations of student learning? Were the goals of the lesson achieved? Did the problem support students in developing the appropriate understandings? Were there any strategies/errors that we had not predicted? How did the Neriage stage work? What aspects of the lesson plan should be reconsidered based on this evidence? Where appropriate, the MTEs drew teachers’ attention to particular lesson aspects they had not noticed. Subsequently, each LS group revised their research lesson in response to the observations, reflections, and discussion. The revised lesson was retaught 7–10 days later by a second group member from the paired LS group school (teach 2) (Table 1 ). The post-lesson discussion for teach 2 focused mainly on the impact of changes made after the first implementation on student learning, differences between the two classes, and further changes to the lesson.

LS phase 4: Reflection

While reflection occurred after both lesson implementations, the final reflection involved all teachers from the eight schools coming together for a half-day meeting in the local Education Centre to share their research lessons, experiences, and learning (Table 1 ). Each LS group made a presentation, identifying their research lesson’s content focus and sequence of activity. Artefacts (research lesson plan, materials, student work samples, photos) were used to support observations, reflections, and lesson modifications. During this meeting, teachers also reflected privately and in groups on their initial thoughts and experience of both LS and TTP, the benefits of participation, the challenges they faced, and they provided suggestions for future practice.

Data collection

The study was a collective case study (Stake, 1995 ). Each LS group constituted a case; thus, the analysis was structured around four cases. Data collection was closely aligned with and ran concurrent to the LS process. Table 2 details the links between the LS phases and the data collection process.

The principal data sources (Table 2 ) included both MTEs’ fieldnotes (phase (P) 1–4), and reflections (P1–4), alongside email correspondence (P1–4), individual teacher reflections (P1, 2, 4) (see reflection tasks in Table 3 ), and LS documentation including various drafts of lesson plans (P2–4) and group presentations (P4). Fieldnotes refer to all notes taken by MTEs when working with the LS groups, for example, during the study session, planning meetings, lesson implementations, post-lesson discussions, and the final reflection session.

The researchers were aware of the limitations of self-report data and the potential mismatch between one’s perceptions and reality. Furthermore, data in the form of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs may contain a certain degree of bias. However, this paper intentionally focuses solely on the teachers’ perceived learning in order to represent their ‘lived experience’ of TTP. Despite this, measures were taken to assure the trustworthiness and rigour of this qualitative study. The researchers engaged with the study over a prolonged period and collected data for each case (LS group) at every LS phase (Table 2 ). All transcripts reflected verbatim accounts of participants’ opinions and reflections. At regular intervals during the study, research meetings interrogated the researchers’ understandings, comparing participating teachers’ observations and reflections to promote meaning-making (Creswell, 2009 ; Suter, 2012 ).

Data analysis

The MTEs’ role as participant researchers was considered a strength of the research given that they possessed unique insights into the research context. A grounded theory approach was adopted, where the theory emerges from the data analysis process rather than starting with a theory to be confirmed or refuted (Glaser, 1978 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). Data were examined focusing on evidence of participants’ problem solving practices prior to LS and their perceptions of their learning as a result of engaging with TTP through LS. A systematic process of data analysis was adopted. Initially, raw data were organised into natural units of related data under various codes, e.g. resistance, traditional approach, ignorance, language, planning, fear of student response, relevance, and underestimation. Through successive examinations of the relationship between existing units, codes were amalgamated (Creswell, 2009 ). Progressive drafts resulted in the firming up of several themes. Triangulation was used to establish consistency across multiple data sources. While the first theme, Vast divide between prevalent problem solving practices and TTP , addresses research question 1, it is considered an overarching theme, given the impact of teachers’ established problem solving understandings and practices on their receptiveness to and experience of TTP. The remaining five themes ( Seeing is believing : the value of practice centred experiences ; A gained appreciation of the relevance and value of TTP practices ; Enhanced problem posing understandings ; Awakening to students’ problem solving potential ; and Reservations regarding TTP) represent a generalised model of teachers’ perceived learning due to engaging with TTP through LS, thus addressing research question 2. Although one of the researchers was responsible for the initial coding, both researchers met regularly during the analysis to discuss and interrogate the established codes and to agree on themes. This process served to counteract personal bias (Suter, 2012 ).

As teacher reflections were anonymised, it was not possible to track teachers across LS phases. Consequently, teacher reflection data are labelled as phase and instrument only. For example, ‘P2, teacher reflection’ communicates that the data were collected during LS phase 2 through teacher reflection. However, the remaining data are labelled according to phase, instrument, and source, e.g. ‘P3, fieldnotes: group B’. While phase 4 data reflect teachers’ perceptions after engaging fully with the TTP approach, data from the earlier phases reflect teachers’ evolving perceptions at a particular point in their unfolding TTP experience.

Discussion of findings

The findings draw on the analysis of the data collected across the LS phases and address the research questions. Within the confines of this paper, illustrative quotes are presented to provide insights into each theme. An additional layer of analysis was completed to ensure a balanced representation of teachers’ views in reporting findings. This process confirmed that the findings represent the views of teachers across LS groups, for example, within the first theme presented ( Vast divide ), the eight quotes used came from eight different teacher reflections. Equally, the six fieldnote excerpts selected represent six different teachers’ views across the four LS groups. Furthermore, in the second theme ( Seeing is believing ), the five quotes presented were sourced from five different participating teachers’ reflections and the six fieldnote excerpts included are from six different teachers across the four LS groups. Subsequent examination of the perceptions of those teachers not included in the reporting of findings confirmed that their perspectives were represented within the quotes used. Hence, the researchers are confident that the findings represent the views of teachers across all LS groups. For each theme, sources of evidence that informed the presented conclusions will be outlined.

Vast divide between prevalent problem solving practices and TTP

This overarching theme addresses the research question ‘What were elementary teachers’ reported problem solving practices prior to engaging in LS?’.

At the start of the initiative, within the study session (fieldnotes), all teachers identified mathematics problem solving as a problem of practice. The desire to develop problem solving practices was also apparent in some teachers’ reflections (phase 1 (P1), N = 8):

I am anxious about it. Problem solving is an area of great difficulty throughout our school (P1, teacher reflection).

