Collaborative Problem Solving Model Research Articles

Linear Motion Materials on Authentic Learning in Collaborative Problem-Solving Model: Validity Aspects

The collaborative problem-solving model has advantages in providing facilities for individuals to work effectively in a group and apply their problem-solving skills in various situations and conditions. Problem-solving and collaboration skills are needed in the physics learning process, yet a lack of authentic learning-based resources and inappropriate learning models causes students to struggle to grasp the subject and solve issues collaboratively. The study aims to describe the theoretical validity of the development product in the form of authentic learning-based linear motion teaching materials using a collaborative problem-solving model. The Research and Development model used is ASSURE. The data was obtained through the validation sheet of teaching materials assessed by three validators. The validation findings indicate that the generated instructional materials are very valid, with an average score of 3.55. Thus, it is concluded that the linear motion teaching material based on authentic learning using a collaborative problem-solving model can be tested in the learning process. Thus, the developed teaching materials can be tried out in classroom learning and used as a learning resource for students to solve problems collaboratively.

Using the Collaborative Problem-Solving Model: Findings from an Evaluation of U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Academy

The U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS) Model represents a systematic, community-based approach for bringing together various stakeholders to develop solutions to address local EJ and public health concerns. This mixed methods evaluation study, using a two-phase explanatory sequential design that allows for qualitative data to build upon initial quantitative results, reports findings from an evaluation of the U.S. EPA’s EJ Academy (EJA) program that was comprised of a curriculum grounded in the CPS Model and designed to build capacity in addressing EJ concerns. As a part of participation, each EJA Fellow directly applied learned skills to implement an EJ community change project. All Fellows across four cohorts of the EJA (2016–2019; n = 67) were invited to participate in this evaluation and were asked to complete a questionnaire (n = 35) comprised of measures to assess the degree to which CPS Model elements were utilized in the design and implementation of their community projects. Interviews were conducted (n = 25) to further explore the utility of the CPS Model in building capacity to address local environmental challenges. In an assessment of the full CPS Model using all seven elements in a composite measure, more than half of the EJA Fellows (n = 19, 55.9%) had moderate levels of implementation of CPS elements and 17% (n = 6) had high levels of implementation into their projects. Evaluation findings provide insight into the impact and limitations of the EJA with implications for future program planning and distribution of the Academy curriculum to assist communities in addressing EJ concerns and making environmental change.

Individual patterns of problems with participation, activity, body function and environment in everyday life for children who completed brain tumor treatment

Purpose The study purpose was to, with the help of ICF and the CPS model, describe and explain patterns of co-occurring problems with participation in everyday life activities, body functioning and environment for children who completed brain tumor treatment. Materials and methods Hospital, habilitation and school records for nine children (5–11 yrs.) diagnosed with brain tumor, were retrospectively reviewed for everyday problems after treatment completion. These problems were linked to ICF codes. Median code distribution within ICF constructs participation, body function, body structure, activity, and environment were calculated to generate typical (close to median) and atypical (distant from median) patterns of problems on individual and group levels. Two children were in-depth analyzed with collaborative problem-solving (CPS) model to identify participation problems and plausible explanations. Results In total, 4543 ICF linked codes revealed similarities and differences between individuals. The selected child-cases displayed educational challenges and peer-relational problems. The ICF codes related to activity, body function and environment revealed plausible explanations for the children’s documented problems with participation in everyday life. Conclusions The combination of ICF and CPS can provide a comprehensive view of the child’s problems and guide development of participation in everyday life-focused interventions for children treated for brain tumors. Implications for rehabilitation Care should be guided by interventions and support directed at individual children and their everyday life. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework can support identification of the individual child’s patterns of problems and how these affects the child’s everyday life. It is recommended to start by identifying participation problems when using ICF to identify and describe problems in children’s natural settings. The collaborative problem-solving model can guide healthcare, habilitation and school services when identifying and acting on typical and atypical problem patterns experienced by these children.

The effect of collaborative problem solving & collaborative project-based learning models to improve the project competences of pre-service teachers

Project competence has become a new trend in the context of current learning outcomes, as it solves most of the complex problems done by team-based projects. Project competencies are complex and very interesting objects to implement from various perspectives, one of which is through the application of the Collaborative Problem Solving (CoLPS) and Collaborative Project-Based Learning (CPBL) model. This study is focused on examining the effect of the CoLPS and CPBL models in improving student project competencies. The research method used a quasi-experimental design and was carried out on 65 student-teacher candidates in the Department of Islamic Religious Education, Raden Rahmat Islamic University Malang, 2020/2021 academic year. The research subjects were divided into two groups, the experimental group (34) and the control group (31). The experimental group was taught with the CoLPS model and the control group was taught with the CPBL model. The data used a product performance assessment instrument and were analyzed using the independent sample t-test technique. The results of the analysis show that the CoLPS model is very effective in improving student project competencies. Students taught with the CoLPS model have better product quality than students taught with the CPBL model. The results of the observations regarding the effectiveness of the two models are also discussed.

