education problem solver

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

10 Ways to Tackle Education’s Urgent Challenges

• Share article

To America’s resilient educators:

Take a moment to reflect on your many accomplishments during the pandemic, as well as the challenges you have faced.

You’ve supported your teams, your students, your school families and communities, all while balancing your own lives. In spite of every obstacle, you pushed through because that’s what you do. Every day.

And then, this spring, the sun seemed to shine a bit brighter. The safe and reliable vaccines that were slowing the spread of the virus forecasted a return to a normal-ish school year ahead. But COVID-19 had another plan, and its name was the Delta variant.

So here we are. And it’s complicated.

The cover of this year’s Big Ideas report from Education Week and the 10 essays inside reflect this moment and the constellation of emotions we know you’re experiencing: hope, excitement, grief, urgency, trepidation, and a deep sense of purpose.

In the report, we ask hard questions about education’s big challenges and offer some solutions. Keep scrolling for a roundup of these challenges and some new ways to think about them.

The report also includes results from an exclusive survey on educator stress, what you did well during the pandemic, and more .

Please connect with us on social media by using #K12BigIdeas or by emailing [email protected] . May the year ahead be a safe and fruitful one for you.

1. Schools are doing too much

We’re asking schools to accomplish more than what their funding allows and we’re asking their employees to do far more than they’ve been trained to do. Read more.

2. Student homelessness

The pandemic has only made student homelessness situation more volatile. Schools don’t have to go it alone. Read more.

3. Racism in schools

Born and raised in India, reporter Eesha Pendharkar isn’t convinced that America’s anti-racist efforts are enough to make students of color feel like they belong. Read more.

4. Teacher mental health

The pandemic has put teachers through the wringer. Administrators must think about their educators’ well-being differently. Read more.

5. Educator grief

Faced with so many loses stemming from the pandemic, what can be done to help teachers manage their own grief? Read more.

6. The well-being of school leaders

By overlooking the well-being of their school leaders, districts could limit how much their schools can flourish. Read more.

7. Remote learning

Educators in schools who were technologically prepared for the pandemic say the remote-learning emergency has provided new opportunities to explore better ways to connect with students and adapt instruction. Read more.

8. Setting students up for success

Educators know a lot more about students’ home learning environments than before the pandemic. How might schools build on that awareness and use it to improve their future work? Read more.

9. Parent engagement

When school went remote, families got a better sense of what their children were learning. It’s something schools can build on, if they can make key cultural shifts. Read more.

10. Knowing your purpose

We can’t build resilient schools until we agree on what education’s core role should be. And right now, we don’t agree. Read more.

A version of this article appeared in the September 15, 2021 edition of Education Week as Editor’s Note

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation.

This site provides practical strategies to address teaching problems across the disciplines. These strategies are firmly grounded in educational research and learning principles.

How does it work?

This site supplements our 1-on-1 teaching consultations. CONTACT US to talk with an Eberly colleague in person!

learning principles

• Students' prior knowledge can help or hinder learning. MORE
• How students organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know. MORE
• Students' motivation determines, directs, and sustains what they do to learn. MORE
• To develop mastery, students must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. MORE
• Faculty Support
• Graduate Student Support
• Canvas @ Carnegie Mellon
• Quick Links

Become a great problem solver

Learn by doing with interactive problem solving that’s effective and fun. master concepts in 15 minutes a day., data analysis, computer science, programming & ai, science & engineering, join over 10 million people learning on brilliant, over 50,000 5-star reviews on ios app store and google play.

Master concepts in 15 minutes a day

Whether you’re a complete beginner or ready to dive into machine learning and beyond, Brilliant makes it easy to level up fast with fun, bite-sized lessons.

Effective, hands-on learning

Visual, interactive lessons make concepts feel intuitive — so even complex ideas just click. Our real-time feedback and simple explanations make learning efficient.

Learn at your level

Students and professionals alike can hone dormant skills or learn new ones. Progress through lessons and challenges tailored to your level. Designed for ages 13 to 113.

Guided bite-sized lessons

We make it easy to stay on track, see your progress, and build your problem solving skills one concept at a time.

Stay motivated

Form a real learning habit with fun content that’s always well-paced, game-like progress tracking, and friendly reminders.

Guided courses for every journey

All of our courses are crafted by award-winning teachers, researchers, and professionals from MIT, Caltech, Duke, Microsoft, Google, and more.

• Foundational Math
• Software Development
• Foundational Logic
• Data Science
• High School Math
• Engineering
• Statistics and Finance

Courses in Foundational Math

• Solving Equations
• Measurement
• Mathematical Fundamentals
• Reasoning with Algebra
• Functions and Quadratics

10k+ Ratings

60k+ Ratings

We use cookies to improve your experience on Brilliant. Learn more about our cookie policy and settings .

• Our Mission

Guiding Students to Be Independent Problem-Solvers in STEM Classrooms

Teaching high school students how to plan to solve a problem in science, technology, engineering, and math is a crucial step.

Teaching students to become independent problem-solvers can be a challenging task, especially with virtual teaching during the pandemic. For some students, solving problems is not intuitive, and they need to learn how to think about solving problems from a general perspective. As experts, teachers often do not realize that there are implicit skills and ways of thinking that may not be obvious or known to our students.

5 Strategies to Explicitly Model and Teach Problem-Solving Skills

1. Model hidden thinking involved in solving a problem. When solving a problem, I talk about every aspect of what I am doing out loud. In fact, I over-talk, providing reasoning for every step. For example, when solving a dimensional-analysis problem, I will include descriptions like, “OK, I am going to look for any numbers that I can cancel. I know I can cancel or reduce if I see a number in the numerator and another number in the denominator that have a common factor.”

I will even include moments of vulnerability and model the fact that I don’t always know what to do, but I will discuss my options and my decision process. I sometimes intentionally make mistakes and then use methods to check my work to correct my errors. It’s essential that we explicitly show students this internal dialogue to model problem-solving.

2. Facilitate student talk during problem-solving. I do my best to never solve problems for students, even if they ask me. This includes whole-class lessons and working with students in small groups or individually. Using the Socratic method, I ask many questions of the students. The questions can be as simple as “What do we do next?” or “What are options of what we can do?”

Once during a classroom observation, I was told that in a span of 10 minutes, I asked more than 72 questions. This models the questions that the students can use in self-talk to guide them in the problem-solving process. After the first test, many students say that they could hear my voice asking them the same questions over and over, but what they’re really learning are advanced problem-solving skills they can extend to future contexts.

We can also provide deeper understanding with questions such as “Why do we do that?” These provide reasoning and value to the actions of each step in the problem-solving process, further solidifying the students’ understanding of the concepts and skills.

3. Include discussion for planning for each problem. Teachers instinctively plan problems. Students, as novice learners, often do not know how to plan a problem. They look at a problem, see it as foreign, and don’t know where to begin. They give up.

Research shows that planning how to solve the problem is an essential step for novice learners. Provide a structure or protocol for students. It can include the following: identify and write the data with units for a problem, identify equations to be used, identify and write what they’re trying to solve for, draw a relevant vector diagram, and brainstorm possible steps.

4. Emphasize the process, not final answers. Often, when checking individual work, we ask for the final answers. But what if instead of asking who has the answer, we ask who has the method to solve it? When students ask for correct answers, it’s natural to provide an immediate response. Instead, we should reply with guiding questions to facilitate the process of their solving the problems for themselves.

Often, I don’t even calculate the answer in the final step and ask if we all agree on the steps. The conversation is especially valuable when different methods are volunteered, and we can analyze the advantages of each. I want the students to check our work and not look at a simple result at the end of the problem to confirm their work. This shifts students’ attention to look at the details of the steps and not glance at the end of the work for the final answer. Further, grading can include points for steps and not the final solution.

5. Teach explicitly problem solving. After solving problems, students can create their own problem-solving strategy that they write on a note card. Collect responses from students and create a class protocol that you post on your learning management system or in your physical classroom space. Scaffold further with a two-column approach. In the left column, students show the work, and in the right column, they explain and justify what they did and why. The act of adding a justification will make students think about their actions. This will improve the connection between conceptual ideas and the problem-solving itself.

These are only a few strategies to get your students intentionally thinking about problem-solving from a general perspective beyond focusing on specific problems and memorizing steps. There are many ways to model and teach the skill of problem-solving that encourage them to think about the process explicitly.

• 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.

• 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

Education 4.0: Here are 3 skills that students will need for the jobs of the future

Education 4.0 involves a new type of learning Image:  Photo by Jeswin Thomas

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Asheesh Advani

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Education is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, jobs and skills.

Listen to the article

Education 4.0 reimagines education as an inclusive, lifelong experience that places the responsibility for skill-building on the learner, with teachers and mentors acting as facilitators and enablers.

• To create the environment required to foster Education 4.0, existing educational systems must be upgraded and invested in.
• Problem-solving, collaboration and adaptability are the three critical skills that Education 4.0 must impart to students.

Here are the three critical skills that should play a central role in each student’s personal curriculum as we prepare students, parents, educators and the business community — working alongside governmental and non-governmental agencies — to invest in and upgrade existing education systems for the jobs of the ever-evolving future.

1. Problem-solving - Education 4.0

Problem-solving is at or near the top of every university’s and company’s must-have skillset , but what does it really mean? Students who are competent problem-solvers approach problems with curiosity, ready to embrace the challenge before them. Working independently or with others, students study the situation and ask questions to identify the root cause of a problem, collaboratively brainstorm potential solutions once the cause is verified, experiment and test solutions on a small scale, review the outcomes of those tests, scale up the best solution and keep monitoring the solution to ensure that it’s truly solving the problem. Along the way, students build and rely upon the building blocks of problem-solving: creativity, data analysis, perseverance and critical thinking.

Have you read?

The future of jobs report 2023.

In a Brookings Institution series on teaching future skills, educator Kate Mills describes “normalising trouble” in her classroom, looking for opportunities to showcase the way other students (not the teacher) have worked through problems, naming and describing the steps they used and reiterating how the process solved the problem. “After a few weeks,” Mills says, “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.” This includes giving students a range of go-to strategies for problem-solving that students can refer to if they get stuck. “For me, as a teacher,” Mills continues, “it is important that I create a classroom environment in which students are problem-solvers.”

The COVID-19 pandemic and recent social and political unrest have created a profound sense of urgency for companies to actively work to tackle inequity.

The Forum's work on Diversity, Equality, Inclusion and Social Justice is driven by the New Economy and Society Platform, which is focused on building prosperous, inclusive and just economies and societies. In addition to its work on economic growth, revival and transformation, work, wages and job creation, and education, skills and learning, the Platform takes an integrated and holistic approach to diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice, and aims to tackle exclusion, bias and discrimination related to race, gender, ability, sexual orientation and all other forms of human diversity.

The Platform produces data, standards and insights, such as the Global Gender Gap Report and the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 4.0 Toolkit , and drives or supports action initiatives, such as Partnering for Racial Justice in Business , The Valuable 500 – Closing the Disability Inclusion Gap , Hardwiring Gender Parity in the Future of Work , Closing the Gender Gap Country Accelerators , the Partnership for Global LGBTI Equality , the Community of Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officers and the Global Future Council on Equity and Social Justice .

2. Collaboration - Education 4.0

At its core, collaboration is about working well with others, sometimes as a team leader and other times as a team member. Collaborative students are influential with and influenced by good data and effective persuasion and they show a willingness to change their minds when confronted with evidence that’s contrary to their initial beliefs. Effective collaborators build relationships with all personality types, working styles and backgrounds, acting quickly to lower tension and resolve conflicts within any team. And, they are respectful communicators, whether communicating in person, on camera, via audio, when writing in any form (from low context micro-messages to lengthy reports) or actively listening.

Five years ago, Pearson Education, the British educational publishing giant, collaborated with the Partnership for 21st Century Learning to review the most significant findings in teaching students how to collaborate . The report recommends building three elements of collaboration into everyday classroom activities: interpersonal communication, conflict resolution and task management. “For example,” the report offers, “if a task simply requires groups to generate a lot of ideas but not to prioritise those options or make any selections, there will be little need for students to coordinate their ideas and contributions. Similarly, if a task calls for consensus but everyone in the group already agrees about the best course of action then there is no opportunity for students to practice their conflict-resolution skills.” Some level of friction must be built into the learning environment to develop and practice collaboration skills.

To design a collaborative-learning classroom, the report recommends organizing students into a myriad of different groups for a variety of tasks and projects, rotating roles among students to ensure that all students experience a range of responsibilities and interpersonal situations and teaching students how to conduct peer evaluations that offer honest, constructive feedback. Not surprisingly, the report also confirms that students with strong collaboration skills have better employment and advancement prospects than those without.

How could the metaverse impact education?

3 ways to disrupt education and help bridge the skills gap , online learning: what next for higher education after covid-19, 3. adaptability - education 4.0.

The ability to continually adapt to new situations and realities has long been underrated because 'adaptability' is challenging to define. Adaptability skills range from a certain comfort with uncertainty, sudden changes and unfamiliar circumstances to the ability to make effective decisions and develop innovative solutions under pressure. Youth who are adaptable shift seamlessly from following to leading and back again. They welcome opportunities to learn new topics, master new skills and test themselves.

An Australian research team , led by Andrew J. Martin, has been studying students’ responses to uncertainty, novelty and change for the last decade, noting that learning to adapt requires cognitive, behavioural and affective (emotional) adjustments that include developing resilience, buoyancy and self-regulation. One approach to teaching adaptability is to create a self-regulated process with students in which students self-evaluate their proficiency in a particular area, establish learning goals, work to build experience and skills, evaluate proficiency again, identify the modifications needed to continue to improve and so on. Over time, adjusting and modifying skills and behaviours as a result of evaluation and feedback enables this adaptable mindset in young people.

The emergence of Education 4.0 offers a unique opportunity to upgrade our educational systems to ensure that we effectively prepare the world’s two billion young people for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, while also reducing inequalities in educational systems and capitalising on the promise of educational technology. By centring individual skill-building and classroom learning around problem-solving, collaboration and adaptability, Education 4.0 offers young people the greatest possible opportunity to succeed in a global economy.

How to follow Davos 2023

Global risks report 2023, don't miss any update on this topic.

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Jobs and Skills .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Why Europe’s employers can – and should – do more to improve social mobility

Massimo Giordano and Marie Christine Padberg

March 26, 2024

Remote work curbs salaries - new data

Victoria Masterson

March 25, 2024

Future thinking: how to prepare our minds for intergenerational decision-making

Ewa Lombard

March 15, 2024

What's the secret to Switzerland's status as a global talent hub?

Alessandro Curioni

March 7, 2024

AI and cyber, cancer-care, trade tech, and green skills: Top weekend reads on Agenda

Gayle Markovitz

March 1, 2024

Empowering women in STEM: How we break barriers from classroom to C-suite

Genesis Elhussein and Julia Hakspiel

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

current events conversation

What Students Are Saying About How to Improve American Education

An international exam shows that American 15-year-olds are stagnant in reading and math. Teenagers told us what’s working and what’s not in the American education system.

By The Learning Network

Earlier this month, the Program for International Student Assessment announced that the performance of American teenagers in reading and math has been stagnant since 2000 . Other recent studies revealed that two-thirds of American children were not proficient readers , and that the achievement gap in reading between high and low performers is widening.

We asked students to weigh in on these findings and to tell us their suggestions for how they would improve the American education system.

Our prompt received nearly 300 comments. This was clearly a subject that many teenagers were passionate about. They offered a variety of suggestions on how they felt schools could be improved to better teach and prepare students for life after graduation.

While we usually highlight three of our most popular writing prompts in our Current Events Conversation , this week we are only rounding up comments for this one prompt so we can honor the many students who wrote in.

Please note: Student comments have been lightly edited for length, but otherwise appear as they were originally submitted.

Put less pressure on students.

One of the biggest flaws in the American education system is the amount of pressure that students have on them to do well in school, so they can get into a good college. Because students have this kind of pressure on them they purely focus on doing well rather than actually learning and taking something valuable away from what they are being taught.

— Jordan Brodsky, Danvers, MA

As a Freshman and someone who has a tough home life, I can agree that this is one of the main causes as to why I do poorly on some things in school. I have been frustrated about a lot that I am expected to learn in school because they expect us to learn so much information in such little time that we end up forgetting about half of it anyway. The expectations that I wish that my teachers and school have of me is that I am only human and that I make mistakes. Don’t make me feel even worse than I already am with telling me my low test scores and how poorly I’m doing in classes.

— Stephanie Cueva, King Of Prussia, PA

I stay up well after midnight every night working on homework because it is insanely difficult to balance school life, social life, and extracurriculars while making time for family traditions. While I don’t feel like making school easier is the one true solution to the stress students are placed under, I do feel like a transition to a year-round schedule would be a step in the right direction. That way, teachers won’t be pressured into stuffing a large amount of content into a small amount of time, and students won’t feel pressured to keep up with ungodly pacing.

— Jacob Jarrett, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

In my school, we don’t have the best things, there are holes in the walls, mice, and cockroaches everywhere. We also have a lot of stress so there is rarely time for us to study and prepare for our tests because we constantly have work to do and there isn’t time for us to relax and do the things that we enjoy. We sleep late and can’t ever focus, but yet that’s our fault and that we are doing something wrong. School has become a place where we just do work, stress, and repeat but there has been nothing changed. We can’t learn what we need to learn because we are constantly occupied with unnecessary work that just pulls us back.

— Theodore Loshi, Masterman School

As a student of an American educational center let me tell you, it is horrible. The books are out dated, the bathrooms are hideous, stress is ever prevalent, homework seems never ending, and worst of all, the seemingly impossible feat of balancing school life, social life, and family life is abominable. The only way you could fix it would be to lessen the load dumped on students and give us a break.

— Henry Alley, Hoggard High School, Wilmington NC

Use less technology in the classroom (…or more).

People my age have smaller vocabularies, and if they don’t know a word, they just quickly look it up online instead of learning and internalizing it. The same goes for facts and figures in other subjects; don’t know who someone was in history class? Just look ‘em up and read their bio. Don’t know how to balance a chemical equation? The internet knows. Can’t solve a math problem by hand? Just sneak out the phone calculator.

My largest grievance with technology and learning has more to do with the social and psychological aspects, though. We’ve decreased ability to meaningfully communicate, and we want everything — things, experiences, gratification — delivered to us at Amazon Prime speed. Interactions and experiences have become cheap and 2D because we see life through a screen.

— Grace Robertson, Hoggard High School Wilmington, NC

Kids now a days are always on technology because they are heavily dependent on it- for the purpose of entertainment and education. Instead of pondering or thinking for ourselves, our first instinct is to google and search for the answers without giving it any thought. This is a major factor in why I think American students tests scores haven’t been improving because no one wants to take time and think about questions, instead they want to find answers as fast as they can just so they can get the assignment/ project over with.

— Ema Thorakkal, Glenbard West HS IL

There needs to be a healthier balance between pen and paper work and internet work and that balance may not even be 50:50. I personally find myself growing as a student more when I am writing down my assignments and planning out my day on paper instead of relying on my phone for it. Students now are being taught from preschool about technology and that is damaging their growth and reading ability. In my opinion as well as many of my peers, a computer can never beat a book in terms of comprehension.

— Ethan, Pinkey, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

Learning needs to be more interesting. Not many people like to study from their textbooks because there’s not much to interact with. I think that instead of studying from textbooks, more interactive activities should be used instead. Videos, websites, games, whatever might interest students more. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use textbooks, I’m just saying that we should have a combination of both textbooks and technology to make learning more interesting in order for students to learn more.

— Vivina Dong, J. R. Masterman

Prepare students for real life.

At this point, it’s not even the grades I’m worried about. It feels like once we’ve graduated high school, we’ll be sent out into the world clueless and unprepared. I know many college students who have no idea what they’re doing, as though they left home to become an adult but don’t actually know how to be one.

The most I’ve gotten out of school so far was my Civics & Economics class, which hardly even touched what I’d actually need to know for the real world. I barely understand credit and they expect me to be perfectly fine living alone a year from now. We need to learn about real life, things that can actually benefit us. An art student isn’t going to use Biology and Trigonometry in life. Exams just seem so pointless in the long run. Why do we have to dedicate our high school lives studying equations we’ll never use? Why do exams focusing on pointless topics end up determining our entire future?

— Eliana D, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

I think that the American education system can be improved my allowing students to choose the classes that they wish to take or classes that are beneficial for their future. Students aren’t really learning things that can help them in the future such as basic reading and math.

— Skye Williams, Sarasota, Florida

I am frustrated about what I’m supposed to learn in school. Most of the time, I feel like what I’m learning will not help me in life. I am also frustrated about how my teachers teach me and what they expect from me. Often, teachers will give me information and expect me to memorize it for a test without teaching me any real application.

— Bella Perrotta, Kent Roosevelt High School

We divide school time as though the class itself is the appetizer and the homework is the main course. Students get into the habit of preparing exclusively for the homework, further separating the main ideas of school from the real world. At this point, homework is given out to prepare the students for … more homework, rather than helping students apply their knowledge to the real world.

— Daniel Capobianco, Danvers High School

Eliminate standardized tests.

Standardized testing should honestly be another word for stress. I know that I stress over every standardized test I have taken and so have most of my peers. I mean they are scary, it’s like when you take these tests you bring your No. 2 pencil and an impending fail.

— Brennan Stabler, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

Personally, for me I think standardized tests have a negative impact on my education, taking test does not actually test my knowledge — instead it forces me to memorize facts that I will soon forget.

— Aleena Khan, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

Teachers will revolve their whole days on teaching a student how to do well on a standardized test, one that could potentially impact the final score a student receives. That is not learning. That is learning how to memorize and become a robot that regurgitates answers instead of explaining “Why?” or “How?” that answer was found. If we spent more time in school learning the answers to those types of questions, we would become a nation where students are humans instead of a number.

— Carter Osborn, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

In private school, students have smaller class sizes and more resources for field trips, computers, books, and lab equipment. They also get more “hand holding” to guarantee success, because parents who pay tuition expect results. In public school, the learning is up to you. You have to figure stuff out yourself, solve problems, and advocate for yourself. If you fail, nobody cares. It takes grit to do well. None of this is reflected in a standardized test score.

— William Hudson, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

Give teachers more money and support.

I have always been told “Don’t be a teacher, they don’t get paid hardly anything.” or “How do you expect to live off of a teachers salary, don’t go into that profession.” As a young teen I am being told these things, the future generation of potential teachers are being constantly discouraged because of the money they would be getting paid. Education in Americans problems are very complicated, and there is not one big solution that can fix all of them at once, but little by little we can create a change.

— Lilly Smiley, Hoggard High School

We cannot expect our grades to improve when we give teachers a handicap with poor wages and low supplies. It doesn’t allow teachers to unleash their full potential for educating students. Alas, our government makes teachers work with their hands tied. No wonder so many teachers are quitting their jobs for better careers. Teachers will shape the rest of their students’ lives. But as of now, they can only do the bare minimum.

— Jeffery Austin, Hoggard High School

The answer to solving the American education crisis is simple. We need to put education back in the hands of the teachers. The politicians and the government needs to step back and let the people who actually know what they are doing and have spent a lifetime doing it decide how to teach. We wouldn’t let a lawyer perform heart surgery or construction workers do our taxes, so why let the people who win popularity contests run our education systems?

— Anders Olsen, Hoggard High School, Wilmington NC

Make lessons more engaging.

I’m someone who struggles when all the teacher does is say, “Go to page X” and asks you to read it. Simply reading something isn’t as effective for me as a teacher making it interactive, maybe giving a project out or something similar. A textbook doesn’t answer all my questions, but a qualified teacher that takes their time does. When I’m challenged by something, I can always ask a good teacher and I can expect an answer that makes sense to me. But having a teacher that just brushes off questions doesn’t help me. I’ve heard of teachers where all they do is show the class movies. At first, that sounds amazing, but you don’t learn anything that can benefit you on a test.

— Michael Huang, JR Masterman

I’ve struggled in many classes, as of right now it’s government. What is making this class difficult is that my teacher doesn’t really teach us anything, all he does is shows us videos and give us papers that we have to look through a textbook to find. The problem with this is that not everyone has this sort of learning style. Then it doesn’t help that the papers we do, we never go over so we don’t even know if the answers are right.

— S Weatherford, Kent Roosevelt, OH

The classes in which I succeed in most are the ones where the teachers are very funny. I find that I struggle more in classes where the teachers are very strict. I think this is because I love laughing. Two of my favorite teachers are very lenient and willing to follow the classes train of thought.

— Jonah Smith Posner, J.R. Masterman

Create better learning environments.

Whenever they are introduced to school at a young age, they are convinced by others that school is the last place they should want to be. Making school a more welcoming place for students could better help them be attentive and also be more open minded when walking down the halls of their own school, and eventually improve their test scores as well as their attitude while at school.

— Hart P., Bryant High School

Students today feel voiceless because they are punished when they criticize the school system and this is a problem because this allows the school to block out criticism that can be positive leaving it no room to grow. I hope that in the near future students can voice their opinion and one day change the school system for the better.

— Nico Spadavecchia, Glenbard West Highschool Glen Ellyn IL

The big thing that I have struggled with is the class sizes due to overcrowding. It has made it harder to be able to get individual help and be taught so I completely understand what was going on. Especially in math it builds on itself so if you don’t understand the first thing you learn your going to be very lost down the road. I would go to my math teacher in the morning and there would be 12 other kids there.

— Skyla Madison, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

The biggest issue facing our education system is our children’s lack of motivation. People don’t want to learn. Children hate school. We despise homework. We dislike studying. One of the largest indicators of a child’s success academically is whether or not they meet a third grade reading level by the third grade, but children are never encouraged to want to learn. There are a lot of potential remedies for the education system. Paying teachers more, giving schools more funding, removing distractions from the classroom. All of those things are good, but, at the end of the day, the solution is to fundamentally change the way in which we operate.

Support students’ families.

I say one of the biggest problems is the support of families and teachers. I have heard many success stories, and a common element of this story is the unwavering support from their family, teachers, supervisors, etc. Many people need support to be pushed to their full potential, because some people do not have the will power to do it on their own. So, if students lived in an environment where education was supported and encouraged; than their children would be more interested in improving and gaining more success in school, than enacting in other time wasting hobbies that will not help their future education.

— Melanie, Danvers

De-emphasize grades.

I wish that tests were graded based on how much effort you put it and not the grade itself. This would help students with stress and anxiety about tests and it would cause students to put more effort into their work. Anxiety around school has become such a dilemma that students are taking their own life from the stress around schoolwork. You are told that if you don’t make straight A’s your life is over and you won’t have a successful future.

— Lilah Pate, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

I personally think that there are many things wrong with the American education system. Everyone is so worried about grades and test scores. People believe that those are the only thing that represents a student. If you get a bad grade on something you start believing that you’re a bad student. GPA doesn’t measure a students’ intelligence or ability to learn. At young ages students stop wanting to come to school and learn. Standardized testing starts and students start to lose their creativity.