During both study and planning phase discussions, across all LS groups, teachers’ reports suggested the almost exclusive use of a teaching for problem solving approach, with no awareness of the Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP) approach; a finding also evidenced in both teacher reflections (P1, N = 7) and email correspondence:

Unfamiliar, not what I am used to. I have no experience of this kind of problem solving. This new approach is the reverse way to what I have used for problem solving (P1, teacher reflection) Being introduced to new methods of teaching problem solving and trying different approaches is both exciting and challenging (P1: email correspondence)

Teachers’ descriptions of their problem solving classroom practices in both teacher reflections (P1, N = 8) and study session discussions (fieldnotes) suggested a naïve conception of problem solving, using heuristics such as the ‘RUDE (read, underline, draw a picture, estimate) strategy’ (P1, fieldnotes) to support students in decoding and solving the problem:

In general, the problem solving approach described by teachers is textbook-led, where concepts are taught context free first and the problems at the end of the chapter are completed afterwards (P1, reflection: MTE2)

This approach was confirmed as widespread across all LS groups within the planning meetings (fieldnotes).

In terms of problem solving instruction, a teacher-directed approach was reported by some teachers within teacher reflections (P1, N = 5), where the teacher focused on a particular strategy and modelled its use by solving the problem:

I tend to introduce the problem, ensure everyone understands the language and what is being asked. I discuss the various strategies that children could use to solve the problem. Sometimes I demonstrate the approach. Then children practice similar problems … (P1: Teacher reflection)

However, it was evident within the planning meetings, that this traditional approach to problem solving was prevalent among the teachers in all LS groups. During the study session (field notes and teacher reflections (P1, N = 7)), there was a sense that problem solving was an add-on as opposed to an integral part of mathematics teaching and learning. Again, within the planning meetings, discussions across all four LS groups verified this:

Challenge: Time to focus on problems not just computation (P1: Teacher reflection). From our discussions with the various LS groups’ first planning meeting, text-based teaching seems to be resulting in many teachers teaching concepts context-free initially and then matching the concept with the relevant problems afterwards (P2, reflection: MTE1)

However, while phase 1 teacher reflections suggested that a small number of participating teachers ( N = 4) possessed broader problem solving understandings, subsequently during the planning meetings, there was ample evidence (field notes) of problem-posing knowledge and the use of constructivist-oriented approaches that would support the TTP approach among some participating teachers in each of the LS groups:

Challenge: Spend more time on meaningful problems and give them opportunities and time to engage in activities, rather than go too soon into tricks, rhymes etc (P1, Teacher reflection). The class are already used to sharing strategies and explaining where they went wrong (P2, fieldnotes, Group B) Teacher: The problem needs to have multiple entry points (P2, fieldnotes: Group C)

While a few teachers reported problem posing practices, in most cases, this consisted of cosmetic adjustments to textbook problems. Overall, despite evidence of some promising practices, the data evidenced predominantly traditional problem solving views and practices among participating teachers, with potential for further broadening of various aspects of their knowledge for teaching problem solving including what constitutes a worthwhile problem, the role of problem posing within problem solving, and problem solving instruction. Within phase 1 teacher reflections, when reporting ‘challenges’ to problem solving practices (Table 3 ), a small number of responses ( N = 3) supported these conclusions:

Differences in teachers’ knowledge (P1: Teacher reflection). Need to challenge current classroom practices (P1: Teacher reflection).

However, from the outset, all participating teachers consistently demonstrated robust knowledge of their students as problem solvers, evidenced in phase 1 teacher reflections ( N = 10) and planning meeting discussions (P2, fieldnotes). However, in these early phases, teachers generally portrayed a deficit view, focusing almost exclusively on the various challenges impacting their students’ problem solving abilities. While all teachers agreed that the language of problems was inhibiting student engagement, other common barriers reported included student motivation and perseverance:

They often have difficulties accessing the problem – they don’t know what it is asking them (P2, fieldnotes: Group C) Sourcing problems that are relevant to their lives. I need to change every problem to reference soccer so the children are interested (P1: teacher reflection) Our children deal poorly with struggle and are slow to consider alternative strategies (P2, fieldnotes: Group D)

Despite showcasing a strong awareness of their students’ problem solving difficulties, teachers initially demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the benefits accrued from predicting students’ approaches and misconceptions relating to problem solving. While it came to the researchers’ attention during the study phase, its prevalence became apparent during the initial planning meeting, as its necessity and purpose was raised in three of the LS groups:

What are the benefits of predicting the children’s responses? (P1, fieldnotes). I don’t think we can predict- we will have to wait and see (P2, fieldnotes: Group A).

This finding evidences teachers’ relatively limited knowledge for teaching problem solving, given that this practice is fundamental to TTP and constructivist-oriented approaches to problem solving instruction.

Perceived impacts of engaging with TTP through LS

In response to the research question ‘What are elementary teachers’ perceptions of what they learned from engaging with TTP through LS?’, thematic data analysis identified 5 predominant themes, namely, Seeing is believing : the value of practice centred experiences ; A gained appreciation of the relevance and value of TTP practices ; Enhanced problem posing understandings ; Awakening to students’ problem solving potential ; and Reservations regarding TTP.

Seeing is believing: the value of practice centred experiences

Teachers engaged with TTP during the study phase as both learners and teachers when solving the problem. They were also involved in predicting and analysing student responses when viewing the video cases, and engaged in extensive reading, discussion, and planning for their selected TTP problem within the planning phase. Nevertheless, teachers reported reservations about the relevance of TTP for their context within both phase 2 teacher reflections ( N = 5) as well as within the planning meeting discourse of all LS groups. Teachers’ keen awareness of their students’ problem solving challenges, coupled with the vast divide between the nature of their prior problem solving practices and the TTP approach, resulted in teachers communicating concern regarding students’ possible reaction during the planning phase:

I am worried about the problem. I am concerned that if the problem is too complex the children won’t respond to it (P2, fieldnotes: Group B) The fear that the children will not understand the lesson objective. Will they engage? (P2, Teacher reflection)

Acknowledging their apprehension regarding students’ reactions to TTP, from the outset, all participating teachers communicated a willingness to trial TTP practices:

Exciting to be part of. Eager to see how it will pan out and the learning that will be taken from it (P1, teacher reflection) They should be ‘let off’ (P2, fieldnotes: Group A).

