Whatʼs the missing piece?
The results are not for a lack of effort. Many schools report trying different approaches to address this—asking more ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, encouraging discussion, attempting project-based tasks. Pedagogically sound methods are being employed to encourage problem solving. But do they simulate tasks that actually require problem-solving to execute? This is the metric against which such pedagogical techniques must be judged.

For instance, the problem with ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions is that they do not automatically demand reasoning. Often, they still tap into direct recall. For instance, a student who has been told why the French Revolution happened can answer a ‘why’ question without reasoning through anything. But if a student is asked a hypothetical question, such as, ‘If event X did not happen, would the French Revolution still have happened?ʼ, problem-solving is required as the student would have to run through the series of cause-and-effect to determine which factor may or may not give a particular result.

Project-based tasks also do not ellicit problem-solving if they merely require a reproduction of what has been taught. For instance, a model of the earthʼs rotation which is battery operated and actually spinning may be eye-catching and engaging. But the student is likely not learning anything new about problem-solving or using problem-solving skills to reproduce this scientific fact. But if a student is asked to build a model to demonstrate why day and night occurs on Earth, that would require visualising the phenomenon and representing it. The model would also help students understand why day and night occurs on Earth (thereby dispelling certain misconceptions related to the scientific phenomenon).

Discussions have shown to be effective in building problem-solving skills as well, particularly in word problems in math (Koehler, Ertmer, & Newby, 2019). However, the quality of the discussion matters more than the act of discussion itself. Often, only a handful of students participate in discussions, and these are students who may already be high-performers. In other cases, the discussion point might be too vague for students to engage in meaningful discourse. For instance, students might be asked ‘What do we know about the poet?ʼ without any clear indication of the expected response. Students might produce a variety of responses, mostly embedded in direct recall. Another factor that impacts discussions is how well it is facilitated. If the teacher allows for surface-level responses without probing for deeper engagement, the student is not guided to use higher-order thinking skills. Often the onus of the discussion is left on the student, when faciliation (involving active listening, paraphrasing, clarification and correction, and asking followup questions) is an active role.

So the heart of the problem may not be our methods; it may be in how we are employing them.
And yet, outside the classroom, students problem-solve all the time. Problem-solving is a skill that comes naturally to human beings. It is at play when we heat a dish in the microwave with the lid on, and find the lid stuck to the dish with the force of a vacuum seal. Using a sharp object to release the pressure or re-heating the container to reverse the vacuum effect shows the ability to problem-solve. Daily tasks like using an abosrbent towel to clean up liquid spills, or resolving conflicts with loved ones, or even structuring a time table to better manage all the homework, play, and miscellaneous tasks weʼd like to do in a day—they all simulate problem solving.

It is when we try to develop problem-solving as a competency in academic settings that it seems complex. Research shows that when real-life tasks are incorporated into classroom lessons and discussions, students naturally employ their true ability to solve problems while being open to learning new ways of solving problems as well (Gibson, 2009). Instead of setting aside lessons to teach problem-solving, we give students the opportunity to solve problems, and in the pursuit of doing so, naturally have them apply the skills and the thinking required to demonstrate the competency. The competency becomes a byproduct of the method, not a target in itself

But what does problem-solving really entail? Is it the ability to think critically, or does it require creativity? Is it different from analytical thinking? Since these buzzwords are often used together, understanding the basic construct can provide a solid foundation for creating problem solving opportunities in the classroom

Problem-solving as a theoretical construct
George Pólya, whose work on mathematical problem-solving has been foundational to education research, described it as a structured process of understanding, devising, executing, and reflecting. More broadly, problem-solving can be understood as a systematic, higher-order cognitive process of defining a problem, diagnosing its root cause, and implementing an effective, sustainable solution to achieve a desired outcome — followed by a reflection on what worked and what didn’t

John Hattie’s meta-analysis (Visible Learning, 2009) found that metacognitive strategies—the act of thinking about one’s own thinking—have among the highest effect sizes on student achievement. Problem-solving, done well, is inherently metacognitive. Students who are trying to solve a genuine problem have to monitor their own understanding, identify where they’re stuck, and make decisions about how to proceed. This is not incidental; it is the mechanism through which deep learning happens.