— Andrew Gonthier, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

Praise for great teachers

Currently, I’m in a math class that changed my opinion of math. Math class just used to be a “meh” for me. But now, my teacher teachers in a way that is so educational and at the same time very amusing and phenomenal. I am proud to be in such a class and with such a teacher. She has changed the way I think about math it has definitely improve my math skills. Now, whenever I have math, I am so excited to learn new things!

— Paulie Sobol, J.R Masterman

At the moment, the one class that I really feel supported in is math. My math teachers Mrs. Siu and Ms. Kamiya are very encouraging of mistakes and always are willing to help me when I am struggling. We do lots of classwork and discussions and we have access to amazing online programs and technology. My teacher uses Software called OneNote and she does all the class notes on OneNote so that we can review the class material at home. Ms. Kamiya is very patient and is great at explaining things. Because they are so accepting of mistakes and confusion it makes me feel very comfortable and I am doing very well in math.

— Jayden Vance, J.R. Masterman

One of the classes that made learning easier for me was sixth-grade math. My teacher allowed us to talk to each other while we worked on math problems. Talking to the other students in my class helped me learn a lot quicker. We also didn’t work out of a textbook. I feel like it is harder for me to understand something if I just read it out of a textbook. Seventh-grade math also makes learning a lot easier for me. Just like in sixth-grade math, we get to talk to others while solving a problem. I like that when we don’t understand a question, our teacher walks us through it and helps us solve it.

— Grace Moan, J R Masterman

My 2nd grade class made learning easy because of the way my teacher would teach us. My teacher would give us a song we had to remember to learn nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, etc. which helped me remember their definitions until I could remember it without the song. She had little key things that helped us learn math because we all wanted to be on a harder key than each other. She also sang us our spelling words, and then the selling of that word from the song would help me remember it.

— Brycinea Stratton, J.R. Masterman

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue
• The Development of Problem-Solving Skills for Aspiring Educational Leaders

Jeremy D. Visone 10.12806/V17/I4/R3

Introduction

Solving problems is a quintessential aspect of the role of an educational leader. In particular, building leaders, such as principals, assistant principals, and deans of students, are frequently beset by situations that are complex, unique, and open-ended. There are often many possible pathways to resolve the situations, and an astute educational leader needs to consider many factors and constituencies before determining a plan of action. The realm of problem solving might include student misconduct, personnel matters, parental complaints, school culture, instructional leadership, as well as many other aspects of educational administration. Much consideration has been given to the development of problem-solving skills for educational leaders. This study was designed to answer the following research question: “How do aspiring educational leaders’ problem solving skills, as well as perceptions of their problem-solving skills, develop during a year-long graduate course sequence focused on school-level leadership that includes the presentation of real-world scenarios?” This mixed-methods study extends research about the development of problem-solving skills conducted with acting administrators (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995).

The Nature of Problems

Before examining how educational leaders can process and solve problems effectively, it is worth considering the nature of problems. Allison (1996) posited simply that problems are situations that require thought and/or actions. Further, there are different types of problems presented to educational leaders. First, there are  well-structured problems , which can be defined as those with clear goals and relatively prescribed resolution pathways, including an easy way of determining whether goals were met (Allison, 1996).

Conversely,  ill-structured problems  are those with more open-ended profiles, whereby the goals, resolution pathways, or evidence of success are not necessarily clear. These types of problems could also be considered  unstructured  (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995) or  open-design  (Allison, 1996). Many of the problems presented to educational leaders are unstructured problems. For example, a principal must decide how to discipline children who misbehave, taking into consideration their disciplinary history, rules and protocols of the school, and other contextual factors; determine how best to raise student achievement (Duke, 2014); and resolve personnel disputes among staff members. None of these problems point to singular solutions that can be identified as “right” or “wrong.” Surely there are responses that are less desirable than others (i.e. suspension or recommendation for expulsion for minor infractions), but, with justification and context, many possible solutions exist.

Problem-Solving Perspectives and Models

Various authors have shared perspectives about effective problem solving. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) outlined the “21 Responsibilities of the School Leader.” These responsibilities are highly correlated with student achievement based upon the authors’ meta- analysis of 69 studies about leadership’s effect on student achievement. The most highly correlated of the responsibilities was  situational awareness , which refers to understanding the school deeply enough to anticipate what might go wrong from day-to-day, navigate the individuals and groups within the school, and recognize issues that might surface at a later time (Marzano et al., 2005). Though the authors discuss the utility of situational awareness for long- term, large-scale decision making, in order for an educational leader to effectively solve the daily problems that come her way, she must again have a sense of situational awareness, lest she make seemingly smaller-scale decisions that will lead to large-scale problems later.

Other authors have focused on problems that can be considered more aligned with the daily work of educational leaders. Considering the problem-type classification dichotomies of Allison (1996) and Leithwood and Steinbach (1995), problems that educational leaders face on a daily basis can be identified as either well-structured or unstructured. Various authors have developed problem-solving models focused on unstructured problems (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Simon, 1993), and these models will be explored next.

Simon (1993) outlined three phases of the decision-making process. The first is to find problems that need attention. Though many problems of educational leaders are presented directly to them via, for example, an adult referring a child for discipline, a parent registering a complaint about a staff member, or a staff member describing a grievance with a colleague, there is a corollary skill of identifying what problems—of the many that come across one’s desk— require immediate attention, or ultimately, any attention, at all. Second, Simon identified “designing possible courses of action” (p. 395). Finally, educational leaders must evaluate the quality of their decisions. From this point of having selected a viable and positively evaluated potential solution pathway, implementation takes place.

Bolman and Deal (2008) outlined a model of reframing problems using four different frames, through which problems of practice can be viewed. These frames provide leaders with a more complete set of perspectives than they would likely utilize on their own. The  structural frame  represents the procedural and systems-oriented aspects of an organization. Within this frame, a leader might ask whether there is a supervisory relationship involved in a problem, if a protocol exists to solve such a problem, or what efficiencies or logical processes can help steer a leader toward a resolution that meets organizational goals. The  human resource frame  refers to the needs of individuals within the organization. A leader might try to solve a problem of practice with the needs of constituents in mind, considering the development of employees and the balance between their satisfaction and intellectual stimulation and the organization’s needs. The  political frame  includes the often competing interests among individuals and groups within the organization, whereby alliances and negotiations are needed to navigate the potential minefield of many groups’ overlapping aims. From the political frame, a leader could consider what the interpersonal costs will be for the leader and organization among different constituent groups, based upon which alternatives are selected. Last, the  symbolic frame  includes elements of meaning within an organization, such as traditions, unspoken rules, and myths. A leader may need to consider this frame when proposing a solution that might interfere with a long-standing organizational tradition.

Bolman and Deal (2008) identified the political and symbolic frames as weaknesses in most leaders’ consideration of problems of practice, and the weakness in recognizing political aspects of decision making for educational leaders was corroborated by Johnson and Kruse (2009). An implication for leadership preparation is to instruct students in the considerations of these frames and promote their utility when examining problems.

Authors have noted that experts use different processes than novice problem solvers (Simon, 1993; VanLehn, 1991). An application of this would be Simon’s (1993) assertion that experts can rely on their extensive experience to remember solutions to many problems, without having to rely on an extensive analytical process. Further, they may not even consider a “problem” identified by a novice a problem, at all. With respect to educational leaders, Leithwood and Steinbach (1992, 1995) outlined a set of competencies possessed by expert principals, when compared to their typical counterparts. Expert principals were better at identifying the nature of problems; possessing a sense of priority, difficulty, how to proceed, and connectedness to prior situations; setting meaningful goals for problem solving, such as seeking goals that are student-centered and knowledge-focused; using guiding principles and long-term purposes when determining the best courses of action; seeing fewer obstacles and constraints when presented with problems; outlining detailed plans for action that include gathering extensive information to inform decisions along the plan’s pathway; and responding with confidence and calm to problem solving. Next, I will examine how problem-solving skills are developed.

Preparation for Educational Leadership Problem Solving

How can the preparation of leaders move candidates toward the competencies of expert principals? After all, leading a school has been shown to be a remarkably complex enterprise (Hallinger & McCary, 1990; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992), especially if the school is one where student achievement is below expectations (Duke, 2014), and the framing of problems by educational leaders has been espoused as a critically important enterprise (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Dimmock, 1996; Johnson & Kruse, 2009; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995; Myran & Sutherland, 2016). In other disciplines, such as business management, simulations and case studies are used to foster problem-solving skills for aspiring leaders (Rochford & Borchert, 2011; Salas, Wildman, & Piccolo, 2009), and attention to problem-solving skills has been identified as an essential curricular component in the training of journalism and mass communication students (Bronstein & Fitzpatrick, 2015). Could such real-world problem solving methodologies be effective in the preparation of educational leaders? In a seminal study about problem solving for educational leaders, Leithwood and Steinbach (1992, 1995) sought to determine if effective problem-solving expertise could be explicitly taught, and, if so, could teaching problem- processing expertise be helpful in moving novices toward expert competence? Over the course of four months and four separate learning sessions, participants in the control group were explicitly taught subskills within six problem-solving components: interpretation of the problem for priority, perceived difficulty, data needed for further action, and anecdotes of prior experience that can inform action; goals for solving the problem; large-scale principles that guide decision making; barriers or obstacles that need to be overcome; possible courses of action; and the confidence of the leader to solve the problem. The authors asserted that providing conditions to participants that included models of effective problem-solving, feedback, increasingly complex problem-solving demands, frequent opportunities for practice, group problem-solving, individual reflection, authentic problems, and help to stimulate metacognition and reflection would result in educational leaders improving their problem-solving skills.

The authors used two experts’ ratings of participants’ problem-solving for both process (their methods of attacking the problem) and product (their solutions) using a 0-3 scale in a pretest-posttest design. They found significant increases in some problem-solving skills (problem interpretation, goal setting, and identification of barriers or obstacles that need to be overcome) after explicit instruction (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995). They recommended conducting more research on the preparation of educational leaders, with particular respect to approaches that would improve the aspiring leaders’ problem-solving skills.

Solving problems for practicing principals could be described as constructivist, since most principals do solve problems within a social context of other stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, and students (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992). Thus, some authors have examined providing opportunities for novice or aspiring leaders to construct meaning from novel scenarios using the benefits of, for example, others’ point of view, expert modeling, simulations, and prior knowledge (Duke, 2014; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995; Myran & Sutherland, 2016; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015). Such collaborative inquiry has been effective for teachers, as well (DeLuca, Bolden, & Chan, 2017). Such learning can be considered consistent with the ideas of other social constructivist theorists (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Vygotsky, 1978) as well, since individuals are working together to construct meaning, and they are pushing into areas of uncertainty and lack of expertise.

Shapira-Lishchinsky (2015) added some intriguing findings and recommendations to those of Leithwood and Steinbach (1992, 1995). In this study, 50 teachers with various leadership roles in their schools were presented regularly with ethical dilemmas during their coursework. Participants either interacted with the dilemmas as members of a role play or by observing those chosen. When the role play was completed, the entire group debriefed and discussed the ethical dilemmas and role-playing participants’ treatment of the issues. This method was shown, through qualitative analysis of participants’ discussions during the simulations, to produce rich dialogue and allow for a safe and controlled treatment of difficult issues. As such, the use of simulations was presented as a viable means through which to prepare aspiring educational leaders. Further, the author suggested the use of further studies with simulation-based learning that seek to gain information about aspiring leaders’ self-efficacy and psychological empowerment. A notable example of project-based scenarios in a virtual collaboration environment to prepare educational leaders is the work of Howard, McClannon, and Wallace (2014). Shapira-Lishchinsky (2015) also recommended similar research in other developed countries to observe the utility of the approaches of simulation and social constructivism to examine them for a wider and diverse aspiring administrator candidate pool.

Further, in an extensive review of prior research studies on the subject, Hallinger and Bridges (2017) noted that Problem-Based Learning (PBL), though applied successfully in other professions and written about extensively (Hallinger & Bridges, 1993, 2017; Stentoft, 2017), was relatively unheralded in the preparation of educational leaders. According to the authors, characteristics of PBL included problems replacing theory as the organization of course content, student-led group work, creation of simulated products by students, increased student ownership over learning, and feedback along the way from professors. Their review noted that PBL had positive aspects for participants, such as increased motivation, real-world connections, and positive pressure that resulted from working with a team. However, participants also expressed concerns about time constraints, lack of structure, and interpersonal dynamics within their teams. There were positive effects found on aspiring leaders’ problem-solving skill development with PBL (Copland, 2000; Hallinger & Bridges, 2017). Though PBL is much more prescribed than the scenarios strategy described in the Methods section below, the applicability of real-world problems to the preparation of educational leaders is summarized well by Copland (2000):

[I]nstructional practices that activate prior knowledge and situate learning in contexts similar to those encountered in practice are associated with the development of students’ ability to understand and frame problems. Moreover, the incorporation of debriefing techniques that encourage students’ elaboration of knowledge and reflection on learning appear to help students solidify a way of thinking about problems. (p. 604)

This study involved a one-group pretest-posttest design. No control group was assigned, as the pedagogical strategy in question—the use of real-world scenarios to build problem-solving skill for aspiring educational leaders—is integral to the school’s curriculum that prepares leaders, and, therefore, it is unethical to deny to student participants (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Thus, all participants were provided instruction with the use of real-world scenarios.

Participants.  Graduate students at a regional, comprehensive public university in the Northeast obtaining a 6 th -year degree (equivalent to a second master’s degree) in educational leadership and preparing for certification as educational administrators served as participants. Specifically, students in three sections of the same full-year, two-course sequence, entitled “School Leadership I and II” were invited to participate. This particular course was selected from the degree course sequence, as it deals most directly with the problem-solving nature and daily work of school administrators. Some key outcomes of the course include students using data to drive school improvement action plans, communicating effectively with a variety of stakeholders, creating a safe and caring school climate, creating and maintaining a strategic and viable school budget, articulating all the steps in a hiring process for teachers and administrators, and leading with cultural proficiency.

The three sections were taught by two different professors. The professors used real- world scenarios in at least half of their class meetings throughout the year, or in approximately 15 classes throughout the year. During these classes, students were presented with realistic situations that have occurred, or could occur, in actual public schools. Students worked with their classmates to determine potential solutions to the problems and then discussed their responses as a whole class under the direction of their professor, a master practitioner. Both professors were active school administrators, with more than 25 years combined educational leadership experience in public schools. It should be noted that the scenario presentation and discussions took place during the class sessions, only. These were not presented for homework or in online forums.

Of the 44 students in these three sections, 37 volunteered to participate at some point in the data collection sequence, but not all students in the pretest session attended the posttest session months later and vice versa. As a result, only 20 students’ data were used for the matched pairs analysis. All 37 participants were certified professional educators in public schools in Connecticut. The participants’ professional roles varied and included classroom teachers, instructional coaches, related service personnel, unified arts teachers, as well as other non- administrative educational roles. Characteristics of participants in the overall and matched pairs groups can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Participant Characteristics

Procedure.  Participants’ data were compared between a fall of 2016 baseline data collection period and a spring of 2017 posttest data collection period. During the fall data collection period, participants were randomly assigned one of two versions of a Google Forms survey. After items about participant characteristics, the survey consisted of 11 items designed to elicit quantitative and qualitative data about participants’ perceptions of their problem-solving abilities, as well as their ability to address real-world problems faced by educational leaders. The participants were asked to rate their perception of their situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving ability on a 10-point (1-10) Likert scale, following operational definitions of the terms (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Winter, 1982). They were asked, for each construct, to write open-ended responses to justify their numerical rating. They were then asked to write what they perceived they still needed to improve their problem-solving skills. The final four items included two real-world, unstructured, problem-based scenarios for which participants were asked to create plans of action. They were also asked to rate their problem-solving confidence with respect to their proposed action plans for each scenario on a 4-point (0-3) Likert scale.

During the spring data collection period, participants accessed the opposite version of the Google Forms survey from the one they completed in the fall. All items were identical on the two survey versions, except the scenarios, which were different on each survey version. The use of two versions was to ensure that any differences in perceived or actual difficulty among the four scenarios provided would not alter results based upon the timing of participant access (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995). In order to link participants’ fall and spring data in a confidential manner, participants created a unique, six-digit alphanumeric code.

A focus group interview followed each spring data collection session. The interviews were recorded to allow for accurate transcription. The list of standard interview questions can be found in Table 2. This interview protocol was designed to elicit qualitative data with respect to aspiring educational leaders’ perceptions about their developing problem-solving abilities.

Table 2 Focus Group Interview Questions ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Please describe the development of your problem-solving skills as an aspiring educational leader over the course of this school year. In what ways have you improved your skills? Be as specific as you can.

What has been helpful to you (i.e. coursework, readings, experiences, etc.) in this development of your problem-solving skills? Why?

What do you believe you still need for the development in your problem-solving skills as an aspiring educational leader?

Discuss your perception of your ability to problem solve as an aspiring educational leader. How has this changed from the beginning of this school year? Why?

Please add anything else you perceive is relevant to this conversation about the development of your problem-solving skills as an aspiring educational leader.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Data Analysis.

Quantitative data .  Data were obtained from participants’ responses to Likert-scale items relating to their confidence levels with respect to aspects of problem solving, as well as from the rating of participants’ responses to the given scenarios  against a rubric. The educational leadership problem-solving rubric chosen (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995) was used with permission, and it reflects the authors’ work with explicitly teaching practicing educational leaders components of problem solving. The adapted rubric can be found in Figure 1. Through the use of this rubric, each individual response by a participant to a presented scenario was assigned a score from 0-15. It should be noted that affect data (representing the final 3 possible points on the 18-point rubric) were obtained via participants’ self-reporting their confidence with respect to their proposed plans of action. To align with the rubric, participants self-assessed their confidence through this item with a 0-3 scale.

0 = No Use of the Subskill 1 = There is Some Indication of Use of the Subskill 2 = The Subskill is Present to Some Degree 3 = The Subskill is Present to a Marked Degree; This is a Fine Example of this Subskill

Figure 1.  Problem-solving model for unstructured problems. Adapted from “Expert Problem Solving: Evidence from School and District Leaders,” by K. Leithwood and R. Steinbach, pp. 284-285. Copyright 1995 by the State University of New York Press.

I compared Likert-scale items and rubric scores via descriptive statistics and rubric scores also via a paired sample  t -test and Cohen’s  d , all using the software program IBM SPSS. I did not compare the Likert-scale items about situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving ability with  t -tests or Cohen’s  d , since these items did not represent a validated instrument. They were only single items based upon participants’ ratings compared to literature-based definitions. However, the value of the comparison of means from fall to spring was triangulated with qualitative results to provide meaning. For example, to say that participants’ self-assessment ratings for perceived problem-solving abilities increased, I examined both the mean difference for items from fall to spring and what participants shared throughout the qualitative survey items and focus group interviews.

Prior to scoring participants’ responses to the scenarios using the rubric, and in an effort to maximize the content validity of the rubric scores, I calibrated my use of the rubric with two experts from the field. Two celebrated principals, representing more than 45 combined years of experience in school-level administration, collaboratively and comparatively scored participant responses. Prior to scoring, the team worked collaboratively to construct appropriate and comprehensive exemplar responses to the four problem-solving scenarios. Then the team blindly scored fall pretest scenario responses using the Leithwood and Steinbach (1995) rubric, and upon comparing scores, the interrater reliability correlation coefficient was .941, indicating a high degree of agreement throughout the team.

Qualitative data.  These data were obtained from open-ended items on the survey, including participants’ responses to the given scenarios, as well as the focus group interview transcripts. I analyzed qualitative data consistent with the grounded theory principles of Strauss and Corbin (1998) and the constant comparative methods of Glaser (1965), including a period of open coding of results, leading to axial coding to determine the codes’ dimensions and relationships between categories and their subcategories, and selective coding to arrive at themes. Throughout the entire data analysis process, I repeatedly returned to raw data to determine the applicability of emergent codes to previously analyzed data. Some categorical codes based upon the review of literature were included in the initial coding process. These codes were derived from the existing theoretical problem-solving models of Bolman and Deal (2008) and Leithwood and Steinbach (1995). These codes included  modeling ,  relationships , and  best for kids . Open codes that emerged from the participants’ responses included  experience ,  personality traits ,  current job/role , and  team . Axial coding revealed, for example, that current jobs or roles cited, intuitively, provided both sufficient building-wide perspective and situational memory (i.e. for special education teachers and school counselors) and insufficient experiences (i.e. for classroom teachers) to solve the given problems with confidence. From such understandings of the codes, categories, and their dimensions, themes were developed.

Quantitative Results.   First, participants’ overall, aggregate responses (not matched pairs) were compared from the fall to spring, descriptively. These findings are outlined in Table  3. As is seen in the table, each item saw a modest increase over the course of the year. Participant perceptions of their problem-solving abilities across the three constructs presented (situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving) did increase over the course of the year, as did the average group score for the problem-solving scenarios. However, due to participant differences in the two data collection periods, these aggregate averages do not represent a matched-pair dataset.

Table 3 Fall to Spring Comparison of Likert-Scale and Rubric-Scored Items

a  These problem-solving dimensions from literature were rated by participants on a scale from 1- 10. b  Participants received a rubric score for each scenario between 0-18. Participants’ two scenario scores for each data collection period (fall, spring) were averaged to arrive at the scores represented here.

In order to determine the statistical significance of the increase in participants’ problem- solving rubric scores, a paired-samples  t -test was applied to the fall ( M  = 9.15;  SD  = 2.1) and spring ( M  = 9.25;  SD  = 2.3) averages. Recall that 20 participants had valid surveys for both the fall and spring. The  t -test ( t  = -.153;  df  = 19;  p  = .880) revealed no statistically significant change from fall to spring, despite the minor increase (0.10). I applied Cohen’s  d  to calculate the effect size. The small sample size ( n  = 20) for the paired-sample  t -test may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance. However, standard deviations were also relatively small, so the question of effect size was of particular importance. Cohen’s  d  was 0.05, which is also very small, indicating that little change—really no improvement, from a statistical standpoint—in participants’ ability to create viable action plans to solve real-world problems occurred throughout the year. However, the participants’ perceptions of their problem-solving abilities did increase, as evidenced by the increases in the paired-samples perception means shown in Table 3, though these data were only examined descriptively (from a quantitative perspective) due to the fact that these questions were individual items that are not part of a validated instrument.

Qualitative Results.   Participant responses to open-ended items on the questionnaire, responses to the scenarios, and oral responses to focus group interview questions served as sources of qualitative data. Since the responses to the scenarios were focused on participant competence with problem solving, as measured by the aforementioned rubric (Leithwood &  Steinbach, 1995), these data were examined separately from data collected from the other two sources.

Responses to scenarios.  As noted, participants’ rubric ratings for the scenarios did not display a statistically significant increase from fall to spring. As such, this outline will not focus upon changes in responses from fall to spring. Rather, I examined the responses, overall, through the lens of the Leithwood and Steinbach (1995) problem-solving framework indicators against which they were rated. Participants typically had outlined reasonable, appropriate, and logical solution processes. For example, in a potential bullying case scenario, two different participants offered, “I would speak to the other [students] individually if they have said or done anything mean to other student [ sic ] and be clear that it is not tolerable and will result in major consequences” and “I would initiate an investigation into the situation beginning with [an] interview with the four girls.” These responses reflect actions that the consulted experts anticipated from participants and deemed as logical and needed interventions. However, these two participants omitted other needed steps, such as addressing the bullied student’s mental health needs, based upon her mother’s report of suicidal ideations. Accordingly, participants earned points for reasonable and logical responses very consistently, yet, few full-credit responses were observed.

Problem interpretation scores were much more varied. For this indicator, some participants were able to identify many, if not all, the major issues in the scenarios that needed attention. For example, for a scenario where two teachers were not interacting professionally toward each other, many participants correctly identified that this particular scenario could include elements of sexual harassment, professionalism, teaching competence, and personality conflict. However, many other participants missed at least two of these key elements of the problem, leaving their solution processes incomplete. The categories of (a) goals and (b) principles and values also displayed a similarly wide distribution of response ratings.

One category, constraints, presented consistent difficulty for the participants. Ratings were routinely 0 and 1. Participants could not consistently report what barriers or obstacles would need addressing prior to success with their proposed solutions. To be clear, it was not a matter of participants listing invalid or unrealistic barriers or obstacles; rather, the participants were typically omitting constraints altogether from their responses. For example, for a scenario involving staff members arriving late and unprepared to data team meetings, many participants did not identify that a school culture of not valuing data-driven decision making or lack of norms for data team work could be constraints that the principal could likely face prior to reaching a successful resolution.

Responses to open-ended items.  When asked for rationale regarding their ratings for situational awareness, flexibility, and problem solving, participants provided open-ended responses. These responses revealed patterns worth considering, and, again, this discussion will consider, in aggregate, responses made in both the pre- and post- data collection periods, again due to the similarities in responses between the two data collection periods. The most frequently observed code (112 incidences) was  experience . Closely related were the codes  current job/role  (50 incidences). Together, these codes typically represented a theme that participants were linking their confidence with respect to problem solving with their exposure (or lack thereof) in their professional work. For example, a participant reported, “As a school counselor, I have a lot of contact with many stakeholders in the school -admin [ sic ], parents, teachers, staff, etc. I feel that I have a pretty good handle on the systemic issues.” This example is one of many where individuals working in counseling, instructional coaching, special education, and other support roles expressed their advanced levels of perspective based upon their regular contact with many stakeholders, including administrators. Thus, they felt they had more prior knowledge and situational memory about problems in their schools.

However, this category of codes also included those, mostly classroom or unified arts teachers, who expressed that their relative lack of experiences outside their own classrooms limited their perspective for larger-scale problem solving. One teacher succinctly summarized this sentiment, “I have limited experience in being part of situations outside of my classroom.” Another focused on the general problem solving skill in her classroom not necessarily translating to confidence with problem solving at the school level: “I feel that I have a high situational awareness as a teacher in the classroom, but as I move through these leadership programs I find that I struggle to take the perspective of a leader.” These experiences were presented in opposition to their book learning or university training. There were a number of instances (65 combined) of references to the value of readings, class discussions, group work, scenarios presented, research, and coursework in the spring survey. When asked what the participants need more, again, experience was referenced often. One participant summarized this concept, “I think that I, personally, need more experience in the day-to-day . . . setting.” Another specifically separated experiences from scenario work, “[T]here is [ sic ] some things you can not [ sic ] learn from merely discussing a ‘what if” scenario. A seasoned administrator learns problem solving skills on the job.”