It was only within the implementation phase, when teachers received the opportunity to meaningfully observe the TTP approach in their everyday work context, with their students, that they explicitly demonstrated an appreciation for the value of TTP practices. It was evident from teacher commentary across all LS groups’ post-lesson discussions (fieldnotes) as well as in teacher reflections (P4, N = 10) that observing first-hand the high levels of student engagement alongside students’ capacity to engage in desirable problem solving strategies and demonstrate sought-after dispositions had affected this change:

Class teacher: They engaged the whole time because it was interesting to them. The problem is core in terms of motivation. It determines their willingness to persevere. Otherwise, it won’t work whether they have the skills or not (P3, fieldnotes: Group C) LS group member: The problem context worked really well. The children were all eager and persevered. It facilitated all to enter at their own level, coming up with ideas and using their prior knowledge to solve the problem. Working in pairs and the concrete materials were very supportive. It’s something I’d never have done before (P3, fieldnotes: Group A)

Although all teachers showcased robust knowledge of their students’ problem solving abilities prior to engaging in TTP, albeit with a tendency to focus on their difficulties and factors that inhibited them, teachers’ contributions during post-lesson discussions (fieldnotes) alongside teacher reflections (P4, N = 9) indicate that observing TTP in action supported them in developing an appreciation of value of the respective TTP practices, particularly the role of prediction and observation of students’ strategies/misconceptions in making the students’ thinking more visible:

You see the students through the process (P3, fieldnotes: Group C) It’s rare we have time to think, to break the problem down, to watch and understand children’s ways of thinking/solving. It’s really beneficial to get a chance to re-evaluate the teaching methods, to edit the lesson, to re-teach (P4, teacher reflection)

Analysis of the range of data sources across the phases suggests that it was the opportunity to experience TTP in practice in their classrooms that provided the ‘proof of concept’:

I thought it wasn’t realistic but bringing it down to your own classroom it is relevant (P4, teacher reflection).

Hence from the teachers’ perspective, they witnessed the affordances of TTP practices in the implementation phase of the LS process.

A gained appreciation of the relevance and value of TTP practices

While during the early LS phases, teachers’ reporting suggested a view of problem solving as teaching to problem solve, data from both fieldnotes (phases 3 and 4) and teacher reflections (phase 4) demonstrate that all teachers broadened their understanding of problem solving as a result of engaging with TTP:

Interesting to turn lessons on their head and give students the chance to think, plan and come up with possible strategies and solutions (P4, Teacher reflection)

On witnessing the affordances of TTP first-hand in their own classrooms, within both teacher reflections (P4, N = 12) and LS group presentations, the teachers consistently reported valuing these new practices:

I just thought the whole way of teaching was a good way, an effective way of teaching. Sharing and exploring more than one way of solving is vital (P4, teacher reflection) There is a place for it in the classroom. I will use aspects of it going forward (P4, fieldnotes: Group C)

In fact, teachers’ support for this problem solving approach was apparent in phase 3 during the initial post-lesson discussions. It was particularly notable when a visitor outside of the LS group who observed teach 1 challenged the approach, recommending the explicit teaching of strategies prior to engagement. A LS group member’s reply evidenced the group’s belief that TTP naturally exposes students to the relevant learning: ‘Sharing and questioning will allow students to learn more efficient strategies [other LS group members nodding in agreement]’ (P3, fieldnotes; Group A).

In turn, within phase 4 teacher reflections, teachers consistently acknowledged that engaging with TTP through LS had challenged their understandings about what constitutes effective problem solving instruction ( N = 12). In both teacher reflections (P4, N = 14) and all LS group presentations, teachers reported an increased appreciation of the benefits of adopting a constructivist-oriented approach to problem solving instruction. Equally for some, this was accompanied by an acknowledgement of a heightened awareness of the limitations of their previous practice :

Really made me re-think problem solving lesson structures. I tend to spoon-feed them …over-scaffold, a lot of teacher talk. … I need to find a balance… (P4, teacher reflection) Less is more, one problem can be the basis for an entire lesson (P4, teacher reflection)

What was unexpected, was that some teachers (P4, N = 8) reported that engaging with TTP through LS resulted in them developing an increased appreciation of the value of problem solving and the need for more regular opportunities for students to engage in problem solving:

I’ve come to realise that problem solving is critical and it should be focused on more often. I feel that with regular exposure to problems they’ll come to love being problem solvers (P4, teacher reflection)

Enhanced problem posing understandings

In the early phases of LS, few teachers demonstrated familiarity with problem characteristics (P2 teacher reflection, N = 5). However, there was growth in teachers’ understandings of what constitutes a worthwhile problem and its role within TTP within all LS groups’ post-lesson discussions and presentations (fieldnotes) and teacher reflections (P4, N = 10):

I have a deepened understanding of how to evaluate a problem (P2, teacher reflection) It’s essential to find or create a good problem with multiple strategies and/or solutions as a springboard for a topic. It has to be relevant and interesting for the kids (P4, teacher reflection)

As early as the planning phase, a small group of teachers’ reflections ( N = 2) suggested an understanding that problem posing is an important aspect of problem solving that merits significant attention:

It was extremely helpful to problem solve the problem (P2, teacher reflection)

However, during subsequent phases, this realisation became more mainstream, evident within all LS groups’ post-lesson discussions and presentations (fieldnotes) and teacher reflections (P4, N = 12):

During the first planning meeting, I was surprised and a bit anxious that we would never get to having created a problem. In hindsight, this was time well spent as the problem was crucial (P4, teacher reflection) I learned the problem is key. We don’t spend enough time picking the problem (P4, fieldnotes: Group C).

Alongside this, in all LS groups’ dialogues during the post-lesson discussion and presentations (fieldnotes) and teacher reflections (P4, N = 15), teachers consistently demonstrated an enhanced awareness of the interdependence between the quality of the problem and students’ problem solving behaviours:

Better perseverance if the problem is of interest to them (P4, teacher reflection) It was an eye-opener to me, relevance is crucial, when the problem context is relevant to them, they are motivated to engage and can solve problems at an appropriate level…They all wanted to present (P3, fieldnotes: Group C)

The findings suggest that engaging with TTP through LS facilitated participating teachers to develop an enhanced understanding of the importance of problem posing and in identifying the features of a good mathematics problem, thus developing their future problem posing capacity. In essence, the opportunity to observe the TTP practices in their classrooms stimulated an enhanced appreciation for the value of meticulous attention to detail in TTP planning.

