The analysis of results from the problem-solving assessment shows that, on average across OECD countries, about one in five students is only able to solve very straightforward problems – if any – provided they refer to familiar situations, such as choosing from a catalogue of furniture, showing different brands and prices, the cheapest models to furnish a room (Level 1 tasks). In six partner countries, fewer than half the students are able to perform beyond this baseline level of problem-solving proficiency. In contrast, in Korea, Japan, Macao-China and Singapore, more than nine out of ten students can complete tasks at Level 2 at least. These countries/economies are close to the goal of giving each student the basic tools needed to meet the challenges that arise in daily life.
As in other assessment areas, there are wide differences between countries in the ability of 15-year-olds to fully engage with and solve non-routine problems in real-life contexts. Over 160 score points separate the mean performance of the best- and lowest-performing countries – the equivalent of between two and three proficiency levels (on a scale going from “below Level 1” to “Level 6 and above”). In the best-performing countries – Singapore and Korea – 15-year-old students, on average, are able to engage with moderately complex situations in a systematic way. For example, they can troubleshoot an unfamiliar device that is malfunctioning: they grasp the links among the elements of the problem situation, they can plan a few steps ahead and adjust their plans in light of feedback, and they can form a hypothesis about why a device is malfunctioning and describe how to test it (Level 4 tasks). By contrast, in the lowest-performing countries, students, on average, are only able to solve very simple problems that do not require to think ahead and that are cast in familiar settings, such as determining which solution, among a limited set of alternatives, best meets a single constraint by using a “trial-and-error” strategy (Level 1 tasks). Mean performance differences between countries, however, represent only a fraction of overall variation in student performance. Within countries, about 245 score points (or four proficiency levels), on average, separate the highest-performing 10% of students from the lowest-performing 10% of students. Thus, even within the best-performing countries, significant numbers of 15-year-olds do not possess the basic problem-solving skills considered necessary to succeed in today’s world, such as the ability to think just one step ahead or to engage with unfamiliar problem situations.
But how can teachers and schools foster students’ competence in solving problems across domains? Research shows that training problem-solving skills out of context is not the solution (Box V.5.3). One promising approach is to encourage teachers and students to reflect on solution strategies when dealing with subject-specific problems in the classroom. This metacognitive reflection might support students’ own reflection, and expand their repertoire of generic principles applicable to different contexts (Box V.5.4). In addition, such strategies can be applied within all areas of instruction – from reading and mathematics to biology, history, and the visual arts (Box V.5.5). Students who recognise, for instance, a systematic exploration strategy when it occurs in history or science class may use it with more ease when confronted with unfamiliar problems. When teachers ask students to describe the steps they took to solve a problem, they encourage students’ metacognition, which, in turn, improves general problem-solving skills.
The open consultation leading to the formulation of the 21st Century Skills Curriculum in Alberta proves that problem-solving skills are valued by the economy and society at large. It also shows how curriculum reforms can provide opportunities to involve stakeholders – including parents, employers, and students themselves – in education, so that learning becomes a common goal and a shared responsibility.
Box V.5.4. What is metacognitive instruction?
An important component of the problem-solving skill of students is the ability to monitor and regulate their own thinking and learning. Metacognition – thinking about and regulating thinking – is the “engine” that starts, regulates and evaluates the cognitive processes. The learning environments with the greatest potential to enhance these processes are those centred on metacognitive teaching methods.
Various models have been developed to help students regulate their behaviour during learning, in all kinds of disciplines. In general, metacognitive instruction relies on teachers’ ability to help students become aware and consciously reflect on their own thought. It is characterised by frequent questioning by teachers or self- questioning by students themselves (“Have I solved problems like this before? Am I on the right track? What information do I need?”). This questioning may take place in classroom dialogue and “thinking aloud” sequences that make the reasoning explicit and model the solution strategies of other students. Metacognitive instruction can be successfully embedded in co-operative learning settings, where students work in small groups with assigned roles.
The problems or inquiries that students work on must have room enough to allow students not only to learn routine procedures that are useful for their solution, but also to practice the questioning and dialogue and to experience some struggle before the goal is reached. In metacognitive instruction, students often work on challenging tasks that require them to think for an extended time. Such tasks also offer many opportunities for teachers to help students learn from their mistakes.
By focusing attention on learning as a process, metacognitive instruction further conveys the message that success comes from hard work; it therefore positively influences dispositions towards learning across the ability spectrum
and reduces anxiety.
...
Box V.5.3. problem-solving skills are best developed within meaningful contexts
Decades of intense research have shown that direct training approaches for domain-general competencies (e.g. intelligence, working memory capacity, or brain efficiency) do not lead to greater capacity to solve problems independently of their domain. Domain-general competencies, such as intelligence, are extremely difficult and costly to train. They can be increased only within narrow limits, and the increases are usually not stable over time. Even more important, domain-general competencies do not help to solve a problem when a person lacks knowledge about the problem at hand and its solution. The highest intelligence, largest working memory capacity, or the most efficient brain cannot help to solve a problem if the person has no meaningful knowledge to process.
A more effective alternative for broadening competencies is to teach concrete content knowledge in ways that aid subsequent transfer to new situations, problem types and content. This flexible kind of expertise, however, does not develop on its own.
One important precondition for transfer is that students must focus on the common, deep structure underlying two problem situations rather than on their superficial differences. Only then will they apply the knowledge acquired in one situation to solve a problem in another. This can be accomplished by pointing out to students that two problem solutions require similar actions; by using diagrams to visualise the deep structures of different problems; by fostering comparisons between examples that highlight their structural similarities or differences; and by the use of analogies between phenomena arising in different domains.
People are less likely to transfer isolated pieces of knowledge than they are to transfer parts of well-integrated hierarchical knowledge structures. The more connections a learner sees between the learning environment and the outside world, the easier the transfer will be.