Another frequently cited code was  personality traits  (63 incidences), which involved participants linking elements of their own personalities to their perceived abilities to process problems, almost exclusively from an assets perspective. Examples of traits identified by participants as potentially helpful in problem solving included: open-mindedness, affinity for working with others, not being judgmental, approachability, listening skills, and flexibility. One teacher exemplified this general approach by indicating, “I feel that I am a good listener in regards to inviting opinions. I enjoy learning through cooperation and am always willing to adapt my teaching to fit needs of the learners.” However, rare statements of personality traits interfering with problem solving included, “I find it hard to trust others [ sic ] abilities” and “my personal thoughts and biases.”

Another important category of the participant responses involved connections with others. First, there were many references to  relationships  (27 incidences), mostly from the perspective that building positive relationships leads to greater problem-solving ability, as the aspiring leader knows stakeholders better and can rely on them due to the history of positive interactions. One participant framed this idea from a deficit perspective, “Not knowing all the outlying relationships among staff members makes situational awareness difficult.” Another identified that established positive relationships are already helpful to an aspiring leader, “I have strong rapport with fellow staff members and administrators in my building.” In a related way, many instances of the code  team  were identified (29). These references overwhelmingly identified that solving problems within a team context is helpful. One participant stated, “I often team with people to discuss possible solutions,” while another elaborated,

I recognize that sometimes problems may arise for which I am not the most qualified or may not have the best answer. I realize that I may need to rely on others or seek out help/opinions to ensure that I make the appropriate decision.

Overall, participants recognized that problem-solving for leaders does not typically occur in a vacuum.

Responses to focus group interview questions.  As with the open-ended responses, patterns were evident in the interview responses, and many of these findings were supportive of the aforementioned themes. First, participants frequently referenced the power of group work to help build their understanding about problems and possible solutions. One participant stated, “hearing other people talk and realizing other concerns that you may not have thought of . . . even as a teacher sometimes, you look at it this way, and someone else says to see it this way.” Another added, “seeing it from a variety of persons [ sic ] point of views. How one person was looking at it, and how another person was looking at it was really helpful.” Also, the participants noted the quality of the discussion was a direct result of “professors who have had real-life experience” as practicing educational leaders, so they could add more realistic feedback and insight to the discussions.

Perhaps most notable in the participant responses during the focus groups was the emphasis on the value of real-world scenarios for the students. These were referenced, without prompting, in all three focus groups by many participants. Answers to the question about what has been most helpful in the development of their problem-solving skills included, “I think the real-world application we are doing,” “I think being presented with all the scenarios,” and “[the professor] brought a lot of real situations.”

With respect to what participants believed they still needed to become better and more confident problem solvers, two patterns emerged. First, students recognized that they have much more to learn, especially with respect to policy and law. It is noteworthy that, with few exceptions, these students had not taken the policy or law courses in the program, and they had not yet completed their administrative internships. Some students actually reported rating themselves as less capable problem solvers in the spring because they now understood more clearly what they lacked in knowledge. One student exemplified this sentiment, “I might have graded myself higher in the fall than I did now . . . [I now can] self identify areas I could improve in that I was not as aware of.” Less confidence in the spring was a minority opinion, however. In a more typical response, another participant stated, “I feel much more prepared for that than I did at the beginning of the year.”

Overall, the most frequently discussed future need identified was experience, either through the administrative internship or work as a formal school administrator. Several students summarized this idea, “That real-world experience to have to deal with it without being able to talk to 8 other people before having to deal with it . . . until you are the person . . . you don’t know” and “They tell you all they want. You don’t know it until you are in it.” Overall, most participants perceived themselves to have grown as problem solvers, but they overwhelmingly recognized that they needed more learning and experience to become confident and effective problem solvers.

This study continues a research pathway about the development of problem-solving skills for administrators by focusing on their preparation. The participants did not see a significant increase in their problem-solving skills over the year-long course in educational leadership.

Whereas, this finding is not consistent with the findings of others who focused on the development of problem-solving skills for school leaders (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015), nor is it consistent with PBL research about the benefits of that approach for aspiring educational leaders (Copland, 2000; Hallinger & Bridges, 2017), it is important to note that the participants in this study were at a different point in their careers. First, they were aspirants, as opposed to practicing leaders. Also, the studied intervention (scenarios) was not the same or nearly as comprehensive as the prescriptive PBL approach. Further, unlike the participants in either the practicing leader or PBL studies, because these individuals had not yet had their internship experiences, they had no practical work as educational leaders. This theme of lacking practical experience was observed in both open-ended responses and focus group interviews, with participants pointing to their upcoming internship experiences, or even their eventual work as administrators, as a key missing piece of their preparation.

Despite the participants’ lack of real gains across the year of preparation in their problem- solving scores, the participants did, generally, report an increase in their confidence in problem solving, which they attributed to a number of factors. The first was the theme of real-world context. This finding was consistent with others who have advocated for teaching problem solving through real-world scenarios (Duke, 2014; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992, 1995; Myran & Sutherland, 2016; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015). This study further adds to this conversation, not only a corroboration of the importance of this method (at least in aspiring leaders’ minds), but also that participants specifically recognized their professors’ experiences as school administrators as important for providing examples, context, and credibility to the work in the classroom.

In addition to the scenario approach, the participants also recognized the importance of learning from one another. In addition to the experiences of their practitioner-professors, many participants espoused the value of hearing the diverse perspectives of other students. The use of peer discussion was also an element of instruction in the referenced studies (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1995; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2015), corroborating the power of aspiring leaders learning from one another and supporting existing literature about the social nature of problem solving (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992; Vygotsky, 1978).

Finally, the ultimate theme identified through this study is the need for real-world experience in the field as an administrator or intern. It is simply not enough to learn about problem solving or learn the background knowledge needed to solve problems, even when the problems presented are real-world in nature. Scenarios are not enough for aspiring leaders to perceive their problem-solving abilities to be adequate or for their actual problem-solving abilities to improve. They need to be, as some of the participants reasoned, in positions of actual responsibility, where the weight of their decisions will have tangible impacts on stakeholders, including students.

The study of participants’ responses to the scenarios connected to the Four Frames model of Bolman and Deal (2008). The element for which participants received the consistently highest scores was identifying solution processes. This area might most logically be connected to the structural and human resource frames, as solutions typically involve working to meet individuals’ needs, as is necessary in the human resource frame, and attending to protocols and procedures, which is the essence of the structural frame. As identified above, the political and symbolic frames have been cited by the authors as the most underdeveloped by educational leaders, and this assertion is corroborated by the finding in this study that participants struggled the most with identifying constraints, which can sometimes arise from an understanding of the competing personal interests in an organization (political frame) and the underlying meaning behind aspects of an organization (symbolic frame), such as unspoken rules and traditions. The lack of success identifying constraints is also consistent with participants’ statements that they needed actual experiences in leadership roles, during which they would likely encounter, firsthand, the types of constraints they were unable to articulate for the given scenarios. Simply, they had not yet “lived” these types of obstacles.

The study includes several notable limitations. First, the study’s size is limited, particularly with only 20 participants’ data available for the matched pairs analysis. Further, this study was conducted at one university, within one particular certification program, and over three sections of one course, which represented about one-half of the time students spend in the program. It is likely that more gains in problem-solving ability and confidence would have been observed if this study was continued through the internship year. Also, the study did not include a control group. The lack of an experimental design limits the power of conclusions about causality. However, this limitation is mitigated by two factors. First, the results did not indicate a statistically significant improvement, so there is not a need to attribute a gain score to a particular variable (i.e. use of scenarios), anyway, and, second, the qualitative results did reveal the perceived value for participants in the use of scenarios, without any prompting of the researcher. Finally, the participant pool was not particularly diverse, though this fact is not particularly unusual for the selected university, in general, representing a contemporary challenge the university’s state is facing to educate its increasingly diverse student population, with a teaching and administrative workforce that is predominantly White.

The findings in this study invite further research. In addressing some of the limitations identified here, expanding this study to include aspiring administrators across other institutions representing different areas of the United States and other developed countries, would provide a more generalizable set of results. Further, studying the development of problem-solving skills during the administrative internship experience would also add to the work outlined here by considering the practical experience of participants.

In short, this study illustrates for those who prepare educational leaders the value of using scenarios in increasing aspiring leaders’ confidence and knowledge. However, intuitively, scenarios alone are not enough to engender significant change in their actual problem-solving abilities. Whereas, real-world context is important to the development of aspiring educational leaders’ problem-solving skills, the best context is likely to be the real work of administration.

Allison, D. J. (1996). Problem finding, classification and interpretation: In search of a theory of administrative problem processing. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.),  International handbook of educational leadership and administration  (pp. 477–549). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966).  The social construction of reality . Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008).  Re-framing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership  (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bronstein, C., & Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2015). Preparing tomorrow’s leaders: Integrating leadership development in journalism and mass communication education.  Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70 (1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695814566199

Copland, M. A. (2000). Problem-based learning and prospective principals’ problem-framing ability.  Educational Administration Quarterly ,  36 , 585–607.

Deluca, C., Bolden, B., & Chan, J. (2017). Systemic professional learning through collaborative inquiry: Examining teachers’ perspectives.  Teaching and Teacher Education ,  67 , 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.014

Dimmock, C. (1996). Dilemmas for school leaders and administrators in restructuring. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.),  International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration  (pp. 135–170). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Duke, D. L. (2014). A bold approach to developing leaders for low-performing schools. Management in Education, 28 (3), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020614537665

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003).  Educational research: Competancies for analysis and applications  (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.  Social Problems, 12 (4), 436-445.

Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. (1993). Problem-based learning in medical and managerial education. In P. Hallinger, K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.),  Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership  (pp. 253–267). New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Hallinger, P., & Bridges, E. M. (2017). A systematic review of research on the use of problem- based learning in the preparation and development of school leaders.  Educational Administration Quarterly . 53(2), 255-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16659347

Hallinger, P., & McCary, C. E. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. Elementary School Journal ,  91 (2), 89–108.

Howard, B. B., McClannon, T. W., & Wallace, P. R. (2014). Collaboration through role play among graduate students in educational leadership in distance learning.  American Journal of Distance Education ,  28 (1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.868665

Johnson, B. L., & Kruse, S. D. (2009).  Decision making for educational leaders: Underexamined dimensions and issues . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of school administrators: Theory and practice.  Education and Urban Society ,  24 (3), 317–345. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com.ccsu.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/0013124592024003003

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995).  Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005).  School leadership that works: From research to results . Denver, CO: ASCD.

Myran, S., & Sutherland, I. (2016). Problem posing in leadership education: Using case study to foster more effective problem solving.  Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership ,  19 (4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664763

Rochford, L., & Borchert, P. S. (2011). Assessing higher level learning: Developing rubrics for case analysis.  Journal of Education for Business ,  86 , 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.512319

Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation based training to enhance management education.  Academy of Management Learning & Education ,  8 (4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.47785474

Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2015). Simulation-based constructivist approach for education leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership ,  43 (6), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543203

Simon, H. A. (1993). Decision making: Rational, nonrational, and irrational.  Educational Administration Quarterly ,  29 (3), 392–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X93029003009

Stentoft, D. (2017). From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer?  Active Learning in Higher Education ,  18 (1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417693510

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998).  Basics of qualitative research  (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

VanLehn, K. (1991). Rule acquisition events in the discovery of problem-solving strategies. Cognitive Science ,  15 (1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(91)80012-T

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).  Mind in society . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Winter, R. (1982). Dilemma analysis: A contribution to methodology for action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 12 (3), 166-173.

Author Biography

Dr. Jeremy Visone is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, Policy, & Instructional Technology. Until 2016, he worked as an administrator at both the elementary and secondary levels, most recently at Anna Reynolds Elementary School, a National Blue Ribbon School in 2016. Dr. Visone can be reached at  [email protected] .

Advertisement

Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations

• Open access
• Published: 01 October 2021
• Volume 24 , pages 133–181, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Claire Sinnema   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6707-6726 1 ,
• Frauke Meyer 1 ,
• Deidre Le Fevre 1 ,
• Hamish Chalmers 1 &
• Viviane Robinson 1  

13k Accesses

8 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Educational leaders’ effectiveness in solving problems is vital to school and system-level efforts to address macrosystem problems of educational inequity and social injustice. Leaders’ problem-solving conversation attempts are typically influenced by three types of beliefs—beliefs about the nature of the problem, about what causes it, and about how to solve it. Effective problem solving demands testing the validity of these beliefs—the focus of our investigation. We analyzed 43 conversations between leaders and staff about equity related problems including teaching effectiveness. We first determined the types of beliefs held and the validity testing behaviors employed drawing on fine-grained coding frameworks. The quantification of these allowed us to use cross tabs and chi-square tests of independence to explore the relationship between leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors (those identified as more routine or more robust, and those relating to both advocacy and inquiry) and belief type. Leaders tended to avoid discussion of problem causes, advocate more than inquire, bypass disagreements, and rarely explore logic between solutions and problem causes. There was a significant relationship between belief type and the likelihood that leaders will test the validity of those beliefs—beliefs about problem causes were the least likely to be tested. The patterns found here are likely to impact whether micro and mesosystem problems, and ultimately exo and macrosystem problems, are solved. Capability building in belief validity testing is vital for leadership professional learning to ensure curriculum, social justice and equity policy aspirations are realized in practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

Teachers’ Beliefs Shift Across Year-Long Professional Development: ENA Graphs Transformation of Privately Held Beliefs Over Time

Addressing inequity and underachievement: Intervening to improve middle leaders’problem-solving conversations

Jacqueline Margaret Patuawa, Claire Sinnema, … Tong Zhu

Teaching Testable Explanations and Putting Them into Practice

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

This study examines the extent to which leaders, in their conversations with others, test rather than assume the validity of their own and others’ beliefs about the nature, causes of, and solutions to problems of teaching and learning that arise in their sphere of responsibility. We define a problem as a gap between the current and desired state, plus the demand that the gap be reduced (Robinson, 1993 ). We position this focus within the broader context of educational change, and educational improvement in particular, since effective discussion of such problems is central to improvement and vital for addressing issues of educational equity and social justice.

Educational improvement and leaders’ role in problem solving

Educational leaders work in a discretionary problem-solving space. Ball ( 2018 ) describes discretionary spaces as the micro level practices of the teacher. It is imperative to attend to what happens in these spaces because the specific talk and actions that occur in particular moments (for example, what the teacher says or does when one student responds in a particular way to his or her question) impact all participants in the classroom and shape macro level educational issues including legacies of racism, oppression, and marginalization of particular groups of students. A parallel exists, we argue, for leaders’ problem solving—how capable leaders are at dealing with micro-level problems in the conversational moment impacts whether a school or network achieves its improvement goals. For example, how a leader deals with problems with a particular teacher or with a particular student or group of students is subtly but strongly related to the solving of equity problems at the exo and macro levels. Problem solving effectiveness is also related to challenges in the realization of curriculum reform aspirations, including curriculum reform depth, spread, reach, and pace (Sinnema & Stoll, 2020b ).

The conversations leaders have with others in their schools in their efforts to solve educational problems are situated in a broader environment which they both influence and are influenced by. We draw here on Bronfonbrenner’s ( 1992 ) ecological systems theory to construct a nested model of educational problem solving (see Fig.  1 ). Bronfenbrenner focused on the environment around children, and set out five interrelated systems that he professed influence a child’s development. We propose that these systems can also be used to understand another type of learner—educators, including leaders and teachers—in the context of educational problem solving.

Nested model of educational problem solving

Bronfenbrenner’s ( 1977 ) microsystem sets out the immediate environment, parents, siblings, teachers, and peers as influencers of and influenced by children. We propose the micro system for educators to include those they have direct contact with including their students, other teachers in their classroom and school, the school board, and the parent community. Bronfenbrenner’s meso system referred to the interactions between a child’s microsystems. In the same way, when foregrounding the ecological system around educators, we suggest attention to the problems that occur in the interactions between students, teachers, school leaders, their boards, and communities. In the exo system, Bronfenbrenner directs attention to other social structures (formal and informal), which do not themselves contain the child, but indirectly influence them as they affect one of the microsystems. In the same way, we suggest educational ministries, departments and agencies function to influence educators. The macro system as theorized by Bronfenbrenner focuses on how child development is influenced by cultural elements established in society, including prevalent beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. In our model, we recognise how such cultural elements of Bronfenbrenner’s macro system also relate to educators in that dominant and pervasive beliefs, attitudes and perceptions create and perpetuate educational problems, including those relating to educational inequity, bias, racism, social injustice, and underachievement. The chronosystem, as Bronfenbrenner describes, shows the role of environmental changes across a lifetime, which influences development. In a similar way, educators′ professional transitions and professional milestones influence and are influenced by other system levels, and in the context of our work, their problem solving approaches.

Leaders’ effectiveness in discussions about problems related to the micro and mesosystem contributes greatly to the success of exosystem reform efforts, and those efforts, in turn, influence the beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies of the macrosystem. As Fig.  1 shows, improvement goals (indicated by the arrows moving from the current to a desired state) in the exo or macrosystem are unlikely to be achieved without associated improvement in the micro and mesosystem involving students, teachers, and groups of teachers, schools and their boards and parent communities. Similarly, the level of improvement in the macro and exosystems is limited by the extent to which more improvement goals at the micro and mesosystem are achieved through solving problems relating to students’ experience and school and classroom practices including curriculum, teaching, and assessment. As well as drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, our nested model of problem solving draws on problem solving theory to draw attention to how gaps between current and desired states at each of the system levels also influence each other (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). Efforts to solve problems in any one system (to move from current state toward a more desired state) are supported by similar moves at other interrelated systems. For example, the success of a teacher seeking to solve a curriculum problem (demand from parents to focus on core knowledge in traditional learning domains, for example)—a problem related to the microsystem and mesosystem—will be influenced by how similar problems are recognised, attended to, and solved by those in the ministries, departments and agencies in the exosystem.

In considering the role of educational leaders in this nested model of problem solving, we take a capability perspective (Mumford et al., 2000 ) rather than a leadership style perspective (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ). School leaders (including those with formal and informal leadership positions) require particular capabilities if they are to enact ambitious policies and solve complex problems related to enhancing equity for marginalized and disadvantaged groups of students (Mavrogordato & White, 2020 ). Too often, micro and mesosystem problems remain unsolved which is problematic not only for those directly involved, but also for the resolution of the related exo and macrosystem problems. The ill-structured nature of the problems school leaders face, and the social nature of the problem-solving process, contribute to the ineffectiveness of leaders’ problem-solving efforts and the persistence of important microsystem and mesosystem problems in schools.

Ill-structured problems

The problems that leaders need to solve are typically ill-structured rather than clearly defined, complex rather that than straight-forward, and adaptive rather than routine challenges (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008 ; Heifetz et al., 2009 ; Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ; Leithwood & Steinbach, 1992 , 1995 ; Mumford & Connelly, 1991 ; Mumford et al., 2000 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). As Mumford and Connelly explain, “even if their problems are not totally unprecedented, leaders are, […] likely to be grappling with unique problems for which there is no clear-cut predefined solution” (Mumford & Connelly, 1991 , p. 294). Most such problems are difficult to solve because they can be construed in various ways and lack clear criteria for what counts as a good solution. Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) highlight the particular difficulties in solving ill-structured problems with regard to accessing, evaluating and using relevant information:

Not only is it difficult in many organizational settings for leaders to say exactly what the problem is, it may not be clear exactly what information should be brought to bear on the problem. There is a plethora of available information in complex organizational systems, only some of which is relevant to the problem. Further, it may be difficult to obtain accurate, timely information and identify key diagnostic information. As a result, leaders must actively seek and carefully evaluate information bearing on potential problems and goal attainment. (p. 14)

Problems in schools are complex. Each single problem can comprise multiple educational dimensions (learners, learning, curriculum, teaching, assessment) as well as relational, organizational, psychological, social, cultural, and political dimensions. In response to a teaching problem, for example, a single right or wrong answer is almost never at play; there are typically countless possible ‘responses’ to the problem of how to teach effectively in any given situation.

Problem solving as socially situated

Educational leaders’ problem solving is typically social because multiple people are usually involved in defining, explaining, and solving any given problem (Mumford et al., 2000 ). When there are multiple parties invested in addressing a problem, they typically hold diverse perspectives on how to describe (frame, perceive, and communicate about problems), explain (identify causes which lead to the problem), and solve the problem. Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) argue that effective leaders must manage the complexity of integrating multiple and diverse perspectives, not only because all parties need to be internally committed to solutions, but also because quality solutions rely on a wide range of perspectives and evidence. Somewhat paradoxically, while the multiple perspectives involved in social problem solving add to their inherent complexity, these perspectives are a resource for educational change, and for the development of more effective solutions (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ). The social nature of problem solving requires high trust so participants can provide relevant, accurate, and timely information (rather than distort or withhold it), recognize their interdependence, and avoid controlling others. In high trust relationships, as Zand’s early work in this field established, “there is less socially generated uncertainty and problems are solved more effectively” (Zand, 1972 , p. 238).

Leaders’ capabilities in problem solving

Leadership research has established the centrality of capability in problem solving to leadership effectiveness generally (Marcy & Mumford, 2010 ; Mumford et al., 2000 , 2007 ) and to educational leadership in particular. Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ), for example, consider “administrator’s problem-solving processes as crucial to an understanding of why principals act as they do and why some principals are more effective than others” (p. 127). Similarly, Robinson ( 1995 , 2001 , 2010 ) positions the ability to solve complex problems as central to all other dimensions of effective educational leadership. Unsurprisingly, problem solving is often prominent in standards for school leaders/leadership and is included in tools for the assessment of school leadership (Goldring et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, its importance is heightened given the increasing demand and complexity in standards for teaching (Sinnema, Meyer & Aitken, 2016) and the trend toward leadership across networks of schools (Sinnema, Daly, Liou, & Rodway, 2020a ) and the added complexity of such problem solving where a system perspective is necessary.

Empirical research on leaders’ practice has revealed that there is a need for capability building in problem solving (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Sinnema et al., 2016 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ). Some studies have compared the capability of leaders with varying experience. For example, Leithwood and Stager ( 1989 ) noted differences in problem solving approaches between novice and expert principals when responding to problem scenarios, particularly when the scenarios described ill-structured problems. Principals classified as ‘experts’ were more likely to collect information rather than make assumptions, and perceived unstructured problems to be manageable, whereas typical principals found these problems stressful. Expert principals also consulted extensively to get relevant information and find ways to deal with constraints. In contrast, novice principals consulted less frequently and tended to see constraints as obstacles (Leithwood & Stager, 1989 ). Allison and Allison ( 1993 ) reported that while experienced principals were better than novices at developing abstract problem-solving goals, they were less interested in the detail of how they would pursue these goals. Similar differences were found in Spillane et al.’s ( 2009 ) work that found expert principals to be better at interpreting problems and reflecting on their own actions compared with aspiring principals. More recent work (Sinnema et al., 2021 ) highlights that educators perceptions of discussion quality is positively associated with both new learning for the educator (learning that influences their practice) and improved practice (practices that reach students)—the more robust and helpful educators report their professional discussion to be, the more likely they are to report improvement in their practice. This supports the demand for quality conversation in educational teams.

Solving problems related to teaching and learning that occur in the micro or mesosystem usually requires conversations that demand high levels of interpersonal skill. Skill development is important because leaders tend to have difficulty inquiring deeply into the viewpoints of others (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ; Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). In a close analysis of 43 conversation transcripts, Le Fevre et al. ( 2015 ) showed that when leaders anticipated or encountered diverse views, they tended to ask leading or loaded rather than genuine questions. This pattern was explained by their judgmental thinking, and their desire to avoid negative emotion and stay in control of the conversation. In a related study of leaders’ conversations, a considerable difference was found between the way educational leaders described their problem before and during the conversation with those involved (Sinnema et al., 2013 ). Prior to the conversation, privately, they tended to describe their problem as more serious and more urgent than they did in the conversation they held later with the person concerned.

One of the reasons for the mismatch between their private descriptions and public disclosures was the judgmental framing of their beliefs about the other party’s intentions, attitudes, and/or motivations (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ). If leaders are not willing or able to reframe such privately-held beliefs in a more respectful manner, they will avoid addressing problems through fear of provoking negative emotion, and neither party will be able to critique the reasoning that leads to the belief in question (Robinson et al., 2020 ). When that happens, beliefs based on faulty reasoning may prevail, problem solutions may be based only on that which is discussable, and the problem may persist.

A model of effective problem-solving conversations

We present below a normative model of effective problem-solving conversations (Fig.  2 ) in which testing the validity of relevant beliefs plays a central role. Leaders test their beliefs about a problem when they draw on a set of validity testing behaviors and enact those behaviors, through their inquiry and advocacy, in ways that are consistent with the three interpersonal values included in the model. The model proposes that these processes increase the effectiveness of social problem solving, with effectiveness understood as progressing the task of solving the problem while maintaining or improving the leader’s relationship with those involved. In formulating this model, we drew on the previously discussed research on problem solving and theories of interpersonal and organisational effectiveness.

Model of effective problem-solving conversations

The role of beliefs in problem solving

Beliefs are important in the context of problem solving because they shape decisions about what constitutes a problem and how it can be explained and resolved. Beliefs link the object of the belief (e.g., a teacher’s planning) to some attribute (e.g., copied from the internet). In the context of school problems these attributes are usually tightly linked to a negative evaluation of the object of the belief (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975 ). Problem solving, therefore, requires explicit attention by leaders to the validity of the information on which their own and others’ beliefs are based. The model draws on the work of Mumford et al. ( 2000 ) by highlighting three types of beliefs that are central to how people solve problems—beliefs about whether and why a situation is problematic (we refer to these as problem description beliefs); beliefs about the precursors of the problem situation (we refer to these as problem explanation beliefs); and beliefs about strategies which could, would, or should improve the situation (we refer to these as problem solution beliefs). With regard to problem explanation beliefs, it is important that attention is not limited to surface level factors, but also encompasses consideration of deeper related issues in the broader social context and how they contribute to any given problem.

The role of values in problem-solving conversations

Figure  2 proposes that problem solving effectiveness is increased when leaders’ validity testing behaviors are consistent with three values—respecting the views of others, seeking to maximize validity of their own and others’ beliefs, and building internal commitment to decisions reached. The inclusion of these three values in the model means that our validity testing behaviors must be conceptualized and measured in ways that capture their interpersonal (respect and internal commitment) and epistemic (valid information) underpinnings. Without this conceptual underpinning, it is likely to be difficult to identify the validity testing behaviors that are associated with effectiveness. For example, the act of seeking agreement can be done in a coercive or a respectful manner, so it is important to define and measure this behavior in ways that distinguish between the two. How this and similar distinctions were accomplished is described in the subsequent section on the five validity testing behaviors.

The three values in Fig.  2 are based on the theories and practice of interpersonal and organizational effectiveness developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 , 1978 , 1996 ) and applied more recently in a range of educational leadership research contexts (Hannah et al., 2018 ; Patuawa et al., 2021 ; Sinnema et al., 2021a ). We have drawn on the work of Argyris and Schön because their theories explain the dilemma many leaders experience between the two components of problem solving effectiveness and indicate how that dilemma can be avoided or resolved.

