How collaborative problem solving promotes higher-order thinking skills: A systematic review of design features and processes

IF 4.5 2区教育学 Q1 Social Sciences

Thinking Skills and Creativity Pub Date : 2025-09-09 DOI:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102001

Haydeé Ceballos , Theo van den Bogaart , Stan van Ginkel , Jeroen Spandaw , Paul Drijvers

{"title":"How collaborative problem solving promotes higher-order thinking skills: A systematic review of design features and processes","authors":"Haydeé Ceballos , Theo van den Bogaart , Stan van Ginkel , Jeroen Spandaw , Paul Drijvers","doi":"10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) work in mathematics education are widely recognized for engaging students in cognitively demanding activities that foster Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), like critical thinking and reasoning. However, connections between design features, CPS processes, and learning outcomes remain complex and not fully understood. To address this, we applied a conjecture-based framework to systematically review 45 empirical studies published between 2010 and 2022, focusing on how specific task designs and CPS processes contribute to HOTS. We used a machine learning tool to prioritize relevant studies and streamline the selection process, ending after a threshold number of consecutive irrelevant articles. Guided by the conjecture-based framework, our analysis highlighted how cognitive processes in CPS function as essential mechanisms of learning and measurable outcomes. Specifically, design features, such as technology-supported exploratory tasks and open-ended problems, encourage reflective discourse and deeper cognitive engagement. We also found that structured group procedures, including clear roles and guided interaction protocols, improve collaboration. Nonetheless, challenges like miscommunication and uneven participation can limit CPS from fully realizing its potential to cultivate HOTS. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of aligning task design with CPS processes and using strategies to address collaboration barriers, particularly those related to communication. Without clear protocols and consistent dialogue, even well-designed CPS tasks can fail to cultivate HOTS. In conclusion, this review offers practical insights for educators and researchers implementing CPS effectively in mathematics education, highlighting that fostering open, structured communication is vital for optimizing both collaborative processes and the development of advanced cognitive skills.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47729,"journal":{"name":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","volume":"59 ","pages":"Article 102001"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187125002494","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) work in mathematics education are widely recognized for engaging students in cognitively demanding activities that foster Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS), like critical thinking and reasoning. However, connections between design features, CPS processes, and learning outcomes remain complex and not fully understood. To address this, we applied a conjecture-based framework to systematically review 45 empirical studies published between 2010 and 2022, focusing on how specific task designs and CPS processes contribute to HOTS. We used a machine learning tool to prioritize relevant studies and streamline the selection process, ending after a threshold number of consecutive irrelevant articles. Guided by the conjecture-based framework, our analysis highlighted how cognitive processes in CPS function as essential mechanisms of learning and measurable outcomes. Specifically, design features, such as technology-supported exploratory tasks and open-ended problems, encourage reflective discourse and deeper cognitive engagement. We also found that structured group procedures, including clear roles and guided interaction protocols, improve collaboration. Nonetheless, challenges like miscommunication and uneven participation can limit CPS from fully realizing its potential to cultivate HOTS. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of aligning task design with CPS processes and using strategies to address collaboration barriers, particularly those related to communication. Without clear protocols and consistent dialogue, even well-designed CPS tasks can fail to cultivate HOTS. In conclusion, this review offers practical insights for educators and researchers implementing CPS effectively in mathematics education, highlighting that fostering open, structured communication is vital for optimizing both collaborative processes and the development of advanced cognitive skills.

查看原文本刊更多论文

协作解决问题如何促进高阶思维技能：对设计特征和过程的系统回顾

数学教育中的协作解决问题（CPS）工作被广泛认为是让学生参与认知要求高的活动，培养高阶思维技能（HOTS），如批判性思维和推理。然而，设计特征、CPS过程和学习成果之间的联系仍然很复杂，而且还没有被完全理解。为了解决这个问题，我们应用了一个基于猜想的框架，系统地回顾了2010年至2022年间发表的45项实证研究，重点关注具体任务设计和CPS流程如何促进HOTS。我们使用机器学习工具来优先考虑相关研究并简化选择过程，在连续不相关文章的阈值数量之后结束。在基于猜想的框架的指导下，我们的分析强调了CPS中的认知过程如何作为学习和可测量结果的基本机制发挥作用。具体来说，设计特征，如技术支持的探索性任务和开放式问题，鼓励反思话语和更深层次的认知参与。我们还发现，结构化的小组程序，包括明确的角色和指导的交互协议，可以改善协作。然而，沟通不畅和参与不均等挑战可能会限制CPS充分发挥其培养HOTS的潜力。总的来说，这些发现强调了将任务设计与CPS流程结合起来以及使用策略来解决协作障碍（特别是与沟通相关的障碍）的重要性。如果没有明确的协议和一致的对话，即使是精心设计的CPS任务也无法培养HOTS。总之，这篇综述为教育工作者和研究人员在数学教育中有效地实施CPS提供了实用的见解，强调了培养开放的、结构化的沟通对于优化协作过程和发展高级认知技能至关重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Thinking Skills and Creativity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

6.40

自引率

16.20%

发文量

172

审稿时长

76 days

期刊介绍： Thinking Skills and Creativity is a new journal providing a peer-reviewed forum for communication and debate for the community of researchers interested in teaching for thinking and creativity. Papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and may relate to any age level in a diversity of settings: formal and informal, education and work-based.