When a mentee brings a problem to the mentoring group, you should not solve the problem for the mentee. Instead, you should think of the problem as a potential teaching moment in which you can nurture your mentee’s identity development. What does problem solving have to do with identity development? The answer is that defining "who I am" is essentially a problem-solving activity (Berman et al., 2025). By learning to solve their own problems, young people build the skills for making the life choices by which they will define who they are.
You turn mentees' problems and concerns into teaching moments by engaging them in critical discussion. Critical discussion involves critical problem solving and open communication (Kurtines, 1998). Critical discussion goes beyond problem solving to investigate what changes mentees want to make in their lives and how to make them.
It is important to define several concepts. Briefly, problem solving involves identifying a problem, creating solutions for the problem, and selecting the best solution. Critical thinking requires creativity, suspension of judgment, and critical evaluation. Consequently, critical problem solving involves thinking of many possibilities (being creative) when identifying the problem to solve and creating potential solutions, not choosing a solution until all possibilities have been considered (suspending judgment), and understanding all good and bad consequences of each potential solution (critical evaluation). To communicate these ideas to mentees, you can use the acronym, ICED, which stands for Identify the Problem, Create Alternatives, Evaluate Alternatives, and Do Something (see Table 5).
▪️
Table 5. Description of the ICED Approach to Critical Problem Solving*
ICED is an acronym for:
Identify the problem
Create alternatives, generate options
Evaluate the alternatives, what are the pros/cons for each alternative
Do something; take action to solve the problem.
Scientists who study problem solving have identified four basic elements in successful problem solving. We use the acronym ICED to remind us of what it takes to be successful in problem solving. First, successful problem solving takes recognizing when a problem exists, Identifying what the problem is (i.e., problem posing) and gathering information about the problem and about how it might be solved. Second, successful problem solving takes Creating or generating potential alternatives for solving the problem. What are the positives and negatives of each alternative? Third, problem solving takes Evaluating the alternatives and selecting the best solution (i.e., problem solving). Fourth, it takes Doing something about the problem (i.e., action). The problem is not solved until you do something to change it!
*Adapted from Kurtines and Montgomery (2016).
ICED is an acronym for:
Identify the problem
Create alternatives, generate options
Evaluate the alternatives, what are the pros/cons for each alternative
Do something; take action to solve the problem.
Scientists who study problem solving have identified four basic elements in successful problem solving. We use the acronym ICED to remind us of what it takes to be successful in problem solving. First, successful problem solving takes recognizing when a problem exists, Identifying what the problem is (i.e., problem posing) and gathering information about the problem and about how it might be solved. Second, successful problem solving takes Creating or generating potential alternatives for solving the problem. What are the positives and negatives of each alternative? Third, problem solving takes Evaluating the alternatives and selecting the best solution (i.e., problem solving). Fourth, it takes Doing something about the problem (i.e., action). The problem is not solved until you do something to change it!
*Adapted from Kurtines and Montgomery (2016).
Teaching young people critical problem solving will give them a starting point for solving their own problems effectively. In fact, each problem mentees face is a potential teaching moment in which they can learn to solve their own problems. That is, although it is important that mentees overcome the challenges they face in the moment, it is even more important that mentees gain skills for overcoming challenges they will face in the future. Gaining skills for identifying the right problem to solve and solving it will help mentees develop a sense of personal control over and responsibility for the choices and actions that they will use, over time, to create a path through life.
Although critical problem solving is important and useful, it is also limited. Critical problem solving is an intrapersonal, cognitive process for solving problems. When overcoming challenges requires working together with others (as it usually does), critical problem solving on its own will not be sufficient. Critical discussion is also necessary.
Critical discussion goes beyond critical problem solving to involve collaborating with other people in open communication. Critical discussion requires both critical thinking and the use of a particular form of dialogue aimed at creating a shared mutual understanding of the problem. It is essentially democratic communication in which all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate in all dialogue roles, and no one is pressured or coerced to think in a particular way. This form of communication makes it more likely that all possible ideas will be considered and that the advantages and disadvantages of each one will be thoroughly understood. In other words, democratic communication is more likely in the long run to lead to better results. You can explain this process to mentees by saying something like this:
One way for dealing with a difficult problem is to get as many different points of view as possible. In our group, each person has a unique and valuable point of view. Combining all our points of view helps us understand the problem from many angles. To do this, we have to follow some rules. Each of us has to (1) be open-minded about what the problem is, (2) honestly consider all points of view about the problem, (3) weigh the pros and cons of each point of view, including our own, and (4) not pressure others to agree with us. The first three things are what we do to understand the problem. The fourth thing is what we do not do.