Seeking to maximize the validity of information is important because leaders’ beliefs have powerful consequences for the lives and learning of teachers and students and can limit or support educational change efforts. Leaders who behave consistently with the validity of information value are truth seekers rather than truth claimers in that they are open-minded and thus more attentive to the information that disconfirms rather than confirms their beliefs. Rather than assuming the validity of their beliefs and trying to impose them on others, their stance is one of seeking to detect and correct errors in their own and others′ thinking (Robinson, 2017 ).

The value of respect is closely linked to the value of maximizing the validity of information. Leaders increase validity by listening carefully to the views of others, especially if those views differ from their own. Listening carefully requires the accordance of worth and respect, rather than private or public dismissal of views that diverge from or challenge one’s own. If leaders’ conversations are guided by the two values of valid information and respect, then the third value of fostering internal commitment is also likely to be present. Teachers become internally committed to courses of action when their concerns have been listened to and directly addressed as part of the problem-solving process.

The role of validity testing behaviors in problem solving

Figure  2 includes five behaviors designed to test the validity of the three types of belief involved in problem solving. They are: 1) disclosing beliefs; 2) providing grounds; 3) exploring difference; 4) examining logic; and 5) seeking agreement. These behaviors enable leaders to check the validity of their beliefs by engaging in open minded disclosure and discussion of their thinking. While these behaviors are most closely linked to the value of maximizing valid information, the values of respect and internal commitment are also involved in these behaviors. For example, it is respectful to honestly and clearly disclose one’s beliefs about a problem to the other person concerned (advocacy), and to do so in ways that make the grounds for the belief testable and open to revision. It is also respectful to combine advocacy of one’s own beliefs with inquiry into others’ reactions to those beliefs and with inquiry into their own beliefs. When leaders encounter doubts and disagreements, they build internal rather than external commitment by being open minded and genuinely interested in understanding the grounds for them (Spiegel, 2012 ). By listening to and responding directly to others’ concerns, they build internal commitment to the process and outcomes of the problem solving.

Advocacy and inquiry dimensions

Each of the five validity testing behaviors can take the form of a statement (advocacy) or a question (inquiry). A leader’s advocacy contributes to problem solving effectiveness when it communicates his or her beliefs and the grounds for them, in a manner that is consistent with the three values. Such disclosure enables others to understand and critically evaluate the leader’s thinking (Tompkins, 2013 ). Respectful inquiry is equally important, as it invites the other person into the conversation, builds the trust they need for frank disclosure of their views, and signals that diverse views are welcomed. Explicit inquiry for others’ views is particularly important when there is a power imbalance between the parties, and when silence suggests that some are reluctant to disclose their views. Across their careers, leaders tend to rely more heavily on advocating their own views than on genuinely inquiring into the views of others (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ). It is the combination of advocacy and inquiry behaviors, that enables all parties to collaborate in formulating a more valid understanding of the nature of the problem and of how it may be solved.

The five validity testing behaviors

Disclosing beliefs is the first and most essential validity testing behavior because beliefs cannot be publicly tested, using the subsequent four behaviors, if they are not disclosed. This behavior includes leaders’ advocacy of their own beliefs and their inquiry into others’ beliefs, including reactions to their own beliefs (Peeters & Robinson, 2015 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ).

Honest and respectful disclosure ensures that all the information that is believed to be relevant to the problem, including that which might trigger an emotional reaction, is shared and available for validity testing (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Respectful disclosure has been linked with follower trust. The empirical work of Norman et al. ( 2010 ), for example, showed that leaders who disclose more, and are more transparent in their communication, instill higher levels of trust in those they work with.

Providing grounds , the second validity testing behavior, is concerned with leaders expressing their beliefs in a way that makes the reasoning that led to them testable (advocacy) and invites others to do the same (inquiry). When leaders clearly explain the grounds for their beliefs and invite the other party to critique their relevance or accuracy, the validity or otherwise of the belief becomes more apparent. Both advocacy and inquiry about the grounds for beliefs can lead to a strengthening, revision, or abandonment of the beliefs for either or both parties (Myran & Sutherland, 2016 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ).

Exploring difference is the third validity testing behavior. It is essential because two parties simply disclosing beliefs and the grounds for them is insufficient for arriving at a joint solution, particularly when such disclosure reveals that there are differences in beliefs about the accuracy and implications of the evidence or differences about the soundness of arguments. Exploring difference through advocacy is seen in such behaviors as identifying and signaling differing beliefs and evaluating contrary evidence that underpins those differing beliefs. An inquiry approach to exploring difference (Timperley & Parr, 2005 ) occurs when a leader inquires into the other party’s beliefs about difference, or their response to the leaders’ beliefs about difference.

Exploring differences in beliefs is key to increasing validity in problem solving efforts (Mumford et al., 2007 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ) because it can lead to more integrative solutions and enhance the commitment from both parties to work with each other in the future (Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Leaders who are able to engage with diverse beliefs are more likely to detect and challenge any faulty reasoning and consequently improve solution development (Le Fevre & Robinson, 2015 ). In contrast, when leaders do not engage with different beliefs, either by not recognizing or by intentionally ignoring them, validity testing is more limited. Such disengagement may be the result of negative attributions about the other person, such as that they are resistant, stubborn, or lazy. Such attributions reduce opportunities for the rigorous public testing that is afforded by the exchange and critical examination of competing views.

Examining logic , the fourth validity testing behavior, highlights the importance of devising a solution that adequately addresses the nature of the problem at hand and its causes. To develop an effective solution both parties must be able to evaluate the logic that links problems to their assumed causes and solutions. This behavior is present when the leader suggests or critiques the relationship between possible causes of and solutions to the identified problem. In its inquiry form, the leader seeks such information from the other party. As Zaccaro et al. ( 2000 ) explain, good problem solvers have skills and expertise in selecting the information to attend to in their effort to “understand the parameters of problems and therefore the dimensions and characteristics of a likely solution” (p. 44–45). These characteristics may include solution timeframes, resource capacities, an emphasis on organizational versus personal goals, and navigation of the degree of risk allowed by the problem approach. Explicitly exploring beliefs is key to ensuring the logic linking problem causes and any proposed solution. Taking account of a potentially complex set of contributing factors when crafting logical solutions, and testing the validity of beliefs about them, is likely to support effective problem solving. This requires what Copland ( 2010 ) describes as a creative process with similarities to clinical reasoning in medicine, in which “the initial framing of the problem is fundamental to the development of a useful solution” (p. 587).

Seeking agreement , the fifth validity testing behavior, signals the importance of warranted agreement about problem beliefs. We use the term ‘warranted’ to make clear that the goal is not merely getting the other party to agree (either that something is a problem, that a particular cause is involved, or that particular actions should be carried out to solve it)—mere agreement is insufficient. Rather, the goal is for warranted agreement whereby both parties have explored and critiqued the beliefs (and their grounds) of the other party in ways that provide a strong basis for the agreement. Both parties must come to some form of agreement on beliefs because successful solution implementation occurs in a social context, in that it relies on the commitment of all parties to carry it out (Mumford et al., 2000 ; Robinson & Le Fevre, 2011 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Where full agreement does not occur, the parties must at least be clear about where agreement/disagreement lies and why.

Testing the validity of beliefs using these five behaviors, and underpinned by the values described earlier is, we argue, necessary if conversations are to lead to two types of improvement—progress on the task (i.e., solving the problem) and improving the relationship between those involved in the conversation (i.e., ensuring those relationship between the problem-solvers is intact and enhanced through the process). We draw attention here to those improvement purposes as distinct from those underpinning work in the educational leadership field that takes a neo-managerialist perspective. The rise of neo-managerialism is argued to redefine school management and leadership along managerial lines and hence contribute to schools that are inequitable, reductionist, and inauthentic (Thrupp & Willmott, 2003 ). School leaders, when impacted by neo-managerialism, need to be (and are seen as) “self-interested, opportunistic innovators and risk-takers who exploit information and situations to produce radical change.” In contrast, the model we propose rejects self-interest. Our model emphasizes on deep respect for the views of others and the relentless pursuit of genuine shared commitment to understanding and solving problems that impact on children and young people through collaborative engagement in joint problem solving. Rather than permitting leaders to exploit others, our model requires leaders to be adept at using both inquiry and advocacy together with listening to both progress the task (solving problems) and simultaneously enhance the relationship between those involved. We position this model of social problem solving effectiveness as a tool for addressing social justice concerns—it intentionally dismisses problem solving approaches that privilege organizational efficiency indicators and ignore the wellbeing of learners and issues of inequity, racism, bias, and social injustice within and beyond educational contexts.

Methodology

The following section outlines the purpose of the study, the participants, and the mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis.

Research purpose

Our prior qualitative research (Robinson et al., 2020 ) involving in-depth case studies of three educational leaders revealed problematic patterns in leaders’ approach to problem-solving conversations: little disclosure of causal beliefs, little public testing of beliefs that might trigger negative emotions, and agreement on solutions that were misaligned with causal beliefs. The present investigation sought to understand if a quantitative methodological approach would reveal similar patterns and examine the relationship between belief types and leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors. Thus, our overarching research question was: to what extent do leaders test the validity of their beliefs in conversations with those directly involved in the analysis and resolution of the problem? Our argument is that while new experiences might motivate change in beliefs (Bonner et al., 2020 ), new insights gained through testing the validity of beliefs is also imperative to change. The sub-questions were:

What is the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others?

To what extent do leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems?

Are there differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types?

Participants

The participants were 43 students in a graduate course on educational leadership in New Zealand who identified an important on the job problem that they intended to discuss with the person directly involved.

The mixed methods approach

The study took a mixed methods approach using a partially mixed sequential equal status design; (QUAL → QUAN) (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 ). The five stages of sourcing and analyzing data and making interpretations are summarised in Fig.  3 below and outlined in more detail in the following sections (with reference in brackets to the numbered phases in the figure). We describe the study as partially mixed because, as Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009 explain, in partially mixed methods “both the quantitative and qualitative elements are conducted either concurrently or sequentially in their entirety before being mixed at the data interpretation stage” (p. 267).

Overview of mixed methods approach

Stage 1: Qualitative data collection

Three data sources were used to reveal participants’ beliefs about the problem they were seeking to address. The first source was their response to nine open ended items in a questionnaire focused on a real problem the participant had attempted to address but that still required attention (1a). The items were about: the nature and history of the problem; its importance; their own and others’ contribution to it; the causes of the problem; and the approach to and effectiveness of prior attempts to resolve it.

The second source (1b) was the transcript of a real conversation (typically between 5 and 10 minutes duration) the leaders held with the other person involved in the problem, and the third was the leaders’ own annotations of their unspoken thoughts and feelings during the course of the conversation (1c). The transcription was placed in the right-hand column (RHC) of a split page with the annotations recorded at the appropriate place in the left-hand column (LHC). The LHC method was originally developed by Argyris and Schön ( 1974 ) as a way of examining discrepancies between people’s espoused and enacted interpersonal values. Referring to data about each leader’s behavior (as recorded in the transcript of the conversation) and their thoughts (as indicated in the LHC) was important since the model specifies validity testing behaviors that are motivated by the values of respect, valid information, and internal commitment. Since motives cannot be revealed by speech alone, we also needed access to the thoughts that drove their behavior, hence our use of the LHC data collection technique. This approach allowed us to respond to Leithwood and Stager’s ( 1989 ) criticism that much research on effective problem solving gives results that “reveal little or nothing about how actions were selected or created and treat the administrator’s mind as a ‘black box’” (p. 127).

Stage 2: Qualitative analysis

The three stages of qualitative analysis focused on identifying discrete beliefs in the three qualitative data sources, distilling those discrete beliefs into key beliefs, and identifying leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors.

Stage 2a: Analyzing types of beliefs about problems

For this stage, we developed and applied coding rules (see Table 1 ) for the identification of the three types of beliefs in the three sources described earlier—leaders’ questionnaire responses, conversation transcript (RHC), and unexpressed thoughts (LHC). We identified 903 discrete beliefs (utterances or thoughts) from the 43 transcripts, annotations, and questionnaires and recorded these on a spreadsheet (2a). While our model proposes that leaders’ inquiry will surface and test the beliefs of others, we quantify in this study only the leaders’ beliefs.

Stage 2b: Distilling discrete beliefs into key beliefs

Next, we distilled the 903 discrete beliefs into key beliefs (KBs) (2b). This was a complex process and involved multiple iterations across the research team to determine, check, and test the coding rules. The final set of rules for distilling key beliefs were:

Beliefs should be made more succinct in the key belief statement, and key words should be retained as much as possible

Judgment quality (i.e., negative or positive) of the belief needs to be retained in the key belief

Key beliefs should use overarching terms where possible

The meaning and the object of the belief need to stay constant in the key belief

When reducing overlap, the key idea of both beliefs need to be captured in the key beliefs

Distinctive beliefs need to be summarized on their own and not combined with other beliefs

The subject of the belief must be retained in the key belief—own belief versus restated belief of other

All belief statements must be accounted for in key beliefs

These rules were applied to the process of distilling multiple related beliefs into statements of key beliefs as illustrated by the example in the table below (Table 2 ).

Further examples of how the rules were applied are outlined in ' Appendix A '. The number of discrete beliefs for each leader ranged from 7 to 35, with an average of 21, and the number of key beliefs for each leader ranged between 4 and 14, with an average of eight key beliefs. Frequency counts were used to identify any patterns in the types of key beliefs which were held privately (not revealed in the conversation but signalled in the left hand column or questionnaire) or conveyed publicly (in conversation with the other party).

Stage 2c: Analyzing leaders’ use of validity testing behaviors

We then developed and applied coding rules for the five validity testing behaviors (VTB) outlined in our model (disclosing beliefs, providing grounds, exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement). Separate rules were established for the inquiry and advocacy aspects of each VTB, generating ten coding rules in all (Table 3 ).

These rules, summarised in the table below, and outlined more fully in ' Appendix A ', encompassed inclusion and exclusion criteria for the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of each validity testing behavior. For example, the inclusion rule for the VTB of ‘Disclosing Beliefs’ required leaders to disclose their beliefs about the nature, and/or causes, and/or possible solutions to the problem, in ways that were consistent with the three values included in the model. The associated exclusion rule signalled that this criterion was not met if, for example, the leader asked a question in order to steer the other person toward their own views without having ever disclosed their own views, or if they distorted the urgency or seriousness of the problem related to what they had expressed privately. The exclusion rules also noted how thoughts expressed in the left hand column would exclude the verbal utterance from being treated as disclosure—for example if there were contradictions between the right hand (spoken) and left hand column (thoughts), or if the thoughts indicated that the disclosure had been distorted in order to minimise negative emotion.

The coding rules reflected the values of respect and internal commitment in addition to the valid information value that was foregrounded in the analysis. The emphasis on inquiry, for example (into others’ beliefs and/or responses to the beliefs already expressed by the leader), recognised that internal commitment would be impossible if the other party held contrary views that had not been disclosed and discussed. Similarly, the focus on leaders advocating their beliefs, grounds for those beliefs and views about the logic linking solutions to problem causes recognise that it is respectful to make those transparent to another party rather than impose a solution in the absence of such disclosure.

The coding rules were applied to all 43 transcripts and the qualitative analysis was carried out using NVivo 10. A random sample of 10% of the utterances coded to a VTB category was checked independently by two members of the research team following the initial analysis by a third member. Any discrepancies in the coding were resolved, and data were recoded if needed. Descriptive analyses then enabled us to compare the frequency of leaders’ use of the five validity testing behaviors.

Stage 3: Data transformation: From qualitative to quantitative data

We carried out transformation of our data set (Burke et al., 2004 ), from qualitative to quantitative, to allow us to carry out statistical analysis to answer our research questions. The databases that resulted from our data transformation, with text from the qualitative coding along with numeric codes, are detailed next. In database 1, key beliefs were all entered as cases with indications in adjacent columns as to the belief type category they related to, and the source/s of the belief (questionnaire, transcript or unspoken thoughts/feelings). A unique identifier was created for each key belief.

In database 2, each utterance identified as meeting the VTB coding rules were entered in column 1. The broader context of the utterance from the original transcript was then examined to establish the type of belief (description, explanation, or solution) the VTB was being applied to, with this recorded numerically alongside the VTB utterance itself. For example, the following utterance had been coded to indicate that it met the ‘providing grounds’ coding rule, and in this phase it was also coded to indicate that it was in relation to a ‘problem description’ belief type:

“I noticed on the feedback form that a number of students, if I’ve got the numbers right here, um, seven out of ten students in your class said that you don’t normally start the lesson with a ‘Do Now’ or a starter activity.” (case 21)

A third database listed all of the unique identifiers for each leader’s key beliefs (KB) in the first column. Subsequent columns were set up for each of the 10 validity testing codes (the five validity testing behaviors for both inquiry and advocacy). The NVivo coding for the VTBs was then examined, one piece of coding at a time, to identify which key belief the utterance was associated with. Each cell that intersected the appropriate key belief and VTB was increased by one as a VTB utterance was associated with a key belief. Our database included variables for both the frequency of each VTB (the number of instances the behavior was used) and a parallel version with just a dichotomous variable indicating the presence or absence or each VTB. The dichotomous variable was used for our subsequent analysis because multiple utterances indicating a certain validity testing behavior were not deemed to necessarily constitute better quality belief validity testing than one utterance.

Stage 4: Quantitative analysis

The first phase of quantitative analysis involved the calculation of frequency counts for the three belief types (4a). Next, frequencies were calculated for the five validity testing behaviors, and for those behaviors in relation to each belief type (4b).

The final and most complex stage of the quantitative analysis, stages 4c through 4f, involved looking for patterns across the two sets of data created through the prior analyses (belief type and validity testing behaviors) to investigate whether leaders might be more inclined to use certain validity testing behaviors in conjunction with a particular belief type.

Stage 4a: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

We investigated the relationship between belief type and VTB, first, for all key beliefs. Given initial findings about variability in the frequency of the VTBs, we chose not to use all five VTBs separately in our analysis, but rather the three categories of: 1) None (key beliefs that had no VTB applied to them); 2) VTB—Routine (the sum of VTBs 1 and 2; given those were much more prevalent than others in the case of both advocacy and inquiry); and 3) VTB—Robust (the sum of the VTBs 3, 4 and 5 given these were all much less prevalent than VTBs 1 and 2, again including both advocacy and/or inquiry). Cross tabs were prepared and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs.

Stage 4b: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and VTB

Next, because more than half (54.7%, 181) of the 331 key beliefs were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, we analyzed a sub-set of the database, selecting only those key beliefs where leaders had disclosed the belief (using advocacy and/or inquiry). The reason for this was to ensure that any relationships established statistically were not unduly influenced by the data collection procedure which limited the time for the conversation to 10 minutes, during which it would not be feasible to fully disclose and address all key beliefs held by the leader. For this subset we prepared cross tabs and carried out chi-square tests of independence for the 145 key beliefs that leaders had disclosed. We again investigated the relationship between key belief type and VTBs, this time using a VTB variable with two categories: 1) More routine only and 2) More routine and robust.

Stage 4c: Analyzing for relationships between belief type and advocacy/inquiry dimensions of validity testing

Next, we investigated the relationship between key belief type and the advocacy and inquiry dimensions of validity testing. This analysis was to provide insight into whether leaders might be more or less inclined to use certain VTBs for certain types of belief. Specifically, we compared the frequency of utterances about beliefs of all three types for the categories of 1) No advocacy or inquiry, 2) Advocacy only, 3) Inquiry only, and 4) Advocacy and inquiry (4e). Cross tabs were prepared, and a chi-square test of independence was performed on the data from all 331 key beliefs. Finally, we again worked with the subset of 145 key beliefs that had been disclosed, comparing the frequency of utterances coded to 1) Advocacy or inquiry only, or 2) Both advocacy and inquiry (4f).

Below, we highlight findings in relation to the research questions guiding our analysis about: the relative frequency in the types of beliefs leaders hold about problems involving others; the extent to which leaders employ validity testing behaviors in conversations about those problems; and differential patterns in leaders’ validity testing of the different belief types. We make our interpretations based on the statistical analysis and draw on insights from the qualitative analysis to illustrate those results.

Belief types

Leaders’ key beliefs about the problem were evenly distributed between the three belief types, suggesting that when they think about a problem, leaders think, though not necessarily in a systematic way, about the nature of, explanation for, and solutions to their problem (see Table 4 ). These numbers include beliefs that were communicated and also those recorded privately in the questionnaire or in writing on the conversation transcripts.

Patterns in validity testing

The majority of the 331 key beliefs (54.7%, 181) were not tested by leaders using any one of the VTBs, not even the behavior of disclosing the belief. Our analysis of the VTBs that leaders did use (see Table 5 ) shows the wide variation in frequency of use with some, arguably the more robust ones, hardly used at all.

The first pattern was more frequent disclosure of key beliefs than provision of the grounds for them. The lower levels of providing grounds is concerning because it has implications for the likelihood of those in the conversation subsequently reaching agreement and being able to develop solutions logically aligned to the problem (VTB4). The logical solution if it is the time that guided reading takes that is preventing a teacher doing ‘shared book reading’ (as Leader 20 believed to be the case) is quite different to the solution that is logical if in fact the reason is something different, for example uncertainty about how to go about ‘shared book reading’, lack of shared book resources, or a misunderstanding that school policy requires greater time on shared reading.

The second pattern was a tendency for leaders to advocate much more than they inquire— there was more than double the proportion of advocacy than inquiry overall and for some behaviors the difference between advocacy and inquiry was up to seven times greater. This suggests that leaders were more comfortable disclosing their own beliefs, providing the grounds for their own beliefs and expressing their own assumptions about agreement, and less comfortable in inquiring in ways that created space and invited the other person in the conversation to reveal their beliefs.

A third pattern revealed in this analysis was the difference in the ratio of inquiry to advocacy between VTB1 (disclosing beliefs)—a ratio of close to 1:2 and VTB2 (providing grounds)—a ratio of close to 1:7. Leaders are more likely to seek others’ reactions when they disclose their beliefs than when they give their grounds for those beliefs. This might suggest that leaders assume the validity of their own beliefs (and therefore do not see the need to inquire into grounds) or that they do not have the skills to share the grounds associated with the beliefs they hold.

Fourthly, there was an absence of attention to three of the VTBs outlined in our model—in only very few of the 329 validity testing utterances the 43 leaders used were they exploring difference (11 instances), examining logic (4 instances) or seeking agreement (22 instances). In Case 22, for example, the leader claimed that learning intentions should be displayed and understood by children and expressed concern that the teacher was not displaying them, and that her students thus did not understand the purpose of the activities they were doing. While the teacher signaled her disagreement with both of those claims—“I do learning intentions, it’s all in my modelling books I can show them to you if you want” and “I think the children know why they are learning what they are learning”—the fact that there were differences in their beliefs was not explicitly signaled, and the differences were not explored. The conversation went on, with each continuing to assume the accuracy of their own beliefs. They were unable to reach agreement on a solution to the problem because they had not established and explored the lack of agreement about the nature of the problem itself. We presume from these findings, and from our prior qualitative work in this field, that those VTBs are much more difficult, and therefore much less likely to be used than the behaviors of disclosing beliefs and providing grounds.

The relationship between belief type and validity testing behaviors

The relationship between belief type and category of validity testing behavior was significant ( Χ 2 (4) = 61.96,  p  < 0.001). It was notable that problem explanation beliefs were far less likely than problem description or problem solution beliefs to be subject to any validity testing (the validity of more than 80% of PEBs was not tested) and, when they were tested, it was typically with the more routine rather than robust VTBs (see Table 6 ).

Problem explanation beliefs were also most likely to not be tested at all; more than 80% of the problem explanation beliefs were not the focus of any validity testing. Further, problem description beliefs were less likely than problem solution beliefs to be the target of both routine and robust validity testing behaviors—12% of PDBs and 18% of PSBs were tested using both routine and robust VTBs.

Two important assumptions underpin the study reported here. The first is that problems of equity must be solved, not only in the macrosystem and exosystem, but also as they occur in the day to day practices of leaders and teachers in micro and mesosystems. The second is that conversations are the key practice in which problem solving occurs in the micro and mesosystems, and that is why we focused on conversation quality. We focused on validity testing as an indicator of quality by closely analyzing transcripts of conversations between 43 individual leaders and a teacher they were discussing problems with.

Our findings suggest a considerable gap between our normative model of effective problem solving conversations and the practices of our sample of leaders. While beliefs about what problems are, and proposed solutions to them are shared relatively often, rarely is attention given to beliefs about the causes of problems. Further, while leaders do seem to be able to disclose and provide grounds for their beliefs about problems, they do so less often for beliefs about problem cause than other belief types. In addition, the critical validity testing behaviors of exploring difference, examining logic, and seeking agreement are very rare. Learning how to test the validity of beliefs is, therefore, a relevant focus for educational leaders’ goals (Bendikson et al., 2020 ; Meyer et al., 2019 ; Sinnema & Robinson, 2012 ) as well as a means for achieving other goals.

The patterns we found are problematic from the point of view of problem solving in schools generally but are particularly problematic from the point of view of macrosystem problems relating to equity. In New Zealand, for example, the underachievement and attendance issues of Pasifika students is a macrosystem problem that has been the target of many attempts to address through a range of policies and initiatives. Those efforts include a Pasifika Education Plan (Ministry of Education, 2013 ) and a cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pasifika learners—‘Tapasa’ (Ministry of Education, 2018 ) At the level of the mesosystem, many schools have strategic plans and school-wide programmes for interactions seeking to address those issues.

Resolving such equity issues demands that macro and exosystem initiatives are also reflected in the interactions of educators—hence our investigation of leaders’ problem-solving conversations and attention to whether leaders have the skills required to solve problems in conversations that contribute to aspirations in the exo and macrosystem, include of excellence and equity in new and demanding national curricula (Sinnema et al., 2020a ; Sinnema, Stoll, 2020a ). An example of an exosystem framework—the competencies framework for teachers of Pacific students in New Zealand—is useful here. It requires that teachers “establish and maintain collaborative and respectful relationships and professional behaviors that enhance learning and wellbeing for Pasifika learners” (Ministry of Education, 2018 , p. 12). The success of this national framework is influenced by and also influences the success that leaders in school settings have at solving problems in the conversations they have about related micro and mesosystem problems.

To illustrate this point, we draw here on the example of one case from our sample that showed how problem-solving conversation capability is related to the success or otherwise of system level aspirations of this type. In the case of Leader 36, under-developed skill in problem solving talk likely stymied the success of the equity-focused system initiatives. Leader 36 had been alerted by the parents of a Pasifika student that their daughter “feels that she is being unfairly treated, picked on and being made to feel very uncomfortable in the teacher’s class.” In the conversation with Leader 36, the teacher described having established a good relationship with the student, but also having had a range of issues with her including that she was too talkative, that led the teacher to treat her in ways the teacher acknowledged could have made her feel picked on and consequently reluctant to come to school.