How education can help shape a new story in a post-pandemic world.

Globally, nations are grappling with massive social and economic disruptions and the disparities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The world is in the middle of a wicked problem—one so complex that it is difficult to find a solution. The “Story Model” was developed as a transdisciplinary curriculum model and a collaborative problem-solving model for K to 16. The model can address wicked problems in ways that traditional problem-solving procedures cannot because it allows for messiness, multilayered complexity, and a big picture perspective. With a deeper understanding of the interdependent and interconnected patterns occurring both locally and globally, educators and students alike can contribute actively to shaping a new story that reflects their values, beliefs, and actions.

Penerapan Pembelajaran Collaborative Problem Solving untuk Meningkatkan Self-Concept Mahasiswa

The focus of this research is to comprehensively analyze the differences in self concept improvement of Primary School teacher candidates in terms of early mathematical ability (KAM). This difference analysis is facilitated using collaborative problem solving (CPS) model, with Quasi Experimental research method and designed with Nonequivalent Pretest-Posttest Control Group type. The study sample involved 60 PGSD students in academic year 2016/2017. Identified through the results of the study that there is a difference in the increase of self-concept of student statistics, where the group of students who get the lectures with the CPS model get a higher increase than the group of students using expository learning (EPS), both whole students and based on the level of early mathematical ability (KAM) . This improvement difference is due to the effective use of CPS model. Collaborate in static lectures can improve student's positive self concept because in the transformation process there is an exchange of creative ideas among students.

Collaborative consultation to promote inclusion: voices from the classroom

The role of Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB), established under the policy initiatives outlined in Special Education 2000 [Ministry of Education 1996. Special Education 2000. Wellington: Learning Media], is to assist schools and teachers in developing and maintaining inclusive classrooms and schools through a collaborative problem-solving model of service delivery. This paper reports on research describing the responses of 14 teachers to their experiences of working with the RTLB through a collaborative problem-solving process to assist their students with special needs. The research was part of a larger study which examined in detail the practice of six experienced RTLB and the viability of the collaborative problem-solving model in New Zealand. The results of this part of the study indicated a high level of teacher acceptance of, and satisfaction with, the collaborative support and guidance provided by the RTLB to assist them in developing inclusionary practices. This paper outlines the factors, identified by the teachers, which facilitated the adaptations and interventions required of them to support the successful inclusion of students identified as having special needs.

Letter

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article LetterFull AccessLetterBrendon Stubbs B.Sc., P.G.Dip.Brendon Stubbs B.Sc., P.G.Dip.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Mar 2009https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2009.60.3.406AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Physical Injuries From Restrictive InterventionsTo the Editor: The findings of the study by Martin and colleagues ( 1 ) in the December 2008 issue—that use of restrictive interventions can be reduced through a collaborative problem-solving model—are both interesting and exciting. Steps taken to decrease the use of such interventions are to be welcomed and should be reinforced on an international scale. It is unlikely, however, that such interventions will be completely eradicated from psychiatric services. Therefore, debate and discussion on ways to reduce the risks of such interventions are important. One reason for reducing the use of restrictive interventions is that the evidence base for their safety and effectiveness is distinctly lacking ( 1 ). In addition, individuals who apply the interventions and those to whom they are applied may experience many adverse psychological consequences ( 2 ). Patients may view the interventions as unwarranted and as punishment for their actions ( 2 ). They may also report that such interventions cause pain, which all care providers should seek to avoid. Staff may experience anger and anxiety, and in some cases staff may reawaken memories of their own untoward experiences ( 2 ). More recently, researchers have explored the physical consequences that such interventions may have for both parties. Clearly, the most serious physical consequence is death, and Martin and colleagues describe such cases in the United States. Another obvious consequence is injury to both staff and patients. Research on this important topic is limited, but one U.K. study of a medium-secure unit published in 2003 found that nearly one in five incidents of physical restraint resulted in injury to staff or patients ( 3 ). Two more recent studies found that the prevalence of such injuries was considerably lower ( 4 , 5 ), even though the patients in these studies, older adults and persons with acquired brain injury, respectively, typically have a far more complex physical presentation than seen on a general adult medium-secure ward. These studies found that employing a physical therapist who screened all patients for physical ailments that would increase the likelihood of injury or pain was central to reducing patients' injuries. If any ailments or restrictions on activity were identified, the physical therapist worked with the hospital's physical restraint tutor on adopting pain-free techniques. Restrictive measures must be used with caution when they involve children and adolescents because in most cases their musculoskeletal systems are immature, which elevates the risk of injury. Individuals who apply such interventions in populations at risk of pain and injury might consider involving a physical therapist to reduce risk.In summary, all staff should seek to reduce the use of restrictive interventions for the good of both patients and staff. Employing a physical therapist to screen patients is one way to reduce the risk of pain and injury. My U.S. colleagues might consider taking this approach.Mr. Stubbs is clinical specialist and lead physiotherapist at St. Andrews Healthcare, Northampton, United Kingdom.