Why is critical discussion important? Critical discussion both provides benefits in overcoming challenges mentees face now and builds skills for overcoming challenges they will face in the future. In the present, involving other people in problem solving will introduce alternative perspectives and lead to more effective solutions. Ideas that initially seem desirable may have weaknesses that only others see. Ideas that initially seem undesirable sometimes prove the strongest after further discussion. Tables 6 and 7 provide illustrations of critical discussions using ICED from CLP groups in Miami. Although these particular problems are not typical of our groups, the examples illustrate open communication that ultimately led to positive change.
▪️
Table 6. Case Illustration 1 of a Critical Discussion using ICED in the Miami CLP
“Jessica” was a 17-year-old female student who was a member of a Changing Lives Program group comprised of six other female students. The intervention team consisted of two graduate students and an undergraduate student. One day, Jessica told the group that a teacher had been making sexually inappropriate comments to her during class, and she felt angry not only at the teacher but also at the system at the school that allowed this harassment to happen to her and to other students. Four other group members shared that they had experienced or witnessed similar harassment from the same teacher. During an “Identify the Problem” discussion, group members revealed that the teacher’s behavior had been going on for the entire school year and that the teacher was a close friend of the school principal. They had not discussed the problem in the group earlier because they thought that nothing could be done to change the situation and there was no point in talking about it. One student, “Pamela” revealed that she told the principal about the problem earlier in the year but that he had not believed her. The principal told her that she needed to focus on raising her test scores first, and after that they could discuss other concerns. Other group members said they believed that the school only cared about their standardized test scores.
The group came to the consensus that the problem to be solved was to convince the principal to believe them about the teacher’s misconduct because the principal had the power to prevent future misconduct. During a “Create Alternatives” discussion, group members considered several alternatives, including doing nothing because the school year was almost finished or surreptitiously tape-recording the teacher’s harassment, but they ultimately decided to first try to “Do Something” by writing witness statements that they asked the group facilitators to share with the school counselor and principal. They came to this decision based on the “Critical Evaluation” that enlisting credible adults from outside the school system would create pressure for change while avoiding direct confrontation. It would also capitalize on pre-existing relationships among the facilitators, the school counselor, and the principal. However, they remained open to other alternatives if their selected strategy was unsuccessful.
Guided by a clinical supervisor, the facilitators brought witness statements describing the teacher’s misconduct to the school counselor, who arranged a meeting with the principal. In this meeting (as predicted by Pamela), the principal expressed skepticism about the students’ accounts, but he promised to investigate. The next day, the principal individually interviewed each student who contributed a witness statement. Students expressed surprise and anxiety about having to meet with the most powerful person on campus in his office. However, they supported each other and received support from the facilitators and school counselor. All students successfully provided their accounts to the principal. By the next week, though, the principal had taken no action, apparently continuing to disbelieve the students. After this first strategy was unsuccessful, Jessica tape-recorded the teacher’s harassing remarks in class and provided the principal with incontrovertible evidence of the teacher’s misconduct. The teacher was suspended indefinitely. Subsequent group sessions were used to discuss the experience and raise students’ awareness of the power they had just exercised.
“Jessica” was a 17-year-old female student who was a member of a Changing Lives Program group comprised of six other female students. The intervention team consisted of two graduate students and an undergraduate student. One day, Jessica told the group that a teacher had been making sexually inappropriate comments to her during class, and she felt angry not only at the teacher but also at the system at the school that allowed this harassment to happen to her and to other students. Four other group members shared that they had experienced or witnessed similar harassment from the same teacher. During an “Identify the Problem” discussion, group members revealed that the teacher’s behavior had been going on for the entire school year and that the teacher was a close friend of the school principal. They had not discussed the problem in the group earlier because they thought that nothing could be done to change the situation and there was no point in talking about it. One student, “Pamela” revealed that she told the principal about the problem earlier in the year but that he had not believed her. The principal told her that she needed to focus on raising her test scores first, and after that they could discuss other concerns. Other group members said they believed that the school only cared about their standardized test scores.
The group came to the consensus that the problem to be solved was to convince the principal to believe them about the teacher’s misconduct because the principal had the power to prevent future misconduct. During a “Create Alternatives” discussion, group members considered several alternatives, including doing nothing because the school year was almost finished or surreptitiously tape-recording the teacher’s harassment, but they ultimately decided to first try to “Do Something” by writing witness statements that they asked the group facilitators to share with the school counselor and principal. They came to this decision based on the “Critical Evaluation” that enlisting credible adults from outside the school system would create pressure for change while avoiding direct confrontation. It would also capitalize on pre-existing relationships among the facilitators, the school counselor, and the principal. However, they remained open to other alternatives if their selected strategy was unsuccessful.