Awakening to students’ problem solving potential

In the final LS phases, teachers consistently reported that engaging with TTP through LS provided the opportunity to see the students through the process , thus supporting them in examining their students’ capabilities more closely. Across post-lesson discussions and presentations (fieldnotes) and teacher reflections (P4, N = 14), teachers acknowledged that engagement in core TTP practices, including problem posing, prediction of students’ strategies during planning, and careful observation of approaches during the implementation phase, facilitated them to uncover the true extent of their students’ problem solving abilities, heightening their awareness of students’ proficiency in using a range of approaches:

Class teacher: While they took a while to warm up, I am most happy that they failed, tried again and succeeded. They all participated. Some found a pattern, others used trial and error. Others worked backward- opening the cube in different ways. They said afterward ‘That was the best maths class ever’ (P3, fieldnotes: Group D) I was surprised with what they could do. I have learned the importance of not teaching strategies first. I need to pull back and let the children solve the problems their own way and leave discussing strategies to the end (P4, teacher reflection)

In three LS groups, class teachers acknowledged in the post-lesson discussion (fieldnotes) that engaging with TTP had resulted in them realising their previous underestimation of [some or all] of their students’ problem solving abilities . Teacher reflections (P4, N = 8) and LS group presentations (fieldnotes) also acknowledged this reality:

I underestimated my kids, which is awful. The children surprised me with the way they approached the problem. In the future I need to focus on what they can do as much as what might hinder them…they are more able than we may think (P4, reflection)

In all LS groups, teachers reported that their heightened appreciation of students’ problem solving capacities promoted them to use a more constructivist-orientated approach in the future:

I learned to trust the students to problem solve, less scaffolding. Children can be let off to explore without so much teacher intervention (P3, fieldnotes: Group D)

Some teachers ( N = 3) also acknowledged the affective benefits of TTP on students:

I know the students enjoyed sharing their different strategies…it was great for their confidence (P4, teacher reflection)

Interestingly, in contrast with teachers’ initial reservations, their experiential and school-based participation in TTP through LS resulted in a lessening of concern regarding the suitability of TTP practices for their students. Hence, this practice-based model supported teachers in appreciating the full extent of their students’ capacities as problem solvers.

Reservations regarding TTP

When introduced to the concept of TTP in the study session, one teacher quickly addressed the time implications:

It is unrealistic in the everyday classroom environment. Time is the issue. We don’t have 2 hours to prep a problem geared at the various needs (P1, fieldnotes)

Subsequently, across the initiative, during both planning meetings, the reflection session and individual reflections (P4, N = 14), acknowledgements of the affordances of TTP practices were accompanied by questioning of its sustainability due to the excessive planning commitment involved:

It would be hard to maintain this level of planning in advance of the lesson required to ensure a successful outcome (P4, teacher reflection)

Given the extensive time dedicated to problem posing, solving, prediction, and design of questions as well as selection or creation of materials both during and between planning meetings, there was agreement in the reflection session (fieldnotes) and in teacher reflections (P4, N = 10) that while TTP practices were valuable, in the absence of suitable support materials for teachers, adjustments were essential to promote implementation:

There is definitely a role for TTP in the classroom, however the level of planning involved would have to be reduced to make it feasible (P4, teacher reflection) The TTP approach is very effective but the level of planning involved is unrealistic with an already overcrowded curriculum. However, elements of it can be used within the classroom (P4, teacher reflection)

A few teachers ( N = 3) had hesitations beyond the time demands, believing the success of TTP is contingent on ‘a number of criteria…’ (P4, teacher reflection):

A whole-school approach is needed, it should be taught from junior infants (P4, teacher reflection) I still have worries about TTP. We found it difficult to decide a topic initially. It lends itself to certain areas. It worked well for shape and space (P4, teacher reflection)

Conclusions

The reported problem solving practice reflects those portrayed in the literature (NCCA, 2016 ; O’Shea & Leavy, 2013 ) and could be aptly described as ‘pendulum swings between emphases on basic skills and problem solving’ (Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007 in Takahashi et al., 2013 , p. 239). Teachers’ accounts depicted problem solving as an ‘add on’ occurring on an ad hoc basis after concepts were taught (Dooley et al., 2014 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ), suggesting a simplistic view of problem solving (Singer & Voica, 2013 ; Swan, 2006 ). Hence, in reality there was a vast divide between teachers’ problem solving practices and TTP. Alongside traditional beliefs and problem solving practices (Stipek et al., 2001 ; Swan, 2006 ; Thompson, 1985 ), many teachers demonstrated limited insight regarding what constitutes a worthwhile problem (Klein & Lieken, 2020 ) or the critical role of problem posing in problem solving (Cai, 2003 ; Takahashi, 2008 ; Watson & Ohtani, 2015 ). Teachers’ reports suggested most were not actively problem posing, with reported practices limited to cosmetic changes to the problem context (Koichu et al., 2013 ). Equally, teachers demonstrated a lack of awareness of alternative approaches to teaching for problem solving (Chapman, 2015 ) alongside limited appreciation among most of the affordances of a more child-centred approach to problem solving instruction (Hiebert, 2003 ; Lester, 2013 ; Swan, 2006 ). Conversely, there was evidence that some teachers held relevant problem posing knowledge and utilised practices compatible with the TTP approach.

All teachers displayed relatively strong understandings of their students as problem solvers from the outset; however, they initially focused almost exclusively on factors impacting students’ limited problem solving capacity (Chapman, 2015 ). Teachers’ perceptions of their students’ problem solving abilities alongside the vast divide between teachers’ problem solving practice and the proposed TTP approach resulted in teachers being initially concerned regarding students’ response to TTP. This finding supports studies that reported resistance by teachers to the use of challenging tasks due to fears that students would not be able to manage (Ingram et al., 2020 ; Russo & Hopkins, 2019 ; Sullivan et al., 2010 ). Equally, teachers communicated disquiet from the study phase regarding the time investment required to adopt the TTP approach, a finding common in similar studies (Ingram et al., 2020 ; Russo & Hopkins, 2019 ; Sullivan et al., 2015 ). Hence, the transition to TTP was uneasy for most teachers, given the significant shift it represented in terms of moving beyond a teaching to problem solve approach alongside the range of teacher demands (Takahashi et al., 2013 ).