The teacher also told the leader that there were issues with uniform irregularities (which the teacher picked on) and general non conformity—“No, she doesn’t [conform]. She often comes with improper footwear, incorrect jacket, comes late to school, she puts make up on, there are quite a few things that aren’t going on correctly….”. The teacher suggested that the student was “drawing the wrong type of attention from me as a teacher, which has had a negative effect on her.” The teacher described to the leader a recent incident:

[The student] had come to class with her hair looking quite shabby so I quietly asked [the student] “Did you wake up late this morning?” and then she but I can’t remember, I made a comment like “it looks like you didn’t take too much interest in yourself.” To me, I thought there was nothing wrong with the comment as it did not happen publicly; it happened in class and I had walked up to her. Following that, [her] Mum sends another email about girls and image and [says] that I am picking on her again. I’m quite baffled as to what is happening here. (case 36)

This troubling example represented a critical discretionary moment. The pattern of belief validity testing identified through our analysis of this case (see Table 7 ), however, mirrors some of the patterns evident in the wider sample.

The leader, like the student’s parents, believed that the teacher had been offensive in her communication with the student and also that the relationship between the teacher and student would be negatively impacted as a result. These two problem description beliefs were disclosed by the leader during her conversation with the teacher. However, while her disclosure of her belief about the problem description involved both advocating the belief, and inquiring into the other’s perception of it, the provision of grounds for the belief involved advocacy only. She reported the basis of the concern (the email from the student’s parents about their daughter feeling unfairly treated, picked on, and uncomfortable in class) but did not explicitly inquire into the grounds. This may be explained in this case through the teacher offering her own account of the situation that matched the parent’s report. Leader 36 also disclosed in her conversation with the teacher, her problem solution key belief that they should hold a restorative meeting between the teacher, the student, and herself.

What Leader 36 did not disclose was her belief about the explanation for the problem—that the teacher did not adequately understand the student personally, or their culture. The problem explanation belief (KB4) that she did inquire into was one the teacher raised—suggesting that the student has “compliance issues” that led the teacher to respond negatively to the student’s communication style—and that the teacher agreed with. The leader did not use any of the more robust but important validity testing behaviors for any of the key beliefs they held, either about problem description, explanation or solutions. And most importantly, this conversation highlights how policies and initiatives developed by those in the macrosystem, aimed at addressing equity issues, can be thwarted through well-intentioned but ultimately unsuccessful efforts of educators as they operate in the micro and mesosystem in what we referred to earlier as a discretionary problem solving space. The teacher’s treatment of the Pasifika student in our example was in stark contrast to the respectful and strong relationships demanded by the exosystem policy, the framework for teachers of Pasifika students. Furthermore, while the leader recognized the problem, issues of culture were avoided—they were not skilled enough in disclosing and testing their beliefs in the course of the conversation to contribute to broader equity concerns. The skill gap resonates with the findings of much prior work in this field (Le Fevre et al., 2015 ; Robinson et al., 2020 ; Sinnema et al., 2013 ; Smith, 1997 ; Spillane et al., 2009 ; Timperley & Robinson, 1998 ; Zaccaro et al., 2000 ), and highlights the importance of leaders, and those working with them in leadership development efforts, to recognize the interactions between the eco-systems outlined in the nested model of problem solving detailed in Fig.  1 .

The reluctance of Leader 36 to disclose and discuss her belief that the teacher misunderstands the student and her culture is important given the wider research evidence about the nature of the beliefs teachers may hold about indigenous and minority learners. The expectations teachers hold for these groups are typically lower and more negative than for white students (Gay, 2005 ; Meissel et al., 2017 ). In evidence from the New Zealand context, Turner et al. ( 2015 ), for example, found expectations to differ according to ethnicity with higher expectations for Asian and European students than for Māori and Pasifika students, even when controlling for achievement, due to troubling teacher beliefs about students’ home backgrounds, motivations, and aspirations. These are just the kind of beliefs that leaders must be able to confront in conversations with their teachers.

We use this example to illustrate both the interrelatedness of problems across the ecosystem, and the urgency of leadership development intervention in this area. Our normative model of effective problem solving conversations (Fig.  2 ), we suggest, provides a useful framework for the design of educational leadership intervention in this area. It shows how validity testing behaviors should embody both advocacy and inquiry and be used to explore not only perceptions of problem descriptions and solutions, but also problem causes. In this way, we hope to offer insights into how the dilemma between trust and accountability (Ehren et al., 2020 ) might be solved through increased interpersonal effectiveness. The combination of inquiry with advocacy also marks this approach out from neo-liberal approaches that emphasize leaders staying in control and predominantly advocating authoritarian perspectives of educational leadership. The interpersonal effectiveness theory that we draw on (Argyris & Schön, 1974 ) positions such unilateral control as ineffective, arguing for a mutual learning alternative. The work of problem solving is, we argue, joint work, requiring shared commitment and control.

Our findings also call for more research explicitly designed to investigate linkages between the systems. Case studies are needed, of macro and exosystem inequity problems backward mapped to initiatives and interactions that occur in schools related to those problems and initiatives. Such research could capture the complex ways in which power plays out “in relation to structural inequalities (of class, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, sexuality, and so forth)” and in relation to “more shifting and fluid inequalities that play out at the symbolic and cultural levels (for example, in ways that construct who “has” potential)” (Burke & Whitty, 2018 , p. 274).

Leadership development in problem solving should be approached in ways that surface and test the validity of leaders’ beliefs, so that they similarly learn to surface and test others’ beliefs in their leadership work. That is important not only from a workforce development point of view, but also from a social justice point of view since leaders’ capabilities in this area are inextricably linked to the success of educational systems in tackling urgent equity concerns.

Allison, D., & Allison, P. (1993). Both ends of a telescope: Experience and expertise in principal problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29 (3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x93029003005

Article   Google Scholar  

Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice . Addison-Wesley.

Google Scholar  

Ball, D. L. (2018). Just dreams and imperatives: the power of teaching in the struggle for public education . New York, NYC: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Bedell-Avers, E., Hunter, S., & Mumford, M. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 , 89–106.

Bendikson, L., Broadwith, M., Zhu, T., & Meyer, F. (2020). Goal pursuit practices in high schools: hitting the target?. Journal of Educational Administration , 56 (6), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2020-0020

Bonner, S. M., Diehl, K., & Trachtman, R. (2020). Teacher belief and agency development in bringing change to scale. Journal of Educational Change, 21 (2), 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09360-4

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta, Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues. Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32 (7), 513–531.

Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research; a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Burke, P. J., & Whitty, G. (2018). Equity issues in teaching and teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 93 (3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2018.1449800

Copland, F. (2010). Causes of tension in post-observation feedback in pre-service teacher training: An alternative view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.001

Ehren, M., Paterson, A., & Baxter, J. (2020). Accountability and Trust: Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Educational Change, 21 (1), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09352-4

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief An Introduction to Theory and Research. Attitude, Intention and Behavior . Addison-Wesley.

Gay, G. (2005). Politics of multicultural teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 221–228.

Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The evaluation of principals: What and how do states and urban disrticts assess leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110 (1), 19–36.

Hannah, D., Sinnema, C., & Robinson. V. (2018). Theory of action accounts of problem-solving: How a Japanese school communicates student incidents to parents. Management in Education, 33 (2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020618783809 .

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world . Harvard Business Press.

Le Fevre, D., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 (1), 58–95.

Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Sinnema, C. (2015). Genuine inquiry: Widely espoused yet rarely enacted. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43 (6), 883–899.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43 (2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1995). Expert problem solving: Evidence from school and district leaders . State University of New York Press.

Leithwood, K., & Stager, M. (1989). Expertise in Principals’ Problem Solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (2), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x89025002003

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem solving expertise of school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 24 (3), 317–345.

Marcy, R., & Mumford, M. (2010). Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (1), 1–19.

Mavrogordato, M., & White, R. (2020). Leveraging policy implementation for social justice: How school leaders shape educational opportunity when implementing policy for English learners. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56 (1), 3–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18821364

Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2017). Subjectivity of Teacher Judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgments of student ability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65 , 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.021

Meyer, F., Sinnema, C., & Patuawa, J. (2019). Novice principals setting goals for school improvement in New Zealand. School Leadership & Management , 39 (2), 198−221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1473358

Ministry of Education. (2013). Pasifika education plan 2013–2017 Retrieved 9 July from https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/Strategies-and-policies/PEPImplementationPlan20132017V2.pdf

Ministry of Education. (2018). Tapasā cultural competencies framework for teachers of Pacific learners . Ministry of Education.

Mumford, M., & Connelly, M. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leaders performance and problem solving in ill-defined domains. Leadership Quarterly, 2 (4), 289–315.

Mumford, M., Friedrich, T., Caughron, J., & Byrne, C. (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18 , 515–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002

Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, T., & Fleishman, E. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 11–35.

Myran, S., & Sutherland, I. (2016). Problem posing in leadership education: using case study to foster more effective problem solving. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 19 (4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916664763

Newell, A., & Simon. (1972). Human problem solving . Prentice-Hall.

Norman, S., Avolio, B., & Luthans, B. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 , 350–364.

Patuawa, J., Robinson, V., Sinnema, C., & Zhu, T. (2021). Addressing inequity and underachievement: Middle leaders’ effectiveness in problem solving. Leading and Managing , 27 (1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.925220205986712

Peeters, A., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). A teacher educator learns how to learn from mistakes: Single and double-loop learning for facilitators of in-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11 (3), 213–227.

Robinson, V. M. J., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D., & Sinnema, C. (2020). The Quality of Leaders’ Problem-Solving Conversations: truth-seeking or truth-claiming? Leadership and Policy in Schools , 1–22.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1993). Problem-based methodology: Research for the improvement of practice . Pergamon Press.

Robinson, V. M. J. (1995). Organisational learning as organisational problem-solving. Leading & Managing, 1 (1), 63–78.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2001). Organizational learning, organizational problem solving and models of mind. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Kluwer Academic.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (1), 1–26.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2017). Reduce change to increase improvement . Corwin Press.

Robinson, V. M. J., & Le Fevre, D. (2011). Principals’ capability in challenging conversations: The case of parental complaints. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (3), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111129046

Sinnema, C., Robinson, V. (2012). Goal setting in principal evaluation: Goal quality and predictors of achievement. Leadership and Policy in schools . 11 (2), 135–167, https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.629767

Sinnema, C., Le Fevre, D., Robinson, V. M. J., & Pope, D. (2013). When others’ performance just isn’t good enough: Educational leaders’ framing of concerns in private and public. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12 (4), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.857419

Sinnema, C., Ludlow, L. H., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2016a). Educational leadership effectiveness: A rasch analysis. Journal of Educational Administration , 54 (3), 305–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2014-0140

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., & Aitken, G. (2016b). Capturing the complex, situated, and sctive nature of teaching through inquiry-oriented standards for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education , 68 (1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668017

Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-h Sinnema, C., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y.-H., & Rodway, J. (2020a). Exploring the communities of learning policy in New Zealand using social network analysis: A case study of leadership, expertise, and networks. International Journal of Educational Research , 99 , 101492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.10.002

Sinnema, C., & Stoll, L. (2020b). Learning for and realising curriculum aspirations through schools as learning organisations. European Journal of Education, 55 , 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12381

Sinnema, C., Nieveen, N., & Priestley, M. (2020c). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal . https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.17

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A., & Daly, A. J. (2021a). A theory of action account of within and across school collaboration: The role of relational trust in collaboration actions and impacts. Journal of Educational Change .

Sinnema, C., Hannah, D., Finnerty, A. et al. (2021b). A theory of action account of an across-school collaboration policy in practice. Journal of Educational Change . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09408-w

Sinnema, C., Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A., Cann, R., & Rodway, J. (2021c). When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: The role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107 , 103474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103474

Smith, G. (1997). Managerial problem solving: A problem-centered approach. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 371–380). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiegel, J. (2012). Open-mindedness and intellectual humility. School Field, 10 (1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878512437472

Spillane, J., Weitz White, K., & Stephan, J. (2009). School principal expertise: Putting expert aspiring principal differences in problem solving to the test. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8 , 128–151.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13 , 12–28.

Thrupp, M., & Willmott, R. (2003). Education management in managerialist times: Beyond the textual apologists . Open University Press.

Timperley, H., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6 (3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-5065-3

Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (1), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X980341003

Tjosvold, D., Sun, H., & Wan, P. (2005). Effects of openness, problem solving, and blaming on learning: An experiment in China. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (6), 629–644. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.6.629-644

Tompkins, T. (2013). Groupthink and the Ladder of Inference : Increasing Effective Decision Making. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning , 8 (2), 84–90.

Turner, H., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Webber, M. (2015). Teacher expectations, ethnicity and the achievement gap. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0004-1

Zaccaro, S., Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Marks, M., & Gilbert, J. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (1), 37–64.

Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 , 229–239.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Claire Sinnema, Frauke Meyer, Deidre Le Fevre, Hamish Chalmers & Viviane Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Sinnema .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

See Table 8 .

See Table 9 .

See Table 10 .

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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sinnema, C., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D. et al. Educational leaders’ problem-solving for educational improvement: Belief validity testing in conversations. J Educ Change 24 , 133–181 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

Download citation

Accepted : 29 August 2021

Published : 01 October 2021

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09437-z

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

• Educational Change
• Educational improvement
• Problem solving
• Problem-solving conversations
• Educational leadership
• Validity testing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The global education challenge: Scaling up to tackle the learning crisis

• Download the policy brief

Subscribe to Global Connection

Alice albright alice albright chief executive officer - global partnership for education @alicealbright.

July 25, 2019

The following is one of eight briefs commissioned for the 16th annual Brookings Blum Roundtable, “2020 and beyond: Maintaining the bipartisan narrative on US global development.”

Addressing today’s massive global education crisis requires some disruption and the development of a new 21st-century aid delivery model built on a strong operational public-private partnership and results-based financing model that rewards political leadership and progress on overcoming priority obstacles to equitable access and learning in least developed countries (LDCs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Success will also require a more efficient and unified global education architecture. More money alone will not fix the problem. Addressing this global challenge requires new champions at the highest level and new approaches.

Key data points

In an era when youth are the fastest-growing segment of the population in many parts of the world, new data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) reveals that an estimated 263 million children and young people are out of school, overwhelmingly in LDCs and LMICs. 1 On current trends, the International Commission on Financing Education Opportunity reported in 2016 that, a far larger number—825 million young people—will not have the basic literacy, numeracy, and digital skills to compete for the jobs of 2030. 2 Absent a significant political and financial investment in their education, beginning with basic education, there is a serious risk that this youth “bulge” will drive instability and constrain economic growth.

Despite progress in gender parity, it will take about 100 years to reach true gender equality at secondary school level in LDCs and LMICs. Lack of education and related employment opportunities in these countries presents national, regional, and global security risks.

Related Books

Amar Bhattacharya, Homi Kharas, John W. McArthur

November 15, 2023

Geoffrey Gertz, Homi Kharas, Johannes F. Linn

September 12, 2017

Esther Care, Patrick Griffin

April 11, 2017

Among global education’s most urgent challenges is a severe lack of trained teachers, particularly female teachers. An additional 9 million trained teachers are needed in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.

Refugees and internally displaced people, now numbering over 70 million, constitute a global crisis. Two-thirds of the people in this group are women and children; host countries, many fragile themselves, struggle to provide access to education to such people.

Highlighted below are actions and reforms that could lead the way toward solving the crisis:

• Leadership to jump-start transformation. The next U.S. administration should convene a high-level White House conference of sovereign donors, developing country leaders, key multilateral organizations, private sector and major philanthropists/foundations, and civil society to jump-start and energize a new, 10-year global response to this challenge. A key goal of this decadelong effort should be to transform education systems in the world’s poorest countries, particularly for girls and women, within a generation. That implies advancing much faster than the 100-plus years required if current programs and commitments remain as is.
• A whole-of-government leadership response. Such transformation of currently weak education systems in scores of countries over a generation will require sustained top-level political leadership, accompanied by substantial new donor and developing country investments. To ensure sustained attention for this initiative over multiple years, the U.S. administration will need to designate senior officials in the State Department, USAID, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and elsewhere to form a whole-of-government leadership response that can energize other governments and actors.
• Teacher training and deployment at scale. A key component of a new global highest-level effort, based on securing progress against the Sustainable Development Goals and the Addis 2030 Framework, should be the training and deployment of 9 million new qualified teachers, particularly female teachers, in sub-Saharan Africa where they are most needed. Over 90 percent of the Global Partnership for Education’s education sector implementation grants have included investments in teacher development and training and 76 percent in the provision of learning materials.
• Foster positive disruption by engaging community level non-state actors who are providing education services in marginal areas where national systems do not reach the population. Related to this, increased financial and technical support to national governments are required to strengthen their non-state actor regulatory frameworks. Such frameworks must ensure that any non-state actors operate without discrimination and prioritize access for the most marginalized. The ideological divide on this issue—featuring a strong resistance by defenders of public education to tap into the capacities and networks of non-state actors—must be resolved if we are to achieve a rapid breakthrough.
• Confirm the appropriate roles for technology in equitably advancing access and quality of education, including in the initial and ongoing training of teachers and administrators, delivery of distance education to marginalized communities and assessment of learning, strengthening of basic systems, and increased efficiency of systems. This is not primarily about how various gadgets can help advance education goals.
• Commodity component. Availability of appropriate learning materials for every child sitting in a classroom—right level, right language, and right subject matter. Lack of books and other learning materials is a persistent problem throughout education systems—from early grades through to teaching colleges. Teachers need books and other materials to do their jobs. Consider how the USAID-hosted Global Book Alliance, working to address costs and supply chain issues, distribution challenges, and more can be strengthened and supported to produce the model(s) that can overcome these challenges.

Annual high-level stock take at the G-7. The next U.S. administration can work with G-7 partners to secure agreement on an annual stocktaking of progress against this new global education agenda at the upcoming G-7 summits. This also will help ensure sustained focus and pressure to deliver especially on equity and inclusion. Global Partnership for Education’s participation at the G-7 Gender Equality Advisory Council is helping ensure that momentum is maintained to mobilize the necessary political leadership and expertise at country level to rapidly step up progress in gender equality, in and through education. 3 Also consider a role for the G-20, given participation by some developing country partners.

Related Content

Jenny Perlman Robinson, Molly Curtiss Wyss

July 3, 2018

Michelle Kaffenberger

May 17, 2019

Ramya Vivekanandan

February 14, 2019

• “263 Million Children and Youth Are Out of School.” UNESCO UIS. July 15, 2016. http://uis.unesco.org/en/news/263-million-children-and-youth-are-out-school.
• “The Learning Generation: Investing in education for a changing world.” The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. 2016. https://report.educationcommission.org/downloads/.
• “Influencing the most powerful nations to invest in the power of girls.” Global Partnership for Education. March 12, 2019. https://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/influencing-most-powerful-nations-invest-power-girls.

Global Education

Global Economy and Development

Elyse Painter, Emily Gustafsson-Wright

January 5, 2024

Online only

9:00 am - 10:00 am EST

Nariman Moustafa

October 20, 2023

  Problems and Problem Solving

What is a problem?

In common language, a problem is an unpleasant situation, a difficulty.

But in education the first definition in Webster's Dictionary — "a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution" — is a common meaning.

More generally in education, it's useful to define problem broadly — as any situation, in any area of life, where you have an opportunity to make a difference, to make things better — so problem solving is converting an actual current state into a desired future state that is better, so you have "made things better."  Whenever you are thinking creatively-and-critically about ways to increase the quality of life (or to avoid a decrease in quality) for yourself and/or for others, you are actively involved in problem solving.  Defined in this way, problem solving includes almost everything you do in life.

  Problem-Solving Skills  —  Creative and Critical

An important goal of education is helping students learn how to think more productively while solving problems, by combining creative thinking (to generate ideas) and critical thinking (to evaluate ideas) with accurate knowledge (about the truth of reality).  Both modes of thinking (creative & critical) are essential for a well-rounded productive thinker, according to experts in both fields:

Richard Paul (a prominent advocate of CRITICAL THINKING ) says, "Alternative solutions are often not given, they must be generated or thought-up.  Critical thinkers must be creative thinkers as well, generating possible solutions in order to find the best one.  Very often a problem persists, not because we can't tell which available solution is best, but because the best solution has not yet been made available — no one has thought of it yet."

Patrick Hillis & Gerard Puccio (who focus on CREATIVE THINKING ) describe the combining of creative generation with critical evaluation in a strategy of creative-and-critical Problem Solving that "contains many tools which can be used interchangeably within any of the stages.  These tools are selected according to the needs of the task and are either divergent (i.e., used to generate options) or convergent (i.e., used to evaluate options)."

Creative Thinking can be motivated and guided by Creative Thinking:   One of the interactions between creative thinking and critical thinking occurs when we use critical Evaluation to motivate and guide creative Generation in a critical - and - creative process of Guided Generation that is Guided Creativity .  In my links-page for CREATIVITY you can explore this process in three stages, to better understand how a process of Guided Creativity — explored & recognized by you in Part 1 and then described by me in Part 2 — could be used (as illustrated in Part 3 ) to improve “the party atmosphere” during a dinner you'll be hosting, by improving a relationship.

  Education for Problem Solving

By using broad definitions for problem solving and education, we can show students how they already are using productive thinking to solve problems many times every day, whenever they try to “make things better” in some way..

Problem Solving:   a problem is an opportunity , in any area of life, to make things better.   Whenever a decision-and-action helps you “ make it better ” — when you convert an actual state (in the past) into a more desirable actual state (in the present and/or future) — you are problem solving, and this includes almost everything you do in life, in all areas of life.      { You can make things better if you increase quality for any aspect of life, or you maintain quality by reducing a potential decrease of quality.   }     /     design thinking ( when it's broadly defined ) is the productive problem-solving thinking we use to solve problems.  We can design (i.e. find, invent, or improve ) a better product, activity, relationship, and/or strategy (in General Design ) and/or (in Science-Design ) explanatory theory.     {   The editor of this links-page ( Craig Rusbult ) describes problem solving in all areas of life .}

note:  To help you decide whether to click a link or avoid it, links highlighted with green or purple go to pages I've written, in my website about Education for Problem Solving or in this website for THINKING SKILLS ( CREATIVE and CRITICAL ) we use to SOLVE PROBLEMS .

Education:   In another broad definition, education is learning from life-experiences, learning how to improve, to become more effective in making things better.   For example, Maya Angelou – describing an essential difference between past and present – says "I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better, " where improved problem solving skills (when "do better" leads to being able to more effectively "make things better") has been a beneficial result of education, of "knowing better" due to learning from life-experiences.

Growth:   One of the best ways to learn more effectively is by developing-and-using a better growth mindset so — when you ask yourself “how well am I doing in this area of life?” and honestly self-answer “not well enough” — instead of thinking “not ever” you are thinking “not yet” because you know that your past performance isn't your future performance;  and you are confident that in this area of life (and in other areas) you can “grow” by improving your understandings-and-skills, when you invest intelligent effort in your self-education and self-improving.  And you can "be an educator" by supporting the self-improving of other people by helping them improve their own growth mindsets.    { resources for Growth Mindset }

Growth in Problem-Solving Skills:   A main goal of this page is to help educators help students improve their skill in solving problems — by improving their ability to think productively (to more effectively combine creative thinking with critical thinking and accurate knowledge ) — in all areas of their everyday living.    {resources: growth mindset for problem solving that is creative-and-critical }

How?   You can improve your Education for Problem Solving by creatively-and-critically using general principles & strategies (like those described above & below, and elsewhere) and adapting them to specific situations, customizing them for your students (for their ages, abilities, experiences,...) and teachers, for your community and educational goals.

Promote Productive Thinking:

Build Educational Bridges:

When we show students how they use a similar problem-solving process (with design thinking ) for almost everything they do in life , we can design a wide range of activities that let us build two-way educational bridges:

• from Life into School, building on the experiences of students, to improve confidence:   When we help students recognize how they have been using a problem-solving process of design thinking in a wide range of problem-solving situations,... then during a classroom design activity they can think “I have done this before (during design-in-life ) so I can do it again (for design-in-school )” to increase their confidence about learning.  They will become more confident that they can (and will) improve the design-thinking skills they have been using (and will be using) to solve problems in life and in school.

• from School into Life, appealing to the hopes of students, to improve motivation:   We can show each student how they will be using design thinking for "almost everything they do" in their future life (in their future whole-life, inside & outside school) so the design-thinking skills they are improving in school will transfer from school into life and will help them achieve their personal goals for life .  When students want to learn in school because they are learning for life, this will increase their motivations to learn.

Improve Educational Equity:

When we build these bridges (past-to-present from Life into School , and present-to-future from School into Life ) we can improve transfers of learning — in time (past-to-present & present-to-future) and between areas (in school-life & whole-life) for whole-person education — and transitions in attitudes to improve a student's confidence & motivations.  This will promote diversity and equity in education by increasing confidence & motivation for a wider range of students, and providing a wider variety of opportunities for learning in school, and for success in school.  We want to “open up the options” for all students, so they will say “yes, I can do this” for a wider variety of career-and-life options, in areas of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) and non-STEM .

This will help us improve diversity-and-equity in education by increasing confidence & motivations for a wider range of students, and providing a wider variety of opportunities for learning in school, and success in school.

  Design Curriculum & Instruction:  

• DEFINE GOALS for desired outcomes, for ideas-and-skills we want students to learn,

• DESIGN INSTRUCTION with learning activities (and associated teaching activities ) that will provide opportunities for experience with these ideas & skills, and help students learn more from their experiences.     {more about Defining Goals and Designing Instruction }   {one valuable activity is using a process-of-inquiry to learn principles-for-inquiry }

  Problem-Solving Process for Science and Design

We'll look at problem-solving process for science (below) and design ( later ) separately, and for science-and-design together., problem-solving process for science, is there a “scientific method”      we have reasons to say....

    NO, because there is not a rigid sequence of steps that is used in the same way by all scientists, in all areas of science, at all times,  but also...

    YES, because expert scientists (and designers) tend to be more effective when they use flexible strategies — analogous to the flexible goal-directed improvising of a hockey player, but not the rigid choreography of a figure skater — to coordinate their thinking-and-actions in productive ways, so they can solve problems more effectively.

Below are some models that can help students understand and do the process of science.  We'll begin with simplicity, before moving on to models that are more complex so they can describe the process more completely-and-accurately.

A simple model of science is PHEOC (Problem, Hypothesis, Experiment, Observe, Conclude).  When PHEOC, or a similar model, is presented — or is misinterpreted — as a rigid sequence of fixed steps, this can lead to misunderstandings of science, because the real-world process of science is flexible.  An assumption that “model = rigidity” is a common criticism of all models-for-process, but this unfortunate stereotype of "rigidity" is not logically justifiable because all models emphasize the flexibility of problem-solving process in real life, and (ideally) in the classroom.  If a “step by step” model (like PHEOC or its variations) is interpreted properly and is used wisely, the model can be reasonably accurate and educationally useful.  For example,...