Physical Injuries From Restrictive Interventions

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article LetterFull AccessLetterBrendon Stubbs B.Sc., P.G.Dip.Brendon Stubbs B.Sc., P.G.Dip.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Mar 2009https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2009.60.3.406AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail Physical Injuries From Restrictive InterventionsTo the Editor: The findings of the study by Martin and colleagues ( 1 ) in the December 2008 issue—that use of restrictive interventions can be reduced through a collaborative problem-solving model—are both interesting and exciting. Steps taken to decrease the use of such interventions are to be welcomed and should be reinforced on an international scale. It is unlikely, however, that such interventions will be completely eradicated from psychiatric services. Therefore, debate and discussion on ways to reduce the risks of such interventions are important. One reason for reducing the use of restrictive interventions is that the evidence base for their safety and effectiveness is distinctly lacking ( 1 ). In addition, individuals who apply the interventions and those to whom they are applied may experience many adverse psychological consequences ( 2 ). Patients may view the interventions as unwarranted and as punishment for their actions ( 2 ). They may also report that such interventions cause pain, which all care providers should seek to avoid. Staff may experience anger and anxiety, and in some cases staff may reawaken memories of their own untoward experiences ( 2 ). More recently, researchers have explored the physical consequences that such interventions may have for both parties. Clearly, the most serious physical consequence is death, and Martin and colleagues describe such cases in the United States. Another obvious consequence is injury to both staff and patients. Research on this important topic is limited, but one U.K. study of a medium-secure unit published in 2003 found that nearly one in five incidents of physical restraint resulted in injury to staff or patients ( 3 ). Two more recent studies found that the prevalence of such injuries was considerably lower ( 4 , 5 ), even though the patients in these studies, older adults and persons with acquired brain injury, respectively, typically have a far more complex physical presentation than seen on a general adult medium-secure ward. These studies found that employing a physical therapist who screened all patients for physical ailments that would increase the likelihood of injury or pain was central to reducing patients' injuries. If any ailments or restrictions on activity were identified, the physical therapist worked with the hospital's physical restraint tutor on adopting pain-free techniques. Restrictive measures must be used with caution when they involve children and adolescents because in most cases their musculoskeletal systems are immature, which elevates the risk of injury. Individuals who apply such interventions in populations at risk of pain and injury might consider involving a physical therapist to reduce risk.In summary, all staff should seek to reduce the use of restrictive interventions for the good of both patients and staff. Employing a physical therapist to screen patients is one way to reduce the risk of pain and injury. My U.S. colleagues might consider taking this approach.Mr. Stubbs is clinical specialist and lead physiotherapist at St. Andrews Healthcare, Northampton, United Kingdom.

Reduction of Restraint and Seclusion Through Collaborative Problem Solving: A Five-Year Prospective Inpatient Study

This study examined usage patterns of restraint and seclusion before and after the implementation of collaborative problem solving (CPS), a manualized therapeutic program for working with aggressive children and adolescents. The clinical setting was a 15-bed psychiatric inpatient unit for school-age children. A total of 755 children were hospitalized for a total of 998 admissions from fiscal years 2003 to 2007 (median age=11 years; 64% boys). Data were collected for three years before and 1.5 years after the six-month implementation of the CPS model of care. There were 559 restraint and 1,671 seclusion events during the study period. After implementation of the CPS model there was a reduction in the use of restraints (from 263 events to seven events per year, representing a 37.6-fold reduction, slope [beta]=-.696) and seclusion (from 432 to 133 events per year, representing a 3.2-fold reduction, beta=-.423). The mean duration of restraints decreased from 41+/-8 to 18+/-20 minutes per episode, yielding cumulative unitwide restraint use that dropped from 16+/-10 to .3+/-.5 hours per month (a 45.5-fold reduction, beta=-.674). The mean duration of seclusion decreased from 27+/-5 to 21+/-5 minutes per episode, yielding cumulative unitwide seclusion use that dropped from 15+/-6 to 7+/-6 hours per month (a 2.2-fold reduction; p for trend .01 or better for all slopes). During the early phases of implementation there was a transient increase in staff injuries through patient assaults. CPS is a promising approach to reduce seclusion and restraint use in a child psychiatric inpatient setting. Future research and replication efforts are warranted to test its effectiveness in other restrictive settings.