Nevertheless, despite initial reservations, all teachers reported that engagement with TTP through LS affected their problem solving beliefs and understandings. What was particularly notable was that they reported an awakening to students’ problem solving potential . During LS’s implementation and reflection stages, all teachers acknowledged that seeing was believing concerning the benefits of TTP for their students (Kapur, 2010 ; Stacey, 2018 ). In particular, they recognised students’ positive response (Russo & Minas, 2020 ) enacted in high levels of engagement, perseverance in finding a solution, and the utilisation of a range of different strategies. These behaviours were in stark contrast to teachers’ reports in the study phase. Teachers acknowledged that students had more potential to solve problems autonomously than they initially envisaged. This finding supports previous studies where teachers reported that allowing students to engage with challenging tasks independently made students’ thinking more visible (Crespo & Featherstone, 2006 ; Ingram et al., 2020 ; Sakshand & Wohluter, 2010 ). It also reflects Sakshaug and Wohlhuter’s ( 2010 ) findings of teachers’ tendency to underestimate students’ potential to solve problems. Interestingly, at the end of LS, concern regarding the appropriateness of the TTP approach for students was no longer cited by teachers. This finding contrasts with previous studies that report teacher resistance due to fears that students will become disengaged due to the unsuitability of the approach (challenging tasks) for lower-performing students (Ingram et al., 2020 ; Russo & Hopkins, 2019 ; Sullivan et al., 2015 ). Hence, engaging with TTP through LS supported teachers in developing an appreciation of their students’ potential as problem solvers.

Teachers reported enhanced problem posing understandings, consisting of newfound awareness of the connections between the quality of the problem, the approach to problem solving instruction, and student response (Chapman, 2015 ; Cai, 2003 ; Sullivan et al., 2015 ; Takahashi, 2008 ). They acknowledged that they had learned the importance of the problem in determining the quality of learning and affecting student engagement, motivation and perseverance, and willingness to share strategies (Cai, 2003 ; Watson & Oktani, 2015 ). These findings reflect previous research reporting that engagement in LS facilitated teachers to enhance their teacher knowledge (Cajkler et al., 2015 ; Dudley et al., 2019 ; Gutierez, 2016 ).

While all teachers acknowledged the benefits of the TTP approach for students (Cai & Lester, 2010 ; Sullivan et al., 2014 ; Takahashi, 2016 ), the majority confirmed their perception of the relevance and value of various TTP practices (Hiebert, 2003 ; Lambdin, 2003 ; Takahashi, 2006 ). They referenced the benefits of giving more attention to the problem, allowing students the opportunity to independently solve, and promoting the sharing of strategies and pledged to incorporate these in their problem solving practices going forward. Many verified that the experience had triggered them to question their previous problem solving beliefs and practices (Chapman, 2015 ; Lester, 2013 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). This study supports previous research reporting that LS challenged teachers’ beliefs regarding the characteristics of effective pedagogy (Cajkler et al., 2015 ; Dudley et al., 2019 ; Fernandez, 2005 ; Gutierez, 2016 ). However, teachers communicated reservations regarding TTP , refraining from committing to TTP in its entirety, highlighting that the time commitment required for successful implementation on an ongoing basis was unrealistic. Therefore, teachers’ issues with what they perceived to be the excessive resource implications of TTP practices remained constant across the initiative. This finding supports previous studies that report teachers were resistant to engaging their students with ‘challenging tasks’ provided by researchers due to the time commitment required to plan adequately (Ingram et al., 2020 ; Russo & Hopkins, 2019 ; Sullivan et al., 2015 ).

Unlike previous studies, teachers in this study did not perceive weak mathematics content or pedagogical content knowledge as a barrier to implementing TTP (Charalambous, 2008 ; Sakshaug & Wohlhuter, 2010 ). However, it should be noted that the collaborative nature of LS may have hidden the knowledge demands for an individual teacher working alone when engaging in the ‘Anticipate’ element of TTP particularly in the absence of appropriate supports such as a bank of suitable problems.

The findings suggest that LS played a crucial role in promoting reported changes, serving both as a supportive professional development model (Stacey, 2018 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ) and as a catalyst, providing teachers with the opportunity to engage in a collaborative, practice-centred experience over an extended period (Dudley et al., 2019 ; Watanabe, 2001 ). The various features of the LS process provided teachers with opportunities to engage with, interrogate, and reflect upon key TTP practices. Reported developments in understandings and beliefs were closely tied to meaningful opportunities to witness first-hand the affordances of the TTP approach in their classrooms with their students (Dudley et al., 2019 ; Fernandez et al., 2003 ; Takahashi et al., 2013 ). We suggest that the use of traditional ‘one-off’ professional development models to introduce TTP, combined with the lack of support during the implementation phase, would most likely result in teachers maintaining their initial views about the unsuitability of TTP practices for their students.

In terms of study limitations, given that all data were collected during the LS phases, the findings do not reflect the impact on teachers’ problem solving classroom practice in the medium to long term. Equally, while acknowledging the limitations of self-report data, there was no sense that the teachers were trying to please the MTEs, as they were forthright when invited to identify issues. Also, all data collected through teacher reflection was anonymous. The relatively small number of participating teachers means that the findings are not generalisable. However, they do add weight to the body of relevant research. This study also contributes to the field as it documents potential challenges associated with implementing TTP for the first time. It also suggests that despite TTP being at odds with their problem solving practice and arduous, the opportunity to experience the impact of the TTP approach with students through LS positively affected teachers’ problem solving understandings and beliefs and their commitment to incorporating TTP practices in their future practice. Hence, this study showcases the potential role of collaborative, school-based professional development in supporting the implementation of upcoming reform proposals (Dooley et al., 2014 ; NCCA, 2016 , 2017 , 2020 ), in challenging existing beliefs and practices and fostering opportunities for teachers to work collaboratively to trial reform teaching practices over an extended period (Cajkler et al., 2015 ; Dudley et al., 2019 ). Equally, this study confirms and extends previous studies that identify time as an immense barrier to TTP. Given teachers’ positivity regarding the impact of the TTP approach, their consistent acknowledgement of the unsustainability of the unreasonable planning demands associated with TTP strengthens previous calls for the development of quality support materials in order to avoid resistance to TTP (Clarke et al., 2014 ; Takahashi, 2016 ).