Guided by a clinical supervisor, the facilitators brought witness statements describing the teacher’s misconduct to the school counselor, who arranged a meeting with the principal. In this meeting (as predicted by Pamela), the principal expressed skepticism about the students’ accounts, but he promised to investigate. The next day, the principal individually interviewed each student who contributed a witness statement. Students expressed surprise and anxiety about having to meet with the most powerful person on campus in his office. However, they supported each other and received support from the facilitators and school counselor. All students successfully provided their accounts to the principal. By the next week, though, the principal had taken no action, apparently continuing to disbelieve the students. After this first strategy was unsuccessful, Jessica tape-recorded the teacher’s harassing remarks in class and provided the principal with incontrovertible evidence of the teacher’s misconduct. The teacher was suspended indefinitely. Subsequent group sessions were used to discuss the experience and raise students’ awareness of the power they had just exercised.
▪️
Table 7. Case Illustration 2 of a Critical Discussion using ICED in the Miami CLP
“Didier” was a 17-year-old male whose parents had immigrated to the United States from Haiti when he was eight. The concern he brought to the group was that the fights he had with his younger sister, “Sherly” had recently intensified to the point that neighbors had alerted the police. During “Identify the Problem” discussion, he told the group how he had become very resentful of the special and lenient treatment his parents gave Sherly while he was being forced to take on the extra responsibility of earning money for the family. He felt that because he was the oldest son, he received all the blame for the sibling conflicts, which made him very angry with his parents. During the “Create Alternatives” discussion, he told the group he had considered running away, or at least moving in with an aunt in a nearby community. The group challenged him to “Critically Evaluate Alternatives”, suggesting that a move out would be very upsetting to his parents and would leave his sister without protection in their neighborhood. They also challenged his perspective of his parents’ treatment of his sister and proposed that he reframe his relationship with her from one as “competitor” for his parents’ support to one as “mentor” for all that she would need to learn in high school (which his parents would not know because of their background in another country’s educational system). Didier was open to the group’s suggestions, considered them, and promised to “Do Something” about his problem by attempting reconciliation with his sister and parents. At the end of semester, he reported that he had made progress in transforming his family relationships and was much happier at home.
“Didier” was a 17-year-old male whose parents had immigrated to the United States from Haiti when he was eight. The concern he brought to the group was that the fights he had with his younger sister, “Sherly” had recently intensified to the point that neighbors had alerted the police. During “Identify the Problem” discussion, he told the group how he had become very resentful of the special and lenient treatment his parents gave Sherly while he was being forced to take on the extra responsibility of earning money for the family. He felt that because he was the oldest son, he received all the blame for the sibling conflicts, which made him very angry with his parents. During the “Create Alternatives” discussion, he told the group he had considered running away, or at least moving in with an aunt in a nearby community. The group challenged him to “Critically Evaluate Alternatives”, suggesting that a move out would be very upsetting to his parents and would leave his sister without protection in their neighborhood. They also challenged his perspective of his parents’ treatment of his sister and proposed that he reframe his relationship with her from one as “competitor” for his parents’ support to one as “mentor” for all that she would need to learn in high school (which his parents would not know because of their background in another country’s educational system). Didier was open to the group’s suggestions, considered them, and promised to “Do Something” about his problem by attempting reconciliation with his sister and parents. At the end of semester, he reported that he had made progress in transforming his family relationships and was much happier at home.
Because critical discussion brings together multiple perspectives, it accesses multiple areas of expertise. For example, the mentees are the experts in the details of their social world. Your role as a mentor is to help mentees develop and refine this expertise. You have your own areas of expertise, such as expertise in the adult world and in the world of higher education. Mentees have much to gain from access to this expertise. But you also have much to gain from the expertise that mentees offer. Critical discussion brings together mutual expertise in a process that is more likely to lead to effective solutions and prepare mentees for future challenges.
As important as critical discussion is in overcoming challenges in the present moment, developing the skills for participating in critical discussion is even more important in the long run. The ability to be open-minded about what the issue is, to honestly consider all points of view (especially those we disagree with), to critically evaluate all points of view (especially our own), and not coerce others to agree with us are required for participation in a democratic and pluralistic society. Young people need opportunities to develop skills for working with others who are politically and culturally different from themselves, with whom they disagree on fundamental issues, and who it would otherwise be more comfortable to avoid.