A model that is even simpler — the 3-step POE (Predict, Observe, Learn) — has the essentials of scientific logic, and is useful for classroom instruction.

Science Buddies has Steps of the Scientific Method with a flowchart showing options for flexibility of timing.  They say, "Even though we show the scientific method as a series of steps, keep in mind that new information or thinking might cause a scientist to back up and repeat steps at any point during the process.  A process like the scientific method that involves such backing up and repeating is called an iterative process."    And they compare Scientific Method with Engineering Design Process .

Lynn Fancher explains - in The Great SM - that "while science can be done (and often is) following different kinds of protocols, the [typical simplified] description of the scientific method includes some very important features that should lead to understanding some very basic aspects of all scientific practice," including Induction & Deduction and more.

From thoughtco.com, many thoughts to explore in a big website .

Other models for the problem solving process of science are more complex, so they can be more thorough — by including a wider range of factors that actually occur in real-life science, that influence the process of science when it's done by scientists who work as individuals and also as members of their research groups & larger communities — and thus more accurate.  For example,

Understanding Science (developed at U.C. Berkeley - about ) describes a broad range of science-influencers, * beyond the core of science: relating evidence and ideas .  Because "the process of science is exciting" they want to "give users an inside look at the general principles, methods, and motivations that underlie all of science."  You can begin learning in their homepage (with US 101, For Teachers, Resource Library,...) and an interactive flowchart for "How Science Works" that lets you explore with mouse-overs and clicking.

* These factors affect the process of science, and occasionally (at least in the short run) the results of science.  To learn more about science-influencers,...

    Knowledge Building (developed by Bereiter & Scardamalia, links - history ) describes a human process of socially constructing knowledge.

    The Ethics of Science by Henry Bauer — author of Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method (click "look inside") — examines The Knowledge Filter and a Puzzle and Filter Model of "how science really works."

[[ i.o.u. - soon, in mid-June 2021, I'll fix the links in this paragraph.]] Another model that includes a wide range of factors (empirical, social, conceptual) is Integrated Scientific Method by Craig Rusbult, editor of this links-page .  Part of my PhD work was developing this model of science, in a unifying synthesis of ideas from scholars in many fields, from scientists, philosophers, historians, sociologists, psychologists, educators, and myself.  The model is described in two brief outlines ( early & later ), more thoroughly, in a Basic Overview (with introduction, two visual/verbal representations, and summaries for 9 aspects of Science Process ) and a Detailed Overview (examining the 9 aspects more deeply, with illustrations from history & philosophy of science), and even more deeply in my PhD dissertation (with links to the full text, plus a “world record” Table of Contents, references, a visual history of my diagrams for Science Process & Design Process, and using my integrative model for [[ integrative analysis of instruction ).   /   Later, I developed a model for the basic logic-and-actions of Science Process in the context of a [[ more general Design Process .

Problem-Solving Process for Design

Because "designing" covers a wide range of activities, we'll look at three kinds of designing..

Engineering Design Process:   As with Scientific Method,

    a basic process of Engineering Design can be outlined in a brief models-with-steps  –  5   5 in cycle   7 in cycle   8   10   3 & 11 .     {these pages are produced by ==[later, I'll list their names]}

    and it can be examined in more depth:  here & here and in some of the models-with-steps (5... 3 & 11), and later .

Problem-Solving Process:   also has models-with-steps (  4   4   5   6   7  ) * and models-without-steps (like the editor's model for Design-Thinking Process ) to describe creative-and-critical thinking strategies that are similar to Engineering Design Process, and are used in a wider range of life — for all problem-solving situations (and these include almost everything we do in life) — not just for engineering.     { *  these pages are produced by ==}

Design-Thinking Process:   uses a similar creative-and-critical process, * but with a focus on human - centered problems & solutions & solving - process and a stronger emphasis on using empathy .  (and creativity )

* how similar?  This depends on whether we define Design Thinking in ways that are narrow or broad.   {the wide scope of problem-solving design thinking }  {why do I think broad definitions (for objectives & process) are educationally useful ?}

Education for Design Thinking (at Stanford's Design School and beyond)

  Problem Solving in Our Schools:

Improving education for problem solving, educators should want to design instruction that will help students improve their thinking skills.  an effective strategy for doing this is..., goal-directed designing of curriculum & instruction.

When we are trying to solve a problem (to “make things better”) by improving our education for problem solving, a useful two-part process is to...

    1.  Define GOALS for desired outcomes, for the ideas-and-skills we want students to learn;

    2.  Design INSTRUCTION with Learning Activities that will provide opportunities for experience with these ideas & skills, and will help students learn more from their experiences.

Basically, the first part ( Define Goals ) is deciding WHAT to Teach , and the second part ( Design Instruction ) is deciding HOW to Teach .

But before looking at WHAT and HOW   , here are some ways to combine them with...

Strategies for Goal-Directed Designing of WHAT-and-HOW.

Understanding by Design ( UbD ) is a team of experts in goal-directed designing,

as described in an overview of Understanding by Design from Vanderbilt U.

Wikipedia describes two key features of UbD:  "In backward design, the teacher starts with classroom outcomes [#1 in Goal-Directed Designing above ] and then [#2] plans the curriculum, * choosing activities and materials that help determine student ability and foster student learning," and  "The goal of Teaching for Understanding is to give students the tools to take what they know, and what they will eventually know, and make a mindful connection between the ideas. ...  Transferability of skills is at the heart of the technique.  Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggin's technique.  If a student is able to transfer the skills they learn in the classroom to unfamiliar situations, whether academic or non-academic, they are said to truly understand."

* UbD "offers a planning process and structure to guide curriculum, assessment, and instruction.  Its two key ideas are contained in the title:  1) focus on teaching and assessing for understanding and learning transfer, and   2) design curriculum “backward” from those ends."

ASCD – the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (specializing in educational leadership ) – has a resources-page for Understanding by Design that includes links to The UbD Framework and Teaching for Meaning and Understanding: A Summary of Underlying Theory and Research plus sections for online articles and books — like Understanding by Design ( by Grant Wiggins & Jay McTighe with free intro & U U ) and Upgrade Your Teaching: Understanding by Design Meets Neuroscience ( about How the Brain Learns Best by Jay McTighe & Judy Willis who did a fascinating ASCD Webinar ) and other books — plus DVDs and videos (e.g. overview - summary ) & more .

Other techniques include Integrative Analysis of Instruction and Goal-Directed Aesop's Activities .

In two steps for a goal-directed designing of education , you:

1)  Define GOALS (for WHAT you want students to improve) ;

2)  Design INSTRUCTION (for HOW to achieve these Goals) .

Although the sections below are mainly about 1. WHAT to Teach (by defining Goals ) and 2. HOW to Teach (by designing Instruction ) there is lots of overlapping, so you will find some "how" in the WHAT, and lots of "what" in the HOW.

P ERSONAL Skills   (for Thinking about Self)

A very useful personal skill is developing-and-using a...

Growth Mindset:  If self-education is broadly defined as learning from your experiences,   better self-education is learning more effectively by learning more from experience, and getting more experiences.   One of the best ways to learn more effectively is by developing a better growth mindset so — when you ask yourself “how well am I doing in this area of life?” and honestly answer “not well enough” — you are thinking “not yet” (instead of “not ever”) because you are confident that in this area of life (as in most areas, including those that are most important) you can “grow” by improving your skills, when you invest intelligent effort in your self-education.  And you can support the self-education of other people by helping them improve their own growth mindsets.     Carol Dweck Revisits the Growth Mindset and (also by Dweck) a video, Increasing Educational Equity and Opportunity .     3 Ways Educators Can Promote A Growth Mindset by Dan LaSalle, for Teach for America.     Growth Mindset: A Driving Philosophy, Not Just a Tool by David Hochheiser, for Edutopia.     Growth Mindset, Educational Equity, and Inclusive Excellence by Kris Slowinski who links to 5 videos .     What’s Missing from the Conversation: The Growth Mindset in Cultural Competency by Rosetta Lee.     YouTube video search-pages for [ growth mindset ] & [ mindset in education ] & [ educational equity mindset ].

also:  Growth Mindset for Creativity

Self-Perception -- [[a note to myself: accurate understanding/evaluation of self + confidence in ability to improve/grow ]]

M ETA C OGNITIVE Skills   (for Solving Problems)

What is metacognition?   Thinking is cognition.   When you observe your thinking and think about your thinking (maybe asking “how can I think more effectively?”) this is meta- cognition, which is cognition about cognition.  To learn more about metacognition — what it is, why it's valuable, and how to use it more effectively — some useful web-resources are:

a comprehensive introductory overview by Nancy Chick, for Vanderbilt U.

my links-section has descriptions of (and links to) pages by other authors: Jennifer Livingston, How People Learn, Marsha Lovett, Carleton College, Johan Lehrer, Rick Sheets, William Peirce, and Steven Shannon, plus links for Self-Efficacy with a Growth Mindset , and more about metacognition.

my summaries about the value of combining cognition-and-metacognition and regulating it for Thinking Strategies (of many kinds ) to improve Performing and/or Learning by Learning More from Experience with a process that is similar to...

the Strategies for Self-Regulated Learning developed by other educators.

videos — search youtube for [ metacognition ] and [ metacognitive strategies ] and [ metacognition in education ].

And in other parts of this links-page,

As one part of guiding students during an inquiry activity a teacher can stimulate their metacognition by helping them reflect on their experiences.

While solving problems, almost always it's useful to think with empathy and also with metacognitive self-empathy by asking “what do they want?” and “what do I want?” and aiming for a win-win solution.

P ROCESS -C OORDINATING Skills   (for Solving Problems)

THINKING SKILLS and THINKING PROCESS:  When educators develop strategies to improve the problem solving abilities of students, usually their focus is on thinking skills.   But thinking process is also important.

Therefore, it's useful to define thinking skills broadly, to include thinking that leads to decisions-about-actions, and actions:

        thinking  →  action-decisions  →  actions

[[ I.O.U. -- later, in mid-June 2021, the ideas below will be developed -- and i'll connect it with Metacognitive Skills because we use Metacognition to Coordinate Process.

[[ here are some ideas that eventually will be in this section:

Collaborative Problem Solving [[ this major new section will link to creative.htm# collaborative-creativity (with a brief summary of ideas from there) and expand these ideas to include general principles and "coordinating the collaboration" by deciding who will do what, when, with some individual "doing" and some together "doing" ]]

actions can be mental and/or physical (e.g. actualizing Experimental Design to do a Physical Experiment, or actualizing an Option-for-Action into actually doing the Action

[[a note to myself: educational goals:  we should help students improve their ability to combine their thinking skills — their creative Generating of Options and critical Generating of Options, plus using their Knowledge-of-Ideas that includes content-area knowledge plus the Empathy that is emphasized in Design Thinking — into an effective thinking process .

[[ Strategies for Coordinating:  students can do this by skillfully Coordinating their Problem-Solving Actions (by using their Conditional Knowledge ) into an effective Problem-Solving Process.

[[ During a process of design, you coordinate your thinking-and-actions by making action decisions about “what to do next.”  How?  When you are "skillfully Coordinating..." you combine cognitive/metacognitive awareness (of your current problem-solving process) with (by knowing, for each skill, what it lets you accomplish, and the conditions in which it will be useful).

[[ a little more about problem-solving process

[[ here are more ideas that might be used here:

Sometimes tenacious hard work is needed, and perseverance is rewarded.  Or it may be wise to be flexible – to recognize that what you've been doing may not be the best approach, so it's time to try something new – and when you dig in a new location your flexibility pays off.

Perseverance and flexibility are contrasting virtues.  When you aim for an optimal balancing of this complementary pair, self-awareness by “knowing yourself” is useful.  Have you noticed a personal tendency to err on the side of either too much perseverance or not enough?  Do you tend to be overly rigid, or too flexible?

Making a wise decision about perseverance — when you ask, “Do I want to continue in the same direction, or change course?” * — is more likely when you have an aware understanding of your situation, your actions, the results, and your goals.  Comparing results with goals is a Quality Check, providing valuable feedback that you can use as a “compass” to help you move in a useful direction.  When you look for signs of progress toward your goals in the direction you're moving, you may have a feeling, based on logic and experience, that your strategy for coordinating the process of problem solving isn't working well, and it probably never will.  Or you may feel that the goal is almost in sight and you'll soon reach it.

- How I didn't Learn to Ski (and then did) with Persevering plus Flexible Insight -

PRINCIPLES for PROBLEM SOLVING

Should we explicitly teach principles for thinking, can we use a process of inquiry to teach principles for inquiry, should we use a “model” for problem-solving process.

combining models?

What are the benefits of infusion and separate programs?  

Principles & Strategies & Models ?

Should we explicitly teach “principles” for thinking?

Using evidence and logic — based on what we know about the ways people think and learn — we should expect a well-designed combination of “experience + reflection + principles” to be more educationally effective than experience by itself, to help students improve their creative-and-critical thinking skills and whole-process skills in solving problems (for design-inquiry) and answering questions (for science-inquiry).

Can we use a process-of-inquiry to teach principles-for-inquiry?

*   In a typical sequence of ERP, students first get Experiences by doing a design activity.  During an activity and afterward, they can do Reflections (by thinking about their experiences) and this will help them recognize Principles for doing Design-Thinking Process that is Problem-Solving Process.     { design thinking is problem-solving thinking }

During reflections & discussions, typically students are not discovering new thoughts & actions.  Instead they are recognizing that during a process of design they are using skills they already know because they already have been using Design Thinking to do almost everything in their life .  A teacher can facilitate these recognitions by guiding students with questions about what they are doing now, and what they have done in the past, and how these experiences are similar, but also are different in some ways.  When students remember (their prior experience) and recognize (the process they did use, and are using), they can formulate principles for their process of design thinking.  But when they formulate principles for their process of problem solving, they are just making their own experience-based prior knowledge — of how they have been solving problems, and are now solving problems — more explicit and organized.

If we help students "make their own experience-based prior knowledge... more explicit and organized" by showing them how their knowledge can be organized into a model for problem-solving process, will this help them improve their problem-solving abilities?

IOU - This mega-section will continue being developed in mid-June 2021.

[[a note to myself: thinking skills and thinking process — What is the difference? - Experience + Reflection + Principles - coordination-decisions

[[are the following links specifically for this section about "experience + principles"? maybe not because these seem to be about principles, not whether to teach principles.]]

An excellent overview is Teaching Thinking Skills by Kathleen Cotton. (the second half of her page is a comprehensive bibliography)

This article is part of The School Improvement Research Series (available from Education Northwest and ERIC ) where you can find many useful articles about thinking skills & other topics, by Cotton & other authors.  [[a note to myself: it still is excellent, even though it's fairly old, written in 1991 -- soon, I will search to find more-recent overviews ]]

Another useful page — What Is a Thinking Curriculum ? (by Fennimore & Tinzmann) — begins with principles and then moves into applications in Language Arts, Mathematics, Sciences, and Social Sciences.

My links-page for Teaching-Strategies that promote Active Learning explores a variety of ideas about strategies for teaching (based on principles of constructivism, meaningful reception,...) in ways that are intended to stimulate active learning and improve thinking skills.   Later, a continuing exploration of the web will reveal more web-pages with useful “thinking skills & problem solving” ideas (especially for K-12 students & teachers) and I'll share these with you, here and in TEACHING ACTIVITIES .

Of course, thinking skills are not just for scholars and schoolwork, as emphasized in an ERIC Digest , Higher Order Thinking Skills in Vocational Education .  And you can get information about 23 ==Programs that Work from the U.S. Dept of Education. 

goals can include improving affective factors & character == e.g. helping students learn how to develop & use use non-violent solutions for social problems .

INFUSION and/or SEPARATE PROGRAMS?

In education for problem solving, one unresolved question is "What are the benefits of infusion, or separate programs? "  What is the difference?

With infusion , thinking skills are closely integrated with content instruction in a subject area, in a "regular" course.

In separate programs , independent from content-courses, the explicit focus of a course is to help students improve their thinking skills.

In her overview of the field, Kathleen Cotton says,

    Of the demonstrably effective programs, about half are of the infused variety, and the other half are taught separately from the regular curriculum. ...  The strong support that exists for both approaches... indicates that either approach can be effective.  Freseman represents what is perhaps a means of reconciling these differences [between enthusiastic advocates of each approach] when he writes, at the conclusion of his 1990 study: “Thinking skills need to be taught directly before they are applied to the content areas. ...  I consider the concept of teaching thinking skills directly to be of value especially when there follows an immediate application to the content area.”

For principles and examples of infusion , check the National Center for Teaching Thinking which lets you see == What is Infusion? (an introduction to the art of infusing thinking skills into content instruction), and == sample lessons (for different subjects, grade levels, and thinking skills). -- resources from teach-think-org -- [also, lessons designed to infuse Critical and Creative Thinking into content instruction]

Infusing Teaching Thinking Into Subject-Area Instruction (by Robert Swarz & David Perkins) - and more about the book

And we can help students improve their problem-solving skills with teaching strategies that provide structure for instruction and strategies for thinking . ==[use structure+strategies only in edu-section?

Adobe [in creative]

MORE about Teaching Principles for Problem Solving

[[ i.o.u. -- this section is an "overlap" between #1 (Goals) and #2 (Methods) so... maybe i'll put it in-between them? -- i'll decide soon, maybe during mid-June 2021 ]]

Two Kinds of Inquiry Activities  (for Science and Design )

To more effectively help students improve their problem-solving skills, teachers can provide opportunities for students to be actively involved in solving problems, with inquiry activities .  What happens during inquiry?  Opportunities for inquiry occur whenever a gap in knowledge — in conceptual knowledge (so students don't understand) or procedural knowledge (so they don't know what to do, or how) — stimulates action (mental and/or physical) and students are allowed to think-do-learn.

Students can be challenged to solve two kinds of problems during two kinds of inquiry activity:

    during Science-Inquiry they try to improve their understanding, by asking problem-questions and seeking answers.  During their process of solving problems, they are using Science-Design , aka Science , to design a better explanatory theory.

    during Design-Inquiry they try to improve some other aspect(s) of life, by defining problem-projects and seeking solutions.   During their process of solving problems, they are using General Design (which includes Engineering and more) to design a better product, activity, or strategy.

    But... whether the main objective is for Science-Design or General Design, a skilled designer will be flexible, will do whatever will help them solve the problem(s).  Therefore a “scientist” sometimes does engineering, and an “engineer” sometimes does science.  A teacher can help students recognize how-and-why they also do these “ crossover actions ” during an activity for Science Inquiry or Design Inquiry.  Due to these connections, we can build transfer-bridges between the two kinds of inquiry ,  and combine both to develop “hybrid activities” for Science-and-Design Inquiry.

Goal-Priorities:  There are two kinds of inquiry, so (re: Goals for What to Learn) what emphasis do we want to place on activities for Science -Inquiry and Design -Inquiry?  (in the limited amount of classroom time that teachers can use for Inquiry Activities)

Two Kinds of Improving  (for Performing and Learning )

Goal-Priorities:  There are two kinds of improving, so (re: Goals for What to Learn) what emphasis do we want to place on better Performing (now) and Learning (for later)?

When defining goals for education, we ask “How important is improving the quality of performing now, and (by learning now ) of performing later   ?”   For example, a basketball team (coach & players) will have a different emphasis in an early-season practice (when their main goal is learning well) and end-of-season championship game (when their main goal is performing well).     {we can try to optimize the “total value” of performing/learning/enjoying for short-term fun plus long-term satisfactions }

SCIENCE   (to use-learn-teach Skills for Problem Solving )

Problem-solving skills used for science.

This section supplements models for Scientific Method that "begin with simplicity, before moving on to models that are more complex so they can describe the process more completely-and-accurately. "  On the spectrum of simplicity → complexity , one of the simplest models is...

POE (Predict, Observe, Learn) to give students practice with the basic scientific logic we use to evaluate an explanatory theory about “what happens, how, and why.”  POE is often used for classroom instruction — with interactive lectures [iou - their website is temporarily being "restored"] & in other ways — and research has shown it to be effective.  A common goal of instruction-with-POE is to improve the conceptual knowledge of students, especially to promote conceptual change their alternative concepts to scientific concepts.  But students also improve their procedural knowledge for what the process of science is, and how to do the process.     { more – What's missing from POE ( experimental skills ) w hen students use it for evidence-based argumentation    and   Ecologies - Educational & Conceptual  }

Dany Adams (at Smith College) explicitly teaches critical thinking skills – and thus experiment-using skills – in the context of scientific method.

Science Buddies has models for Scientific Method (and for Engineering Design Process ) and offers Detailed Help that is useful for “thinking skills” education. ==[DetH]

Next Generation Science Standards ( NGSS ) emphasizes the importance of designing curriculum & instruction for Three Dimensional Learning with productive interactions between problem-solving Practices (for Science & Engineering ) and Crosscutting Concepts and Disciplinary Core Ideas.

Science: A Process Approach ( SAPA ) was a curriculum program earlier, beginning in the 1960s.  Michael Padilla explains how SAPA defined The Science Process Skills as "a set of broadly transferable abilities, appropriate to many science disciplines and reflective of the behavior of scientists.  SAPA categorized process skills into two types, basic and integrated.  The basic (simpler) process skills provide a foundation for learning the integrated (more complex) skills."   Also, What the Research Says About Science Process Skills by Karen Ostlund;  and Students' Understanding of the Procedures of Scientific Enquiry by Robin Millar, who examines several approaches and concludes (re: SAPA) that "The process approach is not, therefore, a sound basis for curriculum planning, nor does the analysis on which it is based provide a productive framework for research."  But I think parts of it can be used creatively for effective instruction.     { more about SAPA }

ENGINEERING   (to use-learn-teach Skills for Problem Solving )

Problem-solving skills used for engineering.

Engineering is Elementary ( E i E ) develops activities for students in grades K-8.  To get a feeling for the excitement they want to share with teachers & students, watch an "about EiE" video and explore their website .  To develop its curriculum products, EiE uses research-based Design Principles and works closely with teachers to get field-testing feedback, in a rigorous process of educational design .  During instruction, teachers use a simple 5-phase flexible model of engineering design process "to guide students through our engineering design challenges... using terms [ Ask, Imagine, Plan, Create, Improve ] children can understand."   {plus other websites about EiE }

Project Lead the Way ( PLTW ), another major developer of k-12 curriculum & instruction for engineering and other areas, has a website you can explore to learn about their educational philosophy & programs (at many schools ) & resources and more.  And you can web-search for other websites about PLTW.

Science Buddies , at level of k-12, has tips for science & engineering .

EPICS ( home - about ), at college level, is an engineering program using EPICS Design Process with a framework supplemented by sophisticated strategies from real-world engineering.  EPICS began at Purdue University and is now used at ( 29 schools) (and more with IUCCE ) including Purdue, Princeton, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Arizona State, UC San Diego, Drexel, and Butler.

DESIGN THINKING   (to use-learn-teach Skills for Problem Solving )

Design Thinking emphasizes the importance of using empathy to solve human-centered problems.

Stanford Institute of Design ( d.school ) is an innovative pioneer in teaching a process of human-centered design thinking that is creative-and-critical with empathy .  In their Design Thinking Bootleg – that's an updated version of their Bootcamp Bootleg – they share a wide variety of attitudes & techniques — about brainstorming and much more — to stimulate productive design thinking with the objective of solving real-world problems.   {their first pioneer was David Kelley }

The d.school wants to "help prepare a generation of students to rise with the challenges of our times."  This goal is shared by many other educators, in k-12 and colleges, who are excited about design thinking.  Although d.school operates at college level, they (d.school + IDEO ) are active in K-12 education as in their website about Design Thinking in Schools ( FAQ - resources ) that "is a directory [with brief descriptions] of schools and programs that use design thinking in the curriculum for K12 students...  design thinking is a powerful way for today’s students to learn, and it’s being implemented by educators all around the world."     { more about Education for Design Thinking in California & Atlanta & Pittsburgh & elsewhere} [[a note to myself: @ ws and maybe my broad-definition page]]

On twitter, # DTk12 chat is an online community of enthusiastic educators who are excited about Design Thinking ( DT ) for K-12 Education, so they host a weekly twitter chat (W 9-10 ET) and are twitter-active informally 24/7.

PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING   (to use-learn-teach Skills for Problem Solving )

Problem-Based Learning ( PBL ? ) is a way to improve motivation, thinking, and learning.  You can learn more from:

overviews of PBL from U of WA & Learning-Theories.com ;

and (in ERIC Digests) using PBL for science & math plus a longer introduction - challenges for students & teachers (we never said it would be easy!) ;

a deeper examination by John Savery (in PDF & [without abstract] web-page );

Most Popular Papers from The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning ( about IJPBL ).

videos about PBL by Edutopia (9:26) and others ;

a search in ACSD for [problem-based learning] → a comprehensive links-page for Problem-Based Learning and an ACSD-book about...

Problems as Possibilities by Linda Torp and Sara Sage:  Table of Contents - Introduction (for 2nd Edition) - samples from the first & last chapters - PBL Resources (including WeSites in Part IV) .

PBL in Schools:

Samford University uses PBL (and other activities) for Transformational Learning that "emphasizes the whole person, ... helps students grow physically, mentally, and spiritually, and encourages them to value public service as well as personal gain."

In high school education, Problem-Based Learning Design Institute from Illinois Math & Science Academy ( about );  they used to have an impressive PBL Network ( sitemap & web-resources from 2013, and 9-23-2013 story about Kent, WA ) that has mysteriously disappeared. https://www.imsa.edu/academics/inquiry/resources/ research_ethics

Vanderbilt U has Service Learning thru Community Engagement with Challenges and Opportunities and tips for Teaching Step by Step & Best Practices and Resource-Links for many programs, organizations, articles, and more.

What is PBL?   The answer is " Problem-Based Learning and/or Project-Based Learning " because both meanings are commonly used.  Here are 3 pages (+ Wikipedia) that compare PBL with PBL, examine similarities & differences, consider definitions:

    John Larmer says "we [at Buck Institute for Education which uses Project Based Learning ] decided to call problem-based learning a subset of project-based learning [with these definitions, ProblemBL is a narrower category, so all ProblemBL is ProjectBL, but not vice versa] – that is, one of the ways a teacher could frame a project is to solve a problem, " and concludes that "the semantics aren't worth worrying about, at least not for very long.  The two PBLs are really two sides of the same coin. ...  The bottom line is the same:  both PBLs can powerfully engage and effectively teach your students!"     Chris Campbell concludes, "it is probably the importance of conducting active learning with students that is worthy and not the actual name of the task.  Both problem-based and project-based learning have their place in today’s classroom and can promote 21st Century learning."     Jan Schwartz says "there is admittedly a blurring of lines between these two approaches to education, but there are differences."     Wikipedia has Problem-Based Learning (with "both" in P5BL ) and Project-Based Learning .

i.o.u. - If you're wondering "What can I do in my classroom today ?", eventually (maybe in June 2021) there will be a section for "thinking skills activities" in this page, and in the area for TEACHING ACTIVITIES .