The researchers are aware that while the reported changes in teachers’ problem solving beliefs and understandings are a necessary first step, for significant and lasting change to occur, classroom practice must change (Sakshaug & Wohlhuter, 2010 ). While it was intended that the MTEs would work alongside interested teachers and schools to engage further in TTP in the school term immediately following this research and initial contact had been made, plans had to be postponed due to the commencement of the COVID 19 pandemic. The MTEs are hopeful that it will be possible to pick up momentum again and move this initiative to its natural next stage. Future research will examine these teachers’ perceptions of TTP after further engagement and evaluate the effects of more regular opportunities to engage in TTP on teachers’ problem solving practices. Another possible focus is teachers’ receptiveness to TTP when quality support materials are available.

In practical terms, in order for teachers to fully embrace TTP practices, thus facilitating their students to avail of the many benefits accrued from engagement, teachers require access to professional development (such as LS) that incorporates collaboration and classroom implementation at a local level. However, quality school-based professional development alone is not enough. In reality, a TTP approach cannot be sustained unless teachers receive access to quality TTP resources alongside formal collaboration time.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education., 59 (5), 389–408.

Article Google Scholar

Cai, J. (2003). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. Lester (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 241–255). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Google Scholar

Cai, J., & Lester, F. (2010). Why is teaching through problem solving important to children learning? National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cajkler, W., Wood, P., Norton, J., Pedder, D., & Xu, H. (2015). Teacher perspectives about lesson study in secondary school departments: A collaborative vehicle for professional learning and practice development. Research Papers in Education, 30 (2), 192–213.

Chapman, O. (2015). Mathematics teachers’ knowledge for teaching problem solving. LUMAT International Journal on Math Science and Technology Education, 3 (1), 19–36.

Charalambous, C. Y. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the unfolding of tasks in mathematics lessons: Integrating two lines of research. In O. Figueras, J. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 281–288). PME.

Cheeseman, J. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of obstacles to incorporating a problem solving style of mathematics into their teaching, In J. Hunter, P. Perger, & L. Darragh (Eds.), Making waves, opening spaces (Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 210–217). MERGA.

Clarke, D., Cheeseman, J., Roche, A., & Van Der Schans, S. (2014). Teaching strategies for building student persistence on challenging tasks: Insights emerging from two approaches to teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16 (2), 46–70.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design- Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed). Sage.

Crespo, S., & Featherstone, H. (2006). Teacher learning in mathematics teacher groups: One math problem at a time. In K. Lynch-Davis & R. L. Rider (Eds.), The work of mathematics teacher educators: Continuing the conversation (pp. 97–115). Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1999). Primary school mathematics curriculum . The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2011). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011–2020 . The Stationary Office.

Dooley, T., Dunphy, E., & Shiel, G. (2014). Mathematics in early childhood and primary education. Research report 18. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Dudley, P., Xu, H., Vermunt, J. D., & Lang, J. (2019). Empirical evidence of the impact of lesson study on students’ achievement, teachers’ professional learning and on institutional and system evolution. European Journal of Education, 54 , 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12337

Dunphy, E., Dooley, T., Shiel, G. (2014). Mathematics in early childhood and primary education. Research report 17 . National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Ertle, B., Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2001). Lesson planning tool. Available online: https://sarahbsd.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lesson_planning_tool.pdf

Fernandez, C. (2005). Lesson Study: A means for elementary teachers to develop the knowledge of mathematics needed for reform-minded teaching? Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7 (4), 265–289.

Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A US–Japan lesson study collaboration reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19 , 171–185.

Flanagan, B. (2021). Teachers’ understandings of lesson study as a professional development tool, Unpublished thesis, University of Limerick.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Sociology Press.

Goldenberg, E. P., Shteingold, N., & Feurzig, N. (2001). Mathematical habits of mind for young children. In F. Lester (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 15–30). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Gutierez, S. B. (2016). Building a classroom-based professional learning community through lesson study: Insights from elementary school science teachers. Professional Development in Education, 42 (5), 801–817.

Hiebert, J. (2003). Signposts for teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. Lester (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 53–62). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2015). Geometric growing patterns: What’s the rule? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 20 (4), 31–40.

Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. M. (2021). The complexities of assuming the ‘teacher of teachers’ role during Lesson Study. Professional Development in Education. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1895287

Ingram, N., Holmes, M., Linsell, C., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Sullivan, P. (2020). Exploring an innovative approach to teaching mathematics through the use of challenging tasks: A New Zealand perspective. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32 (3), 497–522.

Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38 , 523–550.

Klein, S., & Leikin, R. (2020). Opening mathematical problems for posing open mathematical tasks: What do teachers do and feel? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105 , 349–365.

Koichu, B., Harel, G., & Manaster, A. (2013). Ways of thinking associated with mathematics teachers’ problem posing in the context of division of fractions. Instructional Science, 41 (4), 681–698.

Lambdin, D. V. (2003). Benefits of teaching through problem solving. In F. Lester (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 2–15). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Leavy, A., & Hourigan, M. (2018). The role of perceptual similarity, data context and task context when selecting attributes: Examination of considerations made by 5-6 year olds in data modelling environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 97 (2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9791-2

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Lester, F. K., Jr. (2013). Thoughts about research on mathematical problem-solving instruction. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10 (1–2), 245–278.

Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: How Research lessons improve Japanese Education. American Educator, 22 (4), 12–17, 50–52.

Murata, A., Bofferding, L., Pothen, B. E., Taylor, M. W., & Wischnia, S. (2012). Making connections among student learning, content, and teaching: Teacher talk paths in elementary mathematics lesson study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43 (5), 616–650.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). (2016). Background paper and brief for the development of a new primary mathematics curriculum. NCCA.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). (2017). Primary mathematics curriculum. Draft specifications. Junior infant to second class. For Consultation . NCCA.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). (2020). Draft primary curriculum framework. For consultation. Primary curriculum review and development. NCCA.

O’Shea, J., & Leavy, A. M. (2013). Teaching mathematical problem-solving from an emergent constructivist perspective: the experiences of Irish primary teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16 (4), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9235-6

Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it (2nd edition) . Doubleday.

Russo, J., & Hopkins, S. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of students when observing lessons involving challenging tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17 (4), 759–779.

Russo, J., & Minas, M. (2020). Student attitudes towards learning mathematics through challenging problem solving tasks: “It’s so hard-in a good way.” International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13 (2), 215–225.

Sakshaug, L. E., & Wohlhuter, K. A. (2010). Journey toward teaching mathematics through problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 110 (8), 397–409.

