Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) has been widely recognized as a key competence that youth should attain through education (OECD, 2024), given the complex challenges in contemporary world which cannot be tackled by individual endeavors (Graesser et al., 2018).

While CPS has been shown to be more effective than individual learning and traditional teacher instruction (Gillies, 2016), research warns that peer collaboration in school settings is often unproductive (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016; He et al., 2023; Rapanata, 2023). This highlights the need for a tool to help adolescents collaborate and solve problems more efficiently, while also enabling teachers to monitor and guide the process. Our goal was to create a set of rules for successful CPS based on scientific research exploring adolescents' collaboration in school contexts. We focused on this population because adolescence is a critical period for the development of the cognitive and socio-emotional skills necessary for effective collaborative interaction (Howe & Zachariou, 2017; Kuhn, & Crowell, 2011; Piaget, 1960/1999).

To achieve this, we relied on findings from our recent review of CPS in adolescence (Baucal et al., 2023), which extracted dimensions that distinguish productive from unproductive peer groups engaged in CPS. In line with our goal, we excluded dimensions related to individual characteristics of participants and focused specifically on four group-related dimensions of collaboration: (1) Cognitive Exchange among group members, (2) Socio-Emotional Aspects of peer interaction, (3) Regulation of Group Activities related to the task, and (4) Regulation of Group Activities related to interpersonal relationships. Next, we examined research findings for each dimension to identify key features that contribute to productive collaboration and successful problem-solving. For each dimension, we identified specific indicators to form the basis of guiding rules. Key terms for Cognitive Exchange (CE) included: exchanging arguments, justifying answers, offering diverse ideas and opinions, critically evaluating ideas, and co-constructing knowledge. For the Socio-Emotional(SE) dimension, indicators were: interdependence, respect, inclusivity, tolerance, reciprocity, a warm group climate, and an openness to differing opinions. The Task Regulation (TR) was related to: task orientation, good planning, monitoring progress toward goals, metacognitive regulation, and high task-related regulation. The indicators of Group Regulation(GR) dimension are: awareness of group dynamics, regulation of interpersonal relationships, group norms for behavior, strengthening collective effort, appropriate division of labor, and encouraging active participation. Based on these indicators, we developed eight guiding rules—two for each of the four dimensions. Additionally, we included one rule emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus on the final solution. The aim was to create a concise set of rules understandable for students.

The resulting tool, grounded in scientific evidence from research on adolescents’ CPS, consists of nine simple guiding sentences that are universally applicable in various group work scenarios. The rules for successful CPS can be used by adolescents during group work or by teachers to enhance students’ collaborative efforts in class. The significance of the constructed tool lies in the evidence-based strategies embedded within it that enhance CPS among adolescents, thereby supporting both student learning and effective teaching practices.

To create set of rules enhancing adolescents’ collaboration while solving problems we relied on the findings from our recent review study about CPS in adolescence including 160 scientific articles published between 2012-2022 (Baucal et al., 2023). That final sample originates from the starting sample including 5256 papers identified through a search of key scientific databases (PsycInfo, Web of Science - WoS, and Education Resources Information Centre - ERIC). In accordance with the main goal of the present study, we analyzed results related to the dimensions distinguishing productive from unproductive adolescents’ peer groups engaged in CPS. We have neglected dimensions related to the individual characteristics or abilities of participants, and focused exclusively on the four dimensions related to the group aspects of collaboration: (1) Cognitive exchange among group members; (2) Socio-emotional aspects of peer interaction, (3) Regulation of group activities focused on the task; and (4) Regulation of group activities focused on interpersonal relationships. Next, we examined research findings for each dimension to identify key features that contribute to productive collaboration and successful problem-solving. For each dimension, we identified specific indicators to form the basis of guiding rules. Key terms for Cognitive Exchange (CE) included: exchanging arguments, justifying answers, offering diverse ideas and opinions, critically evaluating ideas, and co-constructing knowledge. For the Socio-Emotional (SE) dimension, indicators were: interdependence, respect, inclusivity, tolerance, reciprocity, a warm group climate, and an openness to differing opinions. For Task Regulation (TR), the focus was on: task orientation, good planning, monitoring progress toward goals, metacognitive regulation, and high task-related regulation. The Group Regulation (GR) dimension included: awareness of group dynamics, regulation of interpersonal relationships, group norms for behavior, strengthening collective effort, appropriate division of labor, and encouraging active participation. Based on these indicators, we formulated eight guiding rules—two for each of the four dimensions. The aim was to create a concise, understandable set of rules that could be easily comprehend by adolescents. Additionally, we included one rule emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus and participation in decisions regarding the final solution.

The rules for successful CPS, grounded in scientific research, consist of nine simple guiding sentences (two for each dimension, plus one for consensus establishment): • Cognitive Exchange (CE): "The more ideas we consider, the more certain we are that we’ve selected the best one." "We expound every idea, weigh arguments, and devise solutions." • Socio-Emotional (SE): "We foster a good atmosphere, even when we think differently." "We are all equal and respect one another." • Task Regulation (TR): "We wisely use our time to work on the task." "We monitor our progress and contemplate our next step." • Group Regulation (GR): "We are all responsible for group work." "We help everyone contribute to the group." • Consensus: "We strive to involve everyone in decision-making." The rules related to SE, GR, and consensus focus on fostering collaborative relationships within the team, while those related to CE and TR emphasize the problem-solving process. This aligns with the two broad aspects of CPS typically identified in research (Graesser et al., 2018; Hesse et al., 2015): the cognitive aspect, which pertains to task approach and process regulation, and the socio-emotional aspect, which involves group dynamics and communication. The resulting tool can be used by adolescents during group work or by teachers to support and enhance students' collaborative efforts in class. Its scientific significance lies in its foundation on rigorous CPS research among adolescents, providing evidence-based insights into effective group interaction. Practically, it provides a straightforward set of rules that can be easily implemented in educational settings by teachers or researchers’ interventions aiming to improve peer collaboration and enhance the learning process. By combining scientific rigor with real-world applicability, this tool can support the development of critical skills for both students and educators, fostering more productive and meaningful collaborative experiences.

Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trod¬den paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 164-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 Baucal, A., Jošić., S., Stepanović Ilić, I., Videnović, M., Ivanović, J., & Krstić, K. (2023). What makes peer collaborative problem solving productive or unproductive: A qualitative systematic review. Educational Research Review, 41, 100567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100567 Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 41(3), 39–54. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.977489802155242. Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244 He, S., Shi, X., Choi, T. H., & Zhai, J. (2023). How do students' roles in collaborative learning affect collaborative problem-solving competency? A systematic review of research. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 50, 101423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101423 Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. Assessment and Teaching of 21st-century skills: Methods and approach, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_2 Howe, C., & Zachariou, A. (2019). Small-group collaboration and individual knowledge acquisition: The processes of growth during adolescence and early adulthood. Learning and Instruction, 60, 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.007 Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological science, 22(4), 545-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611402512 OECD (2024), OECD Contributions to the 2030 Agenda and Beyond: Shaping a Sustainable Future for All. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69c94bd4-en.e Piaget, J. (1960/1999). Problems of the social psychology of childhood. In L. Smith (Ed.). Sociological studies (pp.287–318). Routledge. Rapanta, C. (2023). Piaget, Vygotsky and young people's argumentation: Sociocognitive aspects and challenges of reasoning “together” and “alone”. Learning, culture and social interaction, 39, 100698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100698