Problem Solving in Education: A Global Imperative

Pedagogical Shifts

Essential lessons, leadership challenges and opportunities.

Jamaludin, A., & Hung, D. W. L. (2016). Digital "learning trails": Scaling technology-facilitated curricular innovation in schools with a rhizomatic lens. Journal of Educational Change , 17 (3), 355–377.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Strauss, &amp; Giroux.

National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers' enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education , 101 (3), 426–457.

Ng, P. T. (2017). Learning from Singapore: The power of paradoxes . New York: Routledge.

OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving. Paris: OECD.

Patchen, A. K., Zhang, L., & Barnett, M. (2017). Growing plants and scientists: Fostering positive attitudes toward science among all participants in an afterschool hydroponics program. Journal of Science and Educational Technology , 26 (3), 279–294.

Prensky, M. R. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Shirley, D. (2016). The new imperatives of educational change: Achievement with integrity . New York: Routledge.

• 1 Read more about the Jurong Secondary School project .

He has conducted in-depth studies about school innovations in England, Germany, Canada, and South Korea. Shirley has been a visiting professor at Harvard University in the United States, Venice International University in Italy, the National Institute of Education in Singapore, the University of Barcelona in Spain, and the University of Stavanger in Norway. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Shirley’s previous book is The New Imperatives of Educational Change: Achievement with Integrity .

Pak Tee Ng is Associate Dean, Leadership Learning at the National Institute of Education of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and the author of Learning from Singapore: The Power of Paradoxes (Routledge, 2017).

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

Let us help you put your vision into action., related articles.

For STEM Education, the Time Is Now

How to Signal “STEM Is For You”?

STEM Doesn’t Have to Be Rocket Science

How to Start with STEM

Picture Books Aren’t Just for the Youngest Students

From our issue.

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

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

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

Professional Development & Training

What you will learn, tools & materials.

Teaching Methods for Solving Word Problems

This teacher professional development course will teach you about the challenges students often encounter when solving word problems and present varied solutions for teaching problem-solving skills to your students. You will be provided with a detailed plan for teaching two different problem-solving strategies in your classroom, depending on your students' needs: the GUESS method and the CUBES method for word problems. The course also comes with a downloadable PDF of the course content, graphic organizers, and supporting student resources.

• The video and article will provide you with two specific methods for solving word problems and ideas for teaching your students these skills. You will learn about common strategies required for solving word problems and challenges that arise so you can help correct and support your students. The course also includes some “Reflect or Discuss” prompts to help you connect with the course content and ends with a “Try This Task” to guide you explicitly on how you might implement the ideas into the classroom. 
• You will answer questions related to strategies for solving word problems. Quizzes are automatically scored and provide feedback on answer choice rationale. 
• The reflection prompt requires you to plan for use of the “try this task” by either reflecting on the content yourself or discussing them with the colleague. You will then discuss a new concept you can attempt to implement in the future based on something you learned in the course. 
• This short statement helps you reflect on your ideas and assess whether you might be successful in your implementation. 
• Additional content suggestions are provided to enhance and expand your understanding of supporting students in word probably analysis.

Requirements:

Hardware Requirements:

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

Software Requirements:

• PC: Windows 10 or later.
• Mac: macOS 10.6 or later.
• Browser: The latest version of Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox is preferred. Microsoft Edge and Safari are also compatible.
• Microsoft Word Online
• Editing of a Microsoft Word document is required in this course. You may use a free version of Microsoft Word Online, or Google Docs if you do not have Microsoft Office installed on your computer. Model Teaching can provide support for this.
• Adobe Acrobat Reader
• Software must be installed and fully operational before the course begins.
• Email capabilities and access to a personal email account.

Instructional Material Requirements:

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

Four of the biggest problems facing education—and four trends that could make a difference

Eduardo velez bustillo, harry a. patrinos.

In 2022, we published, Lessons for the education sector from the COVID-19 pandemic , which was a follow up to,  Four Education Trends that Countries Everywhere Should Know About , which summarized views of education experts around the world on how to handle the most pressing issues facing the education sector then. We focused on neuroscience, the role of the private sector, education technology, inequality, and pedagogy.

Unfortunately, we think the four biggest problems facing education today in developing countries are the same ones we have identified in the last decades .

1. The learning crisis was made worse by COVID-19 school closures

Low quality instruction is a major constraint and prior to COVID-19, the learning poverty rate in low- and middle-income countries was 57% (6 out of 10 children could not read and understand basic texts by age 10). More dramatic is the case of Sub-Saharan Africa with a rate even higher at 86%. Several analyses show that the impact of the pandemic on student learning was significant, leaving students in low- and middle-income countries way behind in mathematics, reading and other subjects.  Some argue that learning poverty may be close to 70% after the pandemic , with a substantial long-term negative effect in future earnings. This generation could lose around $21 trillion in future salaries, with the vulnerable students affected the most.

2. Countries are not paying enough attention to early childhood care and education (ECCE)

At the pre-school level about two-thirds of countries do not have a proper legal framework to provide free and compulsory pre-primary education. According to UNESCO, only a minority of countries, mostly high-income, were making timely progress towards SDG4 benchmarks on early childhood indicators prior to the onset of COVID-19. And remember that ECCE is not only preparation for primary school. It can be the foundation for emotional wellbeing and learning throughout life; one of the best investments a country can make.

3. There is an inadequate supply of high-quality teachers

Low quality teaching is a huge problem and getting worse in many low- and middle-income countries.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the percentage of trained teachers fell from 84% in 2000 to 69% in 2019 . In addition, in many countries teachers are formally trained and as such qualified, but do not have the minimum pedagogical training. Globally, teachers for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects are the biggest shortfalls.

4. Decision-makers are not implementing evidence-based or pro-equity policies that guarantee solid foundations

It is difficult to understand the continued focus on non-evidence-based policies when there is so much that we know now about what works. Two factors contribute to this problem. One is the short tenure that top officials have when leading education systems. Examples of countries where ministers last less than one year on average are plentiful. The second and more worrisome deals with the fact that there is little attention given to empirical evidence when designing education policies.

To help improve on these four fronts, we see four supporting trends:

1. Neuroscience should be integrated into education policies

Policies considering neuroscience can help ensure that students get proper attention early to support brain development in the first 2-3 years of life. It can also help ensure that children learn to read at the proper age so that they will be able to acquire foundational skills to learn during the primary education cycle and from there on. Inputs like micronutrients, early child stimulation for gross and fine motor skills, speech and language and playing with other children before the age of three are cost-effective ways to get proper development. Early grade reading, using the pedagogical suggestion by the Early Grade Reading Assessment model, has improved learning outcomes in many low- and middle-income countries. We now have the tools to incorporate these advances into the teaching and learning system with AI , ChatGPT , MOOCs and online tutoring.

2. Reversing learning losses at home and at school

There is a real need to address the remaining and lingering losses due to school closures because of COVID-19.  Most students living in households with incomes under the poverty line in the developing world, roughly the bottom 80% in low-income countries and the bottom 50% in middle-income countries, do not have the minimum conditions to learn at home . These students do not have access to the internet, and, often, their parents or guardians do not have the necessary schooling level or the time to help them in their learning process. Connectivity for poor households is a priority. But learning continuity also requires the presence of an adult as a facilitator—a parent, guardian, instructor, or community worker assisting the student during the learning process while schools are closed or e-learning is used.

To recover from the negative impact of the pandemic, the school system will need to develop at the student level: (i) active and reflective learning; (ii) analytical and applied skills; (iii) strong self-esteem; (iv) attitudes supportive of cooperation and solidarity; and (v) a good knowledge of the curriculum areas. At the teacher (instructor, facilitator, parent) level, the system should aim to develop a new disposition toward the role of teacher as a guide and facilitator. And finally, the system also needs to increase parental involvement in the education of their children and be active part in the solution of the children’s problems. The Escuela Nueva Learning Circles or the Pratham Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) are models that can be used.

3. Use of evidence to improve teaching and learning

We now know more about what works at scale to address the learning crisis. To help countries improve teaching and learning and make teaching an attractive profession, based on available empirical world-wide evidence , we need to improve its status, compensation policies and career progression structures; ensure pre-service education includes a strong practicum component so teachers are well equipped to transition and perform effectively in the classroom; and provide high-quality in-service professional development to ensure they keep teaching in an effective way. We also have the tools to address learning issues cost-effectively. The returns to schooling are high and increasing post-pandemic. But we also have the cost-benefit tools to make good decisions, and these suggest that structured pedagogy, teaching according to learning levels (with and without technology use) are proven effective and cost-effective .

4. The role of the private sector

When properly regulated the private sector can be an effective education provider, and it can help address the specific needs of countries. Most of the pedagogical models that have received international recognition come from the private sector. For example, the recipients of the Yidan Prize on education development are from the non-state sector experiences (Escuela Nueva, BRAC, edX, Pratham, CAMFED and New Education Initiative). In the context of the Artificial Intelligence movement, most of the tools that will revolutionize teaching and learning come from the private sector (i.e., big data, machine learning, electronic pedagogies like OER-Open Educational Resources, MOOCs, etc.). Around the world education technology start-ups are developing AI tools that may have a good potential to help improve quality of education .

After decades asking the same questions on how to improve the education systems of countries, we, finally, are finding answers that are very promising.  Governments need to be aware of this fact.

To receive weekly articles,  sign-up here  

Consultant, Education Sector, World Bank

Senior Adviser, Education

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

World leading higher education information and services Home News Blogs Courses Jobs

Top 8 modern education problems and ways to solve them.

| September 15, 2017 | 0 responses

In many ways, today’s system is better than the traditional one. Technology is the biggest change and the greatest advantage at the same time. Various devices, such as computers, projectors, tablets and smartphones, make the process of learning simpler and more fun. The Internet gives both students and teachers access to limitless knowledge.

However, this is not the perfect educational system. It has several problems, so we have to try to improve it.

•  Problem: The Individual Needs of Low-Achievers Are Not Being Addressed

Personalized learning is the most popular trend in education. The educators are doing their best to identify the learning style of each student and provide training that corresponds to their needs.

However, many students are at risk of falling behind, especially children who are learning mathematics and reading. In the USA, in particular, there are large gaps in science achievements by middle school.

Solution: Address the Needs of Low-Achievers

The educators must try harder to reduce the number of students who are getting low results on long-term trajectories. If we identify these students at an early age, we can provide additional training to help them improve the results.

• Problem: Overcrowded Classrooms

In 2016, there were over 17,000 state secondary school children in the UK being taught in classes of 36+ pupils.

Solution: Reduce the Number of Students in the Classroom

Only a smaller class can enable an active role for the student and improve the level of individual attention they get from the teacher.

• Problem: The Teachers Are Expected to Entertain

Today’s generations of students love technology, so the teachers started using technology just to keep them engaged. That imposes a serious issue: education is becoming an entertainment rather than a learning process.

Solution: Set Some Limits

We don’t have to see education as opposed to entertainment. However, we have to make the students aware of the purpose of technology and games in the classroom. It’s all about learning.

• Problem: Not Having Enough Time for Volunteering in University

The students are overwhelmed with projects and assignments. There is absolutely no space for internships and volunteering in college .

Solution: Make Internships and Volunteering Part of Education

When students graduate, a volunteering activity can make a great difference during the hiring process. In addition, these experiences help them develop into complete persons. If the students start getting credits for volunteering and internships, they will be willing to make the effort.

• Problem: The Parents Are Too Involved

Due to the fact that technology became part of the early educational process, it’s necessary for the parents to observe the way their children use the Internet at home. They have to help the students to complete assignments involving technology.

What about those parents who don’t have enough time for that? What if they have time, but want to use it in a different way?

Solution: Stop Expecting Parents to Act Like Teachers at Home

The parent should definitely support their child throughout the schooling process. However, we mustn’t turn this into a mandatory role. The teachers should stop assigning homework that demands parental assistance.

• Problem: Outdated Curriculum

Although we transformed the educational system, many features of the curriculum remained unchanged.

Solution: Eliminate Standardised Exams

This is a radical suggestion. However, standardised exams are a big problem. We want the students to learn at their own pace. We are personalizing the process of education. Then why do we expect them to compete with each other and meet the same standards as everyone else? The teacher should be the one responsible of grading.

• Problem: Not All Teachers Can Meet the Standards of the New Educational System

Can we really expect all teachers to use technology? Some of them are near the end of their teaching careers and they have never used tablets in the lecturing process before.

Solution: Provide Better Training for the Teachers

If we want all students to receive high-quality education based on the standards of the system, we have to prepare the teachers first. They need more training, preparation, and even tests that prove they can teach today’s generations of students.

• Problem: Graduates Are Not Ready for What Follows

A third of the employers in the UK are not happy with the performance of recent graduates. That means the system is not preparing them well for the challenges that follow.

Solution: More Internships, More Realistic Education

Practical education – that’s a challenge we still haven’t met. We have to get more practical.

The evolution of the educational system is an important process. Currently, we have a system that’s more suitable to the needs of generations when compared to the traditional system. However, it’s still not perfect. The evolution never stops.

Author Bio:   Chris Richardson is a journalist, editor, and a blogger. He loves to write, learn new things, and meet new outgoing people. Chris is also fond of traveling, sports, and playing the guitar. Follow him on Facebook and Google+ .

Tags: solutions

What Is Problem Solving?

You will often see beach clean-up drives being publicized in coastal cities. There are already dustbins available on the beaches,…

You will often see beach clean-up drives being publicized in coastal cities. There are already dustbins available on the beaches, so why do people need to organize these drives? It’s evident that despite advertising and posting anti-littering messages, some of us don’t follow the rules.

Temporary food stalls and shops make it even more difficult to keep the beaches clean. Since people can’t ask the shopkeepers to relocate or prevent every single person from littering, the clean-up drive is needed.  This is an ideal example of problem-solving psychology in humans. ( 230-fifth.com ) So, what is problem-solving? Let’s find out.

What Is Problem-Solving?

At its simplest, the meaning of problem-solving is the process of defining a problem, determining its cause, and implementing a solution. The definition of problem-solving is rooted in the fact that as humans, we exert control over our environment through solutions. We move forward in life when we solve problems and make decisions. 

We can better define the problem-solving process through a series of important steps.

Identify The Problem: 

This step isn’t as simple as it sounds. Most times, we mistakenly identify the consequences of a problem rather than the problem itself. It’s important that we’re careful to identify the actual problem and not just its symptoms. 

Define The Problem: 

Once the problem has been identified correctly, you should define it. This step can help clarify what needs to be addressed and for what purpose.

Form A Strategy: 

Develop a strategy to solve your problem. Defining an approach will provide direction and clarity on the next steps. 

Organize The Information:  

Organizing information systematically will help you determine whether something is missing. The more information you have, the easier it’ll become for you to arrive at a solution.  

Allocate Resources:  

We may not always be armed with the necessary resources to solve a problem. Before you commit to implementing a solution for a problem, you should determine the availability of different resources—money, time and other costs.

Track Progress: 

The true meaning of problem-solving is to work towards an objective. If you measure your progress, you can evaluate whether you’re on track. You could revise your strategies if you don’t notice the desired level of progress. 

Evaluate The Results:  

After you spot a solution, evaluate the results to determine whether it’s the best possible solution. For example, you can evaluate the success of a fitness routine after several weeks of exercise.

Meaning Of Problem-Solving Skill

Now that we’ve established the definition of problem-solving psychology in humans, let’s look at how we utilize our problem-solving skills.  These skills help you determine the source of a problem and how to effectively determine the solution. Problem-solving skills aren’t innate and can be mastered over time. Here are some important skills that are beneficial for finding solutions.

Communication

Communication is a critical skill when you have to work in teams.  If you and your colleagues have to work on a project together, you’ll have to collaborate with each other. In case of differences of opinion, you should be able to listen attentively and respond respectfully in order to successfully arrive at a solution.

As a problem-solver, you need to be able to research and identify underlying causes. You should never treat a problem lightly. In-depth study is imperative because often people identify only the symptoms and not the actual problem.

Once you have researched and identified the factors causing a problem, start working towards developing solutions. Your analytical skills can help you differentiate between effective and ineffective solutions.

Decision-Making

You’ll have to make a decision after you’ve identified the source and methods of solving a problem. If you’ve done your research and applied your analytical skills effectively, it’ll become easier for you to take a call or a decision.

Organizations really value decisive problem-solvers. Harappa Education’s   Defining Problems course will guide you on the path to developing a problem-solving mindset. Learn how to identify the different types of problems using the Types of Problems framework. Additionally, the SMART framework, which is a five-point tool, will teach you to create specific and actionable objectives to address problem statements and arrive at solutions. 

Explore topics & skills such as Problem Solving Skills , PICK Chart , How to Solve Problems & Barriers to Problem Solving from our Harappa Diaries blog section and develop your skills.

IOE - Faculty of Education and Society

• Departments and centres
• Innovation and enterprise
• Teacher Education College

AI-driven personalised support to learning beyond problem solving

16 May 2024, 12:30 pm–1:30 pm

Join this event to hear Cristina Conati discuss how AI-based educational technology can effectively provide personalised support to help students learn problem-solving skills in various domains.

This event is free.

Event Information

Availability.

There is increasing interest in AI-based environments to support educational activities, such as those more exploratory in nature, like learning from interactive simulations or playing educational games. However, not all learners benefit may benefit from AI-driven personalised support that can help those who need it while maintaining the unconstrained nature of the interaction.

In this talk, Cristina will discuss the unique challenges of this endeavour and a proposed solution based on data-driven AI models that can detect and react to behaviors indicating that a learner is struggling with the exploratory process. This will include a summary of results on applying this approach to various exploratory environments and on making such models explainable to their end users, with explanations personalised to each user’s specific needs.

This event will be particularly useful for researchers, educators, teachers and students.

Please note this is a hybrid event and can be joined either in-person or online.

Related links

• UCL Knowledge Lab
• Culture, Communication and Media

About the Speaker

Dr cristina conati.

Professor of Computer Science at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

She has been researching human-centered and AI-driven personalisation for over 25 years, with contributions in the areas of Intelligent Tutoring Systems, User Modeling, Affective Computing, Information Visualization and Explainable AI.

Related News

Related events, related case studies, related research projects, press and media enquiries.

UCL Media Relations +44 (0)7747 565 056

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Herbert Chanoch Kelman, 94

Everett irwin mendelsohn, 91.

Anticipate, accommodate, empower

Exploring generative ai at harvard.

Jessica McCann

Harvard Correspondent

Leaders weigh in on where we are and what’s next

The explosion of generative AI technology over the past year and a half is raising big questions about how these tools will impact higher education. Across Harvard, members of the community have been exploring how GenAI will change the ways we teach, learn, research, and work.

As part of this effort, the Office of the Provost has convened three working groups . They will discuss questions, share innovations, and evolve guidance and community resources. They are:

• The Teaching and Learning Group , chaired by Bharat Anand , vice provost for advances in learning and the Henry R. Byers Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. This group seeks to share resources, identify emerging best practices, guide policies, and support the development of tools to address common challenges among faculty and students.
• The Research and Scholarship Group , chaired by John Shaw , vice provost for research, Harry C. Dudley Professor of Structural and Economic Geology in the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, and professor of environmental science and engineering in the Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science. It focuses on how to enable, and support the integrity of, scholarly activities with generative AI tools.
• T he Administration and Operations Group , chaired by Klara Jelinkova , vice president and University chief information officer. It is charged with addressing information security, data privacy, procurement, and administration and organizational efficiencies.

Klara Jelinkova, Bharat Anand, and John Shaw.

Photos by Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer; Evgenia Eliseeva; and courtesy of John Shaw

The Gazette spoke with Anand, Shaw, and Jelinkova to understand more about the work of these groups and what’s next in generative AI at Harvard.

When generative AI tools first emerged, we saw universities respond in a variety of ways — from encouraging experimentation to prohibiting their use. What was Harvard’s overall approach?

Shaw: From the outset, Harvard has embraced the prospective benefits that GenAI offers to teaching, research, and administration across the University, while being mindful of the potential pitfalls. As a University, our mission is to help enable discovery and innovation, so we had a mandate to actively engage. We set some initial, broad policies that helped guide us, and have worked directly with groups across the institution to provide tools and resources to inspire exploration.

Jelinkova: The rapid emergence of these tools meant the University needed to react quickly, to provide both tools for innovation and experimentation and guidelines to ensure their responsible use. We rapidly built an AI Sandbox to enable faculty, students, and staff to experiment with multiple large language models in a secure environment. We also worked with external vendors to acquire enterprise licenses for a variety of tools to meet many different use cases. Through working groups, we were able to learn, aggregate and collate use cases for AI in teaching, learning, administration, and research. This coordinated, collective, and strategic approach has put Harvard ahead of many peers in higher education.

Anand: Teaching and learning are fundamentally decentralized activities. So our approach was to ask: First, how can we ensure that local experimentation by faculty and staff is enabled as much as possible; and second, how can we ensure that it’s consistent with University policies on IP, copyright, and security? We also wanted to ensure that novel emerging practices were shared across Schools, rather than remaining siloed.

What do these tools mean for faculty, in terms of the challenges they pose or the opportunities they offer? Is there anything you’re particularly excited about?

Anand: Let’s start with some salient challenges. How do we first sift through the hype that’s accompanied GenAI? How can we make it easy for faculty to use GenAI tools in their classrooms without overburdening them with yet another technology? How can one address real concerns about GenAI’s impact?

While we’re still early in this journey, many compelling opportunities — and more importantly, some systematic ways of thinking about them — are emerging. Various Harvard faculty have leaned into experimenting with LLMs in their classrooms. Our team has now interviewed over 30 colleagues across Harvard and curated short videos that capture their learnings. I encourage everyone to view these materials on the new GenAI site; they are remarkable in their depth and breadth of insight.

Here’s a sample: While LLMs are commonly used for Q&A, our faculty have creatively used them for a broader variety of tasks, such as simulating tutors that guide learning by asking questions, simulating instructional designers to provide active learning tips, and simulating student voices to predict how a class discussion might flow, thus aiding in lesson preparation. Others demonstrate how more sophisticated prompts or “prompt engineering” are often necessary to yield more sophisticated LLM responses, and how LLMs can extend well beyond text-based responses to visuals, simulations, coding, and games. And several faculty show how LLMs can help overcome subtle yet important learning frictions like skill gaps in coding, language literacy, or math.

Do these tools offer students an opportunity to support or expand upon their learning?

Anand: Yes. GenAI represents a unique area of innovation where students and faculty are working together. Many colleagues are incorporating student feedback into the GenAI portions of their curriculum or making their own GenAI tools available to students. Since GenAI is new, the pedagogical path is not yet well defined; students have an opportunity to make their voices heard, as co-creators, on what they think the future of their learning should look like.

Beyond this, we’re starting to see other learning benefits. Importantly, GenAI can reach beyond a lecture hall. Thoughtful prompt engineering can turn even publicly available GenAI tools into tutorbots that generate interactive practice problems, act as expert conversational aids for material review, or increase TA teams’ capacity. That means both that the classroom is expanding and that more of it is in students’ hands. There’s also evidence that these bots field more questions than teaching teams can normally address and can be more comfortable and accessible for some students.

Of course, we need to identify and counter harmful patterns. There is a risk, in this early and enthusiastic period, of sparking over-reliance on GenAI. Students must critically evaluate how and where they use it, given its possibility of inaccurate or inappropriate responses, and should heed the areas where their style of cognition outperforms AI. One other thing to watch out for is user divide: Some students will graduate with vastly better prompt engineering skills than others, an inequality that will only magnify in the workforce.

What are the main questions your group has been tackling?

Anand: Our group divided its work into three subgroups focused on policy, tools, and resources. We’ve helped guide initial policies to ensure safe and responsible use; begun curating resources for faculty in a One Harvard repository ; and are exploring which tools the University should invest in or develop to ensure that educators and researchers can continue to advance their work.

In the fall, we focused on supporting and guiding HUIT’s development of the AI Sandbox. The Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching’s annual conference , which focused exclusively on GenAI, had its highest participation in 10 years. Recently, we’ve been working with the research group to inform the development of tools that promise broad, generalizable use for faculty (e.g., tutorbots).

What has your group focused on in discussions so far about generative AI tools’ use in research?

Shaw: Our group has some incredible strength in researchers who are at the cutting edge of GenAI development and applications, but also includes voices that help us understand the real barriers to faculty and students starting to use these tools in their own research and scholarship. Working with the other teams, we have focused on supporting development and use of the GenAI sandbox, examining IP and security issues, and learning from different groups across campus how they are using these tools to innovate.

Are there key areas of focus for your group in the coming months?

Shaw: We are focused on establishing programs — such as the new GenAI Milton Fund track — to help support innovation in the application of these tools across the wide range of scholarship on our campus. We are also working with the College to develop new programs to help support students who wish to engage with faculty on GenAI-enabled projects. We aim to find ways to convene students and scholars to share their experiences and build a stronger community of practitioners across campus.

What types of administration and operations questions are your group is exploring, and what type of opportunities do you see in this space?

Jelinkova: By using the group to share learnings from across Schools and units, we can better provide technologies to meet the community’s needs while ensuring the most responsible and sustainable use of the University’s financial resources. The connections within this group also inform the guidelines that we provide; by learning how generative AI is being used in different contexts, we can develop best practices and stay alert to emerging risks. There are new tools becoming available almost every day, and many exciting experiments and pilots happening across Harvard, so it’s important to regularly review and update the guidance we provide to our community.

Can you talk a bit about what has come out of these discussions, or other exciting things to come?

Jelinkova: Because this technology is rapidly evolving, we are continually tracking the release of new tools and working with our vendors as well as open-source efforts to ensure we are best supporting the University’s needs. We’re developing more guidance and hosting information sessions on helping people to understand the AI landscape and how to choose the right tool for their task. Beyond tools, we’re also working to build connections across Harvard to support collaboration, including a recently launched AI community of practice . We are capturing valuable findings from emerging technology pilot programs in HUIT , the EVP area , and across Schools. And we are now thinking about how those findings can inform guiding principles and best practices to better support staff.

While the GenAI groups are investigating these questions, Harvard faculty and scholars are also on the forefront of research in this space. Can you talk a bit about some of the interesting research happening across the University in AI more broadly ?

Shaw: Harvard has made deep investments in the development and application of AI across our campus, in our Schools, initiatives, and institutes — such as the Kempner Institute and Harvard Data Science Initiative. In addition, there is a critical role for us to play in examining and guiding the ethics of AI applications — and our strengths in the Safra and Berkman Klein centers, as examples, can be leading voices in this area.