Shiel, G., Kavanagh, L., & Millar, D. (2014). The national assessments of english reading and mathematics: Volume 1 performance report . Educational Research Centre.

Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2013). A problem-solving conceptual framework and its implications in designing problem-posing tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83 (1), 9–26.

Stacey, K. (2018). Teaching Mathematics through Problem Solving. Numeros, 98 , 7–18.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (2), 213–226.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed). Sage.

Sullivan, P., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D., Mornane, A., & Roche, A. (2015). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18 (2), 123–140.

Sullivan, P., Bobis, J., Downton, A., Feng, M., Hughes, S., Livy, S., McCormick, M., & Russo, J. (2021). An instructional model to support planning and teaching student centred structured inquiry lessons. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 26 (1), 9–13.

Sullivan, P., Clarke, D., Cheeseman, J., Mornane, A., Roche, A., Sawatzki, C., & Walker, N. (2014). Students’ willingness to engage with mathematical challenges: Implications for classroom pedagogies. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice. (Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 597–604). MERGA.

Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. M., Clarke, B., & O’Shea, H. (2010). Exploring the relationship between task, teacher actions, and student learning. PNA, 4 (4), 133–142.

Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach (2nd ed). Sage.

Swan, M. (2006). Designing and using research instruments to describe the beliefs and practices of mathematics teachers. Research in Education, 75 (1), 58–70.

Takahashi, A. (2006). Characteristics of Japanese mathematics lessons. Paper presented at the APEC International Conference on Innovative Teaching Mathematics through Lesson Study, Tokyo, Japan, January 14–20. https://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/sympo_2006/takahashi.pdf

Takahashi, A. (2008). Beyond show and tell: neriage for teaching through problem-solving—ideas from Japanese problem-solving approaches for teaching mathematics. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Mathematics Education in Mexico (Section TSG 19: Research and Development in Problem Solving in Mathematics Education), Monteree, Mexico.

Takahashi, A. (2016). Recent trends in Japanese mathematics textbooks for elementary grades: Supporting teachers to teach mathematics through problem solving. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4 (2), 313–319.

Takahashi, A., Lewis, C., & Perry, R. (2013). US lesson study network to spread teaching through problem solving. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2 (3), 237–255.

Takahashi, A., & McDougal, T. (2016). Collaborative lesson research: Maximizing the impact of lesson study. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 48, 513–526.

Thompson, A. G. (1985). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 281–294). Erlbaum.

Watanabe, T. (2001). Anticipating children’s thinking: A Japanese approach to instruction . National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (2015). Task design in mathematics education: An ICMI study 22 . Springer International.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the participating teachers’ time and contribution to this research study.

This work was supported by the Supporting Social Inclusion and Regeneration in Limerick’s Programme Innovation and Development Fund.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of STEM Education, Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Mairéad Hourigan & Aisling M. Leavy

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mairéad Hourigan .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

We have received ethical approval for the research presented in this manuscript from Mary Immaculate College Research Ethical Committee (MIREC).

Consent for publication

The manuscript has only been submitted to Mathematics Education Research Journal. All authors have approved the manuscript submission. We also acknowledge that the submitted work is original and the content of the manuscript has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Informed consent

Informed consent has been received for all data included in this study. Of the 19 participating teachers, 16 provided informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hourigan, M., Leavy, A.M. Elementary teachers’ experience of engaging with Teaching Through Problem Solving using Lesson Study. Math Ed Res J 35 , 901–927 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00418-w

Download citation

Received : 22 September 2021

Revised : 14 January 2022

Accepted : 02 April 2022

Published : 13 May 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00418-w

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

Teaching through Problem Solving (TTP)
Problem solving
Lesson Study (LS)
Elementary teachers
Professional development
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

problem-solving-steps-poster
What Is Problem-Solving? Steps, Processes, Exercises to do it Right
Digital Tools To Teach Problem Solving
problem solving as a teaching method
what is problem solving approach in teaching
Problem Solving Method Of Teaching || Methods of Teaching || tsin-eng

VIDEO

problem solving
Let’s Talk Problem Solving Strategies
Problem Solving Techniques
7 6 Problem based learning
Example& Problem Solving #04
The Homework Swap: A Lesson in Reverse Thinking and Companionship