Use of EPA Collaborative Problem-Solving Model to Obtain Environmental Justice in North Carolina

The West End Revitalization Association (WERA), a community-based organization (CBO) in Mebane, North Carolina, was awarded a Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS) grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Justice (EPA OEJ). The purpose of this paper is to highlight WERA's efforts to bring stakeholders in three low-income African-American communities where environmental hazards created public health risks together for collaboration rather than litigation. WERA's board and staff organized nine working groups with specific areas of expertise that would facilitate research, identify lack of basic amenities, and encourage funding for corrective action and participation in progress reporting workshops. WERA used consensus building, dispute resolution, and resource mobilization as part of the CPS model to address noncompliance with environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Solid Waste Disposal Act. WERA's CPS "Right to Basic Amenities" project produced a framework for (1) grassroots management and ownership of a collaborative problem-solving process; (2) bringing stakeholders together with diverse and conflicting viewpoints; (3) implementation of an innovative community-owned and managed (COMR) research model; and (4) leveraging millions of dollars to fund installation of first-time municipal water/sewer services, street paving, and relocation of the 119-bypass to advance environmental health solutions. The structure and successes of WERA's Right to Basic Amenities project have been discussed at demonstration and training sessions to help others replicate the model in comparable low-income communities of color in North Carolina and across the United States.

Podcast Interview Transcript

Podcast Interview Transcript Christopher Heaney, Sacoby Wilson, and Omega Wilson In each volume of Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, the editors select one article for our Beyond the Manuscript podcast interview with the authors. Beyond the Manuscript provides authors with the opportunity to tell listeners what they would want to know about the project beyond what went into the final manuscript. Beyond the Manuscript podcasts are available for download on the journal's website (www.press-dev.jhu.edu/ journals/ progress_ in_ community_ health _partnerships/ multimedia.html). This Beyond the Manuscript podcast is with Christopher Heaney of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health and lead author of the "West End Revitalization Association's Community Owned and Managed Research Model: Development, Implementation, and Action"; Sacoby Wilson of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and lead author of "Use of EPA Collaborative Problem-Solving Model to Obtain Environmental Justice in North Carolina"; and Omega Wilson, president of the West End Revitalization Association, which services residents, homeowners and landowners of five African American communities in Alamance County and Orange County, North Carolina. Clara Goldberg-Freeman, a PCHP editorial fellow conducted the interview. The following is an edited transcript of the Beyond the Manuscript podcast. Goldberg-Freeman: Thank you for taking the time to talk with us. I hope our audience shares our enthusiasm in finding out more about your project. I am particularly interested in the various issues raised in your manuscripts, and I hope we can cover most of the issues they raise. Omega can you give a brief description of your project that includes a brief background about WERA, the West End Revitalization Association, and the path that led to the development of the Community Owned and Managed Research Model, or the COMR model. Omega Wilson: Our organizational history started in1994, when community residents became aware that a major highway corridor was planned through two African American communities in Mebane NC, in and just outside of Mebane. The residents had no knowledge and it had been planned for close to 15 years or more, according to some accounts. That plan was going to eliminate homes, churches, and in some cases cemeteries that dated all the way back to slavery time. Trying to get some handle on how to address it was the part of it that created the organization and created the COMR model as a result of it. We were looking for ways to address the issue. We filed a complaint with the US Department of Justice on the question of the construction of the 119-Bypass Highway. Talking to deputy justices, they made it clear to us that we had – in this process that was planned – the highway was planned with federal monies – the community residents were denied their rights to basic amenities, a whole lot more than just the structural path of the highway. Of course we had to prove it. Local, county, and city officials wanted us to prove that they were violating our rights and there was discrimination involved. [End Page 351] We first got involved with some university officials, professors and researchers, who had a conflict of interest because some of them were directly involved in planning the industrial growth that planned along the highway corridor. We had to dismiss that relationship, which was very difficult to do. We needed legal assistance to do it. So out of necessity, came our developing and designing our own way of developing research, our own way of collecting data. As EPA officials call it, ground-truthing, because we found people who we had trusted originally, were in fact compromising what we were doing, very credible PhDs and sometimes legal people. So that's what brought us to the need to develop the community owned and managed research model. Goldberg-Freeman: Chris, can you continue with this discussion and expand on how the COMR model is different from a traditional community-based participatory research model? Chris Heaney: Like Omega said, he had been involved with other researchers at major universities in the triangle. They had conflicts of interest. They were coming to the community with an agenda of their own...