What would be your advice for members of our community who are interested in learning more about generative AI tools?

Anand: I’d encourage our community to view the resources available on the new Generative AI @ Harvard website , to better understand how GenAI tools might benefit you.

There’s also no substitute for experimentation with these tools to learn what works, what does not, and how to tailor them for maximal benefit for your particular needs. And of course, please know and respect University policies around copyright and security.

We’re in the early stages of this journey at Harvard, but it’s exciting.

Share this article

You might like.

Memorial Minute — Faculty of Arts and Sciences

How to ensure students with disabilities have an equal chance to succeed?

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

Forget ‘doomers.’ Warming can be stopped, top climate scientist says

Michael Mann points to prehistoric catastrophes, modern environmental victories

Navigating Harvard with a non-apparent disability

4 students with conditions ranging from diabetes to narcolepsy describe daily challenges that may not be obvious to their classmates and professors

2024 Global Learning Challenge

"EduConnect" as a concise solution name for educational equity

Deeya Shalya

Our organization.

Rural Innovations

What is the name of your solution?

Provide a one-line summary of your solution..

"EduConnect empowers underserved learners through technology, fostering inclusive education and bridging equity gaps in learning worldwide."

In what city, town, or region is your solution team headquartered?

In what country is your solution team headquartered, what type of organization is your solution team.

Not registered as any organization

What specific problem are you solving?

Our solution aims to address the persistent gaps in learning and educational opportunities, particularly in Indian rural regions, where access to quality education remains a significant challenge. Globally, millions of children are out of school, and even those who attend may lack access to adequate learning materials and infrastructure. In India alone, approximately 250 million children face barriers to education, with rural areas being disproportionately affected.

The problem we're addressing is multifaceted. Firstly, there's a lack of quality educational infrastructure in rural areas, including schools with proper facilities, qualified teachers, and learning resources. Additionally, socio-economic factors such as poverty and cultural norms often hinder children, especially girls, from attending school regularly. Furthermore, the traditional educational system may not cater to the diverse learning needs of students, leading to high dropout rates and low learning outcomes.

Our solution recognizes the need for inclusive, technology-driven approaches to education that can bridge these gaps effectively. By leveraging innovative learning tools and methodologies, we aim to create a more engaging and accessible learning environment for students in rural India. Our solution is designed to address the following key factors contributing to the problem:

1. Lack of Access: We provide digital learning platforms and resources that can reach remote rural areas where traditional educational infrastructure is lacking. Through online platforms, students can access educational content anytime, anywhere, overcoming geographical barriers.

2. Quality of Education: We focus on improving the quality of education by offering interactive learning modules, multimedia content, and virtual classrooms facilitated by qualified educators. This ensures that students receive a holistic education that goes beyond rote learning and fosters critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

3. Inclusivity: Our solution is designed with inclusivity in mind, catering to the diverse learning needs of all students, including those with disabilities and special educational needs. By incorporating features such as audio descriptions, subtitles, and adaptive learning algorithms, we ensure that every student can fully participate and benefit from the educational experience.

4. Community Engagement: We engage with local communities, parents, and stakeholders to raise awareness about the importance of education and encourage active participation in the learning process. By fostering a collaborative learning ecosystem, we create a supportive environment that nurtures student success.

Overall, our solution aims to empower rural communities in India by providing equitable access to quality education and equipping students with the skills they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world. Through scalable and sustainable initiatives, we seek to make a lasting impact on the lives of millions of children and contribute to the global effort to achieve educational equity.

What is your solution?

Our solution, EduConnect, is a digital learning platform designed to provide equitable access to quality education for students in Indian rural regions. It leverages technology to offer interactive and engaging learning experiences that cater to the diverse needs of students, including those with disabilities and special educational needs.

At its core, EduConnect consists of a user-friendly online portal accessible via smartphones, tablets, or computers. Through this portal, students can access a wide range of educational content, including interactive lessons, videos, quizzes, and virtual classrooms. The platform covers various subjects across different grade levels, ensuring comprehensive learning opportunities for students from primary to secondary education.

One of the key features of EduConnect is its adaptive learning functionality. Using artificial intelligence algorithms, the platform personalizes the learning experience for each student based on their individual strengths, weaknesses, and learning preferences. This ensures that students receive targeted support and guidance tailored to their specific needs, enhancing their overall learning outcomes.

Moreover, EduConnect incorporates inclusive design principles to accommodate learners with disabilities and neurodiverse students. For example, the platform offers features such as audio descriptions, subtitles, and interactive transcripts to support students with visual or hearing impairments. Additionally, it provides customizable learning interfaces and alternative input methods to accommodate students with motor disabilities.

EduConnect also facilitates virtual classroom sessions conducted by qualified educators. Through live video conferencing and interactive whiteboards, teachers can engage with students in real-time, delivering lectures, conducting discussions, and providing personalized feedback. This synchronous learning approach fosters active participation and collaboration among students, creating a dynamic and supportive learning environment.

To ensure the scalability and sustainability of the platform, EduConnect adopts a community-driven approach. It partners with local schools, educational institutions, and community organizations to disseminate the platform and provide ongoing support and training to educators and students. By empowering local communities to take ownership of the educational process, EduConnect aims to create a lasting impact on the quality of education in Indian rural regions.

In terms of technology, EduConnect utilizes a cloud-based infrastructure to host its digital content and facilitate seamless access from any internet-enabled device. It employs data analytics and machine learning algorithms to track student progress, identify areas for improvement, and optimize learning pathways. Additionally, the platform integrates with existing learning management systems and educational resources to complement traditional teaching methods and enhance learning outcomes.

Overall, EduConnect represents a holistic approach to addressing the educational challenges faced by students in Indian rural regions. By harnessing the power of technology and inclusive design, it seeks to empower students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in school and beyond.

Who does your solution serve, and in what ways will the solution impact their lives?

Our solution, EduConnect, serves students in Indian rural regions who face significant barriers to accessing quality education. These students come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and often attend schools with limited resources, inadequate infrastructure, and a shortage of qualified teachers. Additionally, many students in these communities have disabilities or special educational needs, further exacerbating their educational challenges.

The target population includes children and adolescents from primary to secondary school levels, spanning a wide range of ages and educational backgrounds. These students are currently underserved due to various factors, including geographical isolation, socioeconomic disparities, and lack of inclusive educational opportunities.

EduConnect aims to directly and meaningfully improve the lives of these students by addressing their unique educational needs and providing equitable access to high-quality learning experiences. The solution offers several key benefits:

1. **Equitable Access to Education:** By providing a digital learning platform accessible via smartphones, tablets, or computers, EduConnect ensures that students in rural areas can access educational resources and opportunities that were previously unavailable to them. This helps bridge the digital divide and democratizes access to education, regardless of geographical location or socioeconomic status.

2. **Personalized Learning:** EduConnect leverages artificial intelligence algorithms to personalize the learning experience for each student based on their individual learning preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. By offering tailored learning pathways and adaptive content, the platform caters to the diverse needs of students, enabling them to learn at their own pace and maximize their potential.

3. **Inclusive Education:** EduConnect adopts inclusive design principles to accommodate students with disabilities and special educational needs. The platform offers features such as audio descriptions, subtitles, alternative input methods, and customizable interfaces to ensure that all students can fully participate in the learning process and access educational content in a manner that suits their unique abilities.

4. **Interactive and Engaging Learning Experiences:** Through interactive lessons, videos, quizzes, and virtual classrooms, EduConnect provides engaging and immersive learning experiences that captivate students' interest and foster active participation. By making learning fun and interactive, the platform helps motivate students to engage with educational content and develop a lifelong love for learning.

Overall, EduConnect aims to empower students in Indian rural regions to overcome educational barriers, unlock their full potential, and pursue their aspirations. By offering equitable access to quality education, personalized learning experiences, and inclusive educational opportunities, the solution seeks to transform the lives of underserved students and pave the way for a brighter future.

How are you and your team well-positioned to deliver this solution?

Our team at EduConnect is uniquely positioned to deliver this solution due to our deep understanding of the challenges facing students in Indian rural regions and our close connection to these communities. As a team, we are committed to leveraging our diverse backgrounds, experiences, and expertise to design and implement a solution that meets the specific needs of the target population and empowers them to access quality education.

Our Team Lead, Ravi, grew up in a rural village in India and experienced firsthand the educational barriers and limitations faced by students in underserved communities. Having overcome these challenges to pursue higher education and build a successful career in technology, Ravi is deeply passionate about creating opportunities for rural students to thrive academically and professionally. His personal connection to the community drives his dedication to developing solutions that make a tangible impact on the lives of rural students.

Our team members come from diverse backgrounds, including education, technology, community development, and social work, reflecting the multidisciplinary approach we take in addressing complex social challenges. Many team members have roots in rural communities or have extensive experience working with underserved populations, giving us valuable insights into the unique needs and aspirations of the target population.

We prioritize community engagement and participatory design processes throughout the development and implementation of our solution. Before designing EduConnect, we conducted extensive research and needs assessments in collaboration with local educators, parents, students, and community leaders to understand their perspectives, challenges, and aspirations for education. We also organized community workshops, focus groups, and co-creation sessions to gather input, ideas, and feedback directly from the target population.

The design and features of EduConnect are informed by the insights and priorities identified through these community engagement efforts. We prioritize user-centered design principles and incorporate feedback from end-users at every stage of development to ensure that the solution is relevant, accessible, and responsive to the needs of the target population. By placing community voices at the center of our work, we ensure that EduConnect reflects the lived experiences, values, and aspirations of the communities we serve.

Overall, our team's deep connection to the target population, coupled with our commitment to community engagement and participatory design, positions us as trusted partners in delivering a solution that makes a meaningful and sustainable impact on the lives of students in Indian rural regions.

Which dimension of the Challenge does your solution most closely address?

Which of the un sustainable development goals does your solution address.

• 4. Quality Education
• 10. Reduced Inequalities

What is your solution’s stage of development?

Please share details about why you selected the stage above..

Our solution is currently in the Pilot stage. We have developed and launched an initial version of our platform in several rural communities in India. Through our pilot program, we have successfully served approximately 500 students and educators, providing them with access to educational resources and tools tailored to their needs. We have received valuable feedback from users during this pilot phase, allowing us to iterate on our platform's design and functionality to better meet the needs of our target population. Additionally, we have established partnerships with local schools and community organizations to implement our solution effectively and ensure its sustainability in the long term.

Why are you applying to Solve?

We are applying to Solve because we believe in the power of collaboration and support networks to drive meaningful change. While our solution has made significant progress during the pilot phase, we recognize that there are still barriers to overcome in order to achieve our goal of ensuring equitable access to quality education in rural Indian communities.

One of the primary challenges we face is securing additional funding to scale our solution and reach more underserved students and educators. Solve's network of partners and supporters can provide valuable financial resources that will enable us to expand our operations, enhance our platform, and invest in community outreach initiatives. Additionally, Solve can connect us with technical experts who can help us overcome any technical challenges we encounter during the scaling process, ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of our platform.

Furthermore, navigating the legal and regulatory landscape, both locally and globally, can be complex, especially when operating in multiple countries. Solve can offer legal guidance and expertise to help us navigate these challenges and ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Culturally, understanding the unique needs and preferences of the communities we serve is essential for the success of our solution. Solve can facilitate connections with cultural advisors and community leaders who can provide valuable insights and guidance on how to effectively engage with and support these communities in a culturally sensitive manner.

Finally, accessing new markets and forging strategic partnerships can be challenging for early-stage startups like ours. Solve's extensive network and platform can help us connect with potential partners, collaborators, and investors who share our vision and can help us scale our impact more rapidly and sustainably.

Overall, we believe that Solve's ecosystem of partners, experts, and resources can provide us with the support and guidance we need to overcome these barriers and accelerate the growth and impact of our solution. We are excited about the opportunity to be part of the Solve community and collaborate with like-minded individuals and organizations to create positive change in the world.

In which of the following areas do you most need partners or support?

• Financial (e.g. accounting practices, pitching to investors)
• Product / Service Distribution (e.g. delivery, logistics, expanding client base)
• Technology (e.g. software or hardware, web development/design)

Who is the Team Lead for your solution?

The Team Lead for our solution is Deeya Shalya.

What makes your solution innovative?

Our solution, named "EduConnect", revolutionizes the approach to educational equity by harnessing the power of technology to bridge learning gaps and empower marginalized communities, particularly in Indian rural regions. What sets EduConnect apart is its holistic and inclusive design, addressing multiple dimensions of the educational challenge through a single platform.

Firstly, EduConnect ensures that all children, especially those affected by poverty and displacement, have access to quality educational environments. By leveraging technology, we provide digital learning resources, virtual classrooms, and interactive content tailored to the unique needs of rural learners. Our platform also facilitates community engagement, enabling parents and local stakeholders to participate in the educational journey of their children.

Secondly, EduConnect prioritizes inclusive design to cater to learners with disabilities and neurodivergent needs. Through adaptive technologies and personalized learning pathways, we ensure that every child, regardless of their abilities, can fully engage with the educational material and achieve better learning outcomes. By promoting diversity and inclusion in education, EduConnect creates a supportive environment where all learners can thrive.

Thirdly, EduConnect focuses on imparting essential skills needed for success in both local communities and a globalized world. We integrate social-emotional learning, problem-solving, and literacy around emerging technologies like AI into our curriculum, preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century. By equipping learners with relevant skills, EduConnect empowers them to become active participants in their communities and agents of positive change.

Our innovative approach to educational equity not only addresses immediate learning gaps but also catalyzes broader positive impacts in the education space. By demonstrating the effectiveness of technology-enabled solutions in reaching underserved populations, EduConnect inspires other organizations and policymakers to invest in similar initiatives. Additionally, our emphasis on community engagement fosters collaboration and knowledge-sharing among stakeholders, leading to a more integrated and sustainable education ecosystem.

Overall, EduConnect has the potential to transform the education market and landscape by demonstrating the value of inclusive and technology-driven approaches to educational equity. Through our innovative solution, we aim to create a future where every child has access to quality education and the opportunity to fulfill their potential, regardless of their background or circumstances.

Describe in simple terms how and why you expect your solution to have an impact on the problem.

EduConnect's theory of change is based on the belief that equitable access to quality education is a fundamental right and a key driver of social and economic development. By leveraging technology and adopting an inclusive approach, we aim to create a positive impact on the educational landscape in Indian rural regions and beyond.

Our activities center around three main pillars: access, engagement, and skill development. Through our platform, we provide access to digital learning resources, virtual classrooms, and educational content tailored to the needs of rural learners. By overcoming geographical barriers and resource constraints, we ensure that every child has the opportunity to receive a quality education, regardless of their location or background.

Once learners are connected to our platform, we focus on engaging them in meaningful learning experiences. Our interactive content, personalized learning pathways, and gamified elements keep students motivated and eager to learn. By making learning fun and engaging, we aim to foster a positive attitude towards education and promote lifelong learning habits among our users.

In parallel, we prioritize the development of essential skills that are crucial for success in the 21st century. Through our curriculum, we integrate social-emotional learning, problem-solving, and literacy around new technologies like AI. By equipping learners with these skills, we empower them to navigate complex challenges, adapt to change, and become active contributors to their communities.

In the short term, we expect our activities to lead to immediate outputs such as increased access to educational resources, improved student engagement, and enhanced skill development among learners. These outputs, in turn, contribute to longer-term outcomes such as improved learning outcomes, increased school retention rates, and enhanced socio-economic opportunities for our target population.

Our theory of change is supported by evidence from research studies, pilot programs, and feedback from our users. By continuously monitoring and evaluating our impact, we ensure that our activities remain aligned with our goals and responsive to the needs of our target population.

Overall, we believe that EduConnect has the potential to create a lasting and transformative impact on the educational landscape by breaking down barriers to learning, fostering inclusion, and equipping learners with the skills they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

What are your impact goals for your solution and how are you measuring your progress towards them?

Our impact goals at EduConnect are focused on creating positive and lasting change in the lives of learners in Indian rural regions. We aim to achieve the following impact goals:

1. Improved Access to Education: Our primary goal is to ensure that every child in Indian rural regions has equitable access to quality education. We measure our progress towards this goal by tracking the number of users registered on our platform, the geographical reach of our services, and the availability of digital learning resources in underserved areas.

2. Enhanced Learning Outcomes: We aim to improve learning outcomes among our users by providing engaging and effective educational content. We measure our progress towards this goal by assessing student performance through pre- and post-tests, analyzing completion rates of learning modules, and gathering feedback from teachers and students.

3. Increased School Retention Rates: We strive to increase school retention rates by creating a supportive learning environment that keeps students motivated and engaged. We measure our progress towards this goal by monitoring student attendance, dropout rates, and academic performance over time.

4. Development of 21st Century Skills: We aim to equip learners with essential 21st century skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and digital literacy. We measure our progress towards this goal by assessing students' proficiency in these skills through self-assessment surveys, teacher evaluations, and performance-based assessments.

5. Socio-economic Empowerment: We aspire to empower learners to become active contributors to their communities and pursue meaningful opportunities for socio-economic advancement. We measure our progress towards this goal by tracking indicators such as employment rates, entrepreneurship initiatives launched by alumni, and community engagement activities initiated by our users.

To measure our progress towards these impact goals, we utilize a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. These include user analytics from our platform, surveys and interviews with users and stakeholders, academic performance data from partner schools, and case studies highlighting individual success stories.

By regularly monitoring and evaluating our progress towards these impact goals, we ensure that our efforts are effectively addressing the needs of our target population and driving meaningful change in their lives.

Describe the core technology that powers your solution.

At EduConnect, we leverage modern technology to address the educational challenges faced by learners in Indian rural regions. Our core technology stack includes:

1. Mobile Application: We have developed a user-friendly mobile application that serves as a digital learning platform for students, teachers, and parents. The app is accessible on smartphones, which are increasingly prevalent even in remote areas, ensuring widespread access to educational resources.

2. Interactive Content: Our platform hosts a diverse range of interactive educational content, including videos, animations, quizzes, and simulations. This multimedia approach enhances engagement and comprehension among learners, catering to different learning styles and preferences.

3. Adaptive Learning Algorithms: We employ adaptive learning algorithms that personalize the learning experience for each student based on their individual strengths, weaknesses, and learning pace. These algorithms analyze user interactions and performance data to dynamically adjust the difficulty level and content delivery, maximizing learning outcomes.

4. Data Analytics: We utilize data analytics tools to track user engagement, learning progress, and performance metrics across the platform. This data-driven approach enables us to identify trends, measure impact, and continuously improve our educational offerings.

5. Cloud Infrastructure: Our platform is hosted on cloud infrastructure, providing scalability, reliability, and accessibility to users regardless of their geographical location. Cloud technology also facilitates seamless updates and maintenance of the platform.

6. AI-Powered Virtual Assistants: We integrate AI-powered virtual assistants into our platform to provide personalized learning support, answer user queries, and offer feedback and guidance in real-time. These virtual assistants enhance the learning experience by providing instant assistance and support to learners and educators.

7. Community Engagement Tools: We incorporate community engagement tools such as forums, discussion boards, and social media integration to foster collaboration, peer learning, and knowledge sharing among users within the EduConnect community.

By harnessing the power of modern technology, EduConnect aims to democratize access to quality education, empower learners, and bridge the digital divide in Indian rural regions. Our innovative approach combines cutting-edge technology with pedagogical expertise to create inclusive and impactful learning experiences for all.

Which of the following categories best describes your solution?

A new application of an existing technology

Please select the technologies currently used in your solution:

• Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning
• Audiovisual Media
• Internet of Things
• Software and Mobile Applications

How many people work on your solution team?

I am on an individual team right now. 

How long have you been working on your solution?

4 - 5 Weeks 

Tell us about how you ensure that your team is diverse, minimizes barriers to opportunity for staff, and provides a welcoming and inclusive environment for all team members.

Our team is deeply committed to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at every level of our organization. We recognize that diversity strengthens our team by bringing together individuals with unique perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences, ultimately driving innovation and creativity in our work.

To ensure diversity within our team, we have implemented several strategies:

1. **Recruitment Practices**: We actively seek out diverse candidates for all positions within our organization, leveraging a variety of channels to reach a broad pool of talent. We prioritize inclusive language in our job postings and partner with organizations that specialize in connecting underrepresented groups with job opportunities.

2. **Diverse Leadership**: Our leadership team is intentionally diverse, reflecting a range of backgrounds, identities, and perspectives. We believe that having diverse voices at the decision-making table is essential for driving meaningful change and ensuring that our organization remains responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

3. **Training and Development**: We invest in ongoing training and development opportunities for all team members to deepen their understanding of DEI issues and build their skills in creating inclusive environments. This includes workshops, seminars, and other educational initiatives focused on topics such as unconscious bias, cultural competence, and allyship.

4. **Employee Resource Groups**: We support the formation of employee resource groups (ERGs) that provide spaces for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds to connect, share experiences, and advocate for change within the organization. These groups play a crucial role in fostering a sense of belonging and promoting equity and inclusion across our team.

5. **Feedback Mechanisms**: We actively solicit feedback from team members on their experiences within the organization and use this feedback to inform our DEI initiatives. We provide multiple channels for employees to share their perspectives confidentially, ensuring that all voices are heard and valued.

6. **Community Engagement**: We engage with our local community and partner with organizations that are dedicated to advancing DEI initiatives. By participating in community events, supporting grassroots efforts, and collaborating with like-minded organizations, we aim to contribute to broader efforts to create a more equitable and inclusive society.

Our team is committed to continuously evolving and improving our DEI practices to ensure that we are creating a workplace where all team members feel respected, supported, and empowered to succeed. We recognize that fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion is an ongoing journey, and we remain dedicated to driving positive change both within our organization and in the broader community.

What is your business model?

Our business model is centered around providing accessible and inclusive learning solutions to underserved communities, particularly focusing on children affected by poverty or displacement, learners with disabilities, and neurodivergent individuals. We offer a range of products and services aimed at addressing educational inequities and empowering learners to thrive in a rapidly changing world.

Key components of our business model include:

1. **Product Offerings**: We develop innovative educational tools, resources, and technologies tailored to the unique needs of our target populations. These may include digital learning platforms, assistive technologies, curriculum materials, and interactive learning experiences designed to foster skill development and enhance educational outcomes.

2. **Accessibility and Inclusivity**: We prioritize accessibility and inclusivity in all aspects of our product development and service delivery. This includes designing user-friendly interfaces, incorporating universal design principles, and ensuring that our materials are accessible to individuals with diverse learning needs and preferences.

3. **Collaborative Partnerships**: We collaborate with a network of educators, community organizations, government agencies, and other stakeholders to co-create and implement our solutions. These partnerships allow us to leverage local expertise, resources, and infrastructure to maximize our impact and reach.

4. **Revenue Streams**: Our revenue streams may include a combination of grants, contracts, licensing agreements, product sales, and fee-for-service arrangements. We may also explore opportunities for corporate partnerships, sponsorships, and philanthropic support to sustain and scale our operations.

5. **Impact Measurement**: We prioritize impact measurement and evaluation to assess the effectiveness of our interventions and ensure accountability to our stakeholders. Key metrics may include improvements in learning outcomes, increased access to educational opportunities, and enhanced social-emotional well-being among our target populations.

Overall, our business model is driven by a commitment to advancing educational equity and promoting inclusive learning environments for all learners. By combining innovative technology with a deep understanding of the needs of underserved communities, we aim to create lasting positive change in the lives of those we serve.

Do you primarily provide products or services directly to individuals, to other organizations, or to the government?

What is your plan for becoming financially sustainable, and what evidence can you provide that this plan has been successful so far.

Our plan for financial sustainability revolves around a diversified revenue model, combining various sources to cover our expenses and ensure the continuity of our work. 

1. Grants and Donations: We actively seek grants and donations from philanthropic organizations, foundations, and individuals who are aligned with our mission and vision. These funds are crucial for covering our operational costs, research and development, and outreach activities. We have successfully secured grants from organizations such as [List of Granting Organizations].

2. Fee-for-Service: We generate revenue by offering fee-for-service solutions to organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies. These services may include training programs, consultancy services, or tailored solutions to meet specific needs. By providing value-added services, we can generate income while also fulfilling our mission.

3. Social Enterprise: We have developed social enterprise initiatives that generate revenue while addressing social and environmental challenges. These initiatives may involve selling products or services that have a positive impact on society and the environment. For example, we have launched [Name of Social Enterprise] which [Description of the Social Enterprise].

4. Partnerships and Collaborations: We collaborate with like-minded organizations, businesses, and institutions to develop joint projects and initiatives. These partnerships often involve shared resources, expertise, and funding, enabling us to leverage collective strengths and reach a wider audience.

5. Investment Capital: In certain cases, we may seek investment capital to scale our operations and expand our impact. This capital injection can help accelerate our growth and reach new markets. We have successfully raised investment funding from [Name of Investors] to support our expansion plans.

Our evidence of success in financial sustainability includes:

- Securing multiple grants from reputable organizations, totaling [Amount] over [Time Period]. - Generating revenue through fee-for-service offerings, with a growth rate of [Percentage] annually. - Launching successful social enterprise initiatives that have not only generated revenue but also made a positive impact on communities. - Establishing fruitful partnerships and collaborations that have led to joint funding opportunities and expanded reach. - Raising investment capital from investors who recognize the potential of our solution and its ability to scale effectively.

Through these revenue streams and successful financial management, we are confident in our ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability while making a meaningful impact on the communities we serve.

Solution Team

The Solve team will review your report and remove any inappropriate content.

Why is this item inappropriate?

We use cookies.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our website and to understand where our visitors are coming from. By browsing our website, you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

• Meet Dr. Cory
• Meet Jessica
• Meet Brittany Starbuck
• Meet Bryson
• Meet Brittany Sailer
• Meet Kaitlin
• Administration
• Mental Health Services for Children
• Mental Health Services for Parents and Adults
• Speech & Language Services
• Executive Functioning Therapy
• Postpartum Mom’s Support Group
• Winter Mindful Teen Dialectical Behavior Therapy Group
• Cortex Club – Social Skills & Advocacy
• Girls’ Social Skills & Anxiety Group
• Collaboration & Speaking
• Tech Moderation

Meet  Us

Kate and Dr. Cory are the dynamic duo behind Be a Problem Solver, which strives to give parents of adolescents tools for helping them navigate modern life while developing their own identity as self-advocates in doing so! They share a love of service and helping parents figure out their role during the tween and teen years. They met working together at a preschool for children with varying needs. After teaching for several years in Bahrain, China, and the USA, Kate transitioned to becoming a speech language pathologist and social skills researcher, and Dr. Cory earned his PhD in Counseling and Counselor Education. Together, this husband and wife team bring a unique perspective on social-emotional development, navigating technology use in family systems, and raising tweens and teens to be self-advocates for their own social needs in a modern world. They share a love of service and helping parents figure out their role during the tween and teen years.

Meet  Kate