COMMENTS

Don't Just Tell Students to Solve Problems. Teach Them How
This approach to teaching problem solving includes a significant focus on learning to identify the problem that actually needs to be solved, in order to avoid solving the wrong problem. The curriculum is organized so that each day is a complete experience. It begins with the teacher introducing the problem-identification or problem-solving ...
Teaching problem solving
Strategies for teaching problem solving apply across disciplines and instructional contexts. First, introduce the problem and explain how people in your discipline generally make sense of the given information. Then, explain how to apply these approaches to solve the problem. Introducing the problem Explaining how people in your discipline understand and interpret these types of problems can ...
Teaching Problem Solving
Problem-Solving Fellows Program Undergraduate students who are currently or plan to be peer educators (e.g., UTAs, lab TAs, peer mentors, etc.) are encouraged to take the course, UNIV 1110: The Theory and Teaching of Problem Solving. Within this course, we focus on developing effective problem solvers through students' teaching practices.
Elementary teachers' experience of engaging with Teaching Through
Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP) Teaching Through Problem Solving (TTP) is considered a powerful means of promoting mathematical understanding as a by-product of solving problems, where the teacher presents students with a specially designed problem that targets certain mathematics content (Stacey, 2018; Takahashi et al., 2013).The lesson implementation starts with the teacher presenting ...
The process of implementing problem-based learning in a teacher
Using group discussions, the group members discussed issues related to the situation by presenting the problem and leading the whole class in analysing/discussing and summarising the problem and developing/organising the appropriate teaching approach. In this way, the teaching content developed gradually as a group effort.
Teaching Problem-Solving Skills
Teach problem-solving skills in the context in which they will be used by students (e.g., mole fraction calculations in a chemistry course). Use real-life problems in explanations, examples, and exams. Do not teach problem solving as an independent, abstract skill. Help students understand the problem. In order to solve problems, students need ...
Problem-Based Learning
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered approach in which students learn about a subject by working in groups to solve an open-ended problem. ... Problem solving across disciplines. Considerations for Using Problem-Based Learning. Rather than teaching relevant material and subsequently having students apply the knowledge to solve ...
Teaching Problem Solving
Make students articulate their problem solving process . In a one-on-one tutoring session, ask the student to work his/her problem out loud. This slows down the thinking process, making it more accurate and allowing you to access understanding. When working with larger groups you can ask students to provide a written "two-column solution.".
Learning as Problem Solving
Glossary of Terms. problem-solving: As a teaching approach, "the intentional elimination of uncertainty through direct experiences and under supervision" (Moore, 2015, p. 353) key steps: Technique to problem-solving used when there are specific steps required for the successful completion of a task; forked-road: Problem-solving approach where there are two choices for the problem solution ...
Problem-Solving Method In Teaching
The problem-solving method is an effective teaching strategy that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. It provides students with real-world problems that require them to apply their knowledge and skills to find solutions. By using the problem-solving method, teachers can help their students develop the skills they need to ...
Teaching: the problem-solving approach
Teaching: the problem-solving approach - UNESCO ... article
Overview
Download. Teaching Through Problem-solving flows through four phases as students 1. Grasp the problem, 2. Try to solve the problem independently, 3. Present and discuss their work (selected strategies), and 4. Summarize and reflect. Click on the arrows below to find out what students and teachers do during each phase and to see video examples. 1.
Teaching problem solving: Let students get 'stuck' and 'unstuck'
Teaching problem solving: Let students get 'stuck' and 'unstuck'. This is the second in a six-part blog series on teaching 21st century skills, including problem solving , metacognition ...
PDF Problem Based Learning: A Student-Centered Approach
principles and concept. PBL is both a teaching method and approach to the curriculum. It can develop critical thinking skill, problem solving abilities, communication skills and lifelong learning. The purpose of this study is to give the general idea of PBL in the context of language learning, as PBL has expanded in the areas of law,
Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a teaching method in which complex real-world problems are used as the vehicle to promote student learning of concepts and principles as opposed to direct presentation of facts and concepts. In addition to course content, PBL can promote the development of critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and ...
Problem Solving in STEM
Problem Solving in STEM. Solving problems is a key component of many science, math, and engineering classes. If a goal of a class is for students to emerge with the ability to solve new kinds of problems or to use new problem-solving techniques, then students need numerous opportunities to develop the skills necessary to approach and answer ...
Effects of Teaching Students through Problem-Solving on Students
After using the "teaching through" problem-solving approach, there was no discernible difference in performance between male and female students. Discover the world's research 25+ million members
Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving
Teaching about problem solving begins with suggested strategies to solve a problem. For example, "draw a picture," "make a table," etc. You may see posters in teachers' classrooms of the "Problem Solving Method" such as: 1) Read the problem, 2) Devise a plan, 3) Solve the problem, and 4) Check your work. There is little or no ...
PDF Problem-Based Teaching of Literature
problem-situation, problem solving, problem-solving teaching, and problem-solving learning. Nevertheless, in contemporary teaching methodology, the problem-based creative methodology system is the most widespread under the term problem-based teaching (Gajić, 2004: 139). In changing the organization of work and approach to teaching
Full article: Understanding and explaining pedagogical problem solving
We argue that teaching and learning in a classroom often involve such complicated interactions and explaining such experiences needs partnership between teacher, pupils and researchers. ... In this approach problem solving involves diagnosing the issue and identifying alternative potential solutions, whereas decision making is concerned with ...
Challenges of teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem
This study found that how teachers convey problem-solving skills has been challenging in terms of ensuring that their students master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Nang et al., 2022 ). The mastery teaching approach has caused the teaching time spent on mathematical content to be insufficient.
The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting
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. ...
Elementary teachers' experience of engaging with Teaching Through
For many decades, problem solving has been a focus of elementary mathematics education reforms. Despite this, in many education systems, the prevalent approach to mathematics problem solving treats it as an isolated activity instead of an integral part of teaching and learning. In this study, two mathematics teacher educators introduced 19 Irish elementary teachers to an alternative problem ...
Navigating Teacher Hiring: Problem-Solving Skills
Addressing a teacher's problem-solving skills during hiring is crucial. Learn strategies to identify gaps and enhance this essential teaching skill.

Don’t Just Tell Students to Solve Problems. Teach Them How.

Published Date

Not getting stuck

What does it mean to explicitly teach problem solving?

Portrait of the Problem-Solving Curriculum

You May Also Like

Campus & Community

Teaching problem solving

Introducing the problem

Working on solutions

Teaching Problem-Solving Skills

Principles for teaching problem solving

Woods’ problem-solving model

Think about it

Plan a solution

Carry out the plan

Catalog search

Center for Teaching Innovation

Problem-Based Learning

Why Use Problem-Based Learning?

Considerations for Using Problem-Based Learning

Getting Started with Problem-Based Learning

Center for Teaching

Tips and Techniques

Encourage Independence

Be sensitive

Encourage Thoroughness and Patience

Teaching Guides

Quick Links

4 Learning as Problem Solving

Setting the Stage

Introduction

Executing the Problem-Solving Approach

Steps to the Problem-Solving Approach

Good Practices while Executing the Problem-Solving Approach

Pitfalls to Avoid when Executing the Problem-Solving Approach

Other Heuristic Teaching Strategies

Encouraging Individual Problem-Solving

How Problem-Solving Looks in Agricultural Education

Share This Book

Problem-Solving Method in Teaching

Table of Contents

Meaning of Problem-Solving Method

Benefits of Problem-Solving Method

Steps in Problem-Solving Method

Verification of the concluded solution or Hypothesis

The Lesson Study Group

Teaching Through Problem-solving

What is Teaching Through Problem-Solving?

Why Teaching Through Problem-Solving?

Phases of a TTP Lesson

WHAT STUDENTS DO

WHAT TEACHERS DO

How Do Teachers Support Problem-solving?

Additional Readings

Can’t find a resource you need? Get in touch.

Teaching problem solving: Let students get ‘stuck’ and ‘unstuck’

Where can I learn more?

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

For more information...

5 Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving

Mathematics Tasks and Activities that Promote Teaching through Problem Solving

Choosing the Right Task

Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks

Math in 3-Acts

Number Talks

Saying “This is Easy”

Using “Worksheets”

Share This Book

Challenges of teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills

1. Introduction

2. Conceptual framework

3. Methodology

4. Findings

5. Discussion

5.2. Teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills—Approaches

6. Conclusion

Data availability statement

Author contributions