1

Problem-Solving Through Puzzles

Ways to improve strategies to improve problem-solving through different activities

Anthony Giancatarino

Lebanon Valley College

 2

Part 1 — Introduction

When I first arrived at my field placement in a K4 classroom, there were three stations

that a student could go to: A play station, play-doh station, and a puzzle station. These were all

the locations the students could go to within a specific time frame. I had the responsibility of

walking around the classroom to help and spark the student’s minds. I began by walking around

each station and asking students questions about what they were doing. I found that I spent most

of my time in the puzzle station because that is where most of the students seemed to struggle.

The puzzles were simple 5-15 piece puzzles with none of the puzzle pieces missing. I was

amazed because there were some students who could finish them in less than five minutes and

some students that just gave up after five minutes of looking at the puzzles. Immediately, I knew

I wanted to dig deeper into why students were giving up. The first thing that came to my mind

was how a student can problem-solve and identify what strategy is the best to organize the puzzle

pieces. I thought to myself “Why are these students giving up even though they are getting the

right pieces in the right places, they are just putting them in the wrong way?” For my teacher

research project, I decided to look more in-depth at how to help students improve

problem-solving using puzzles.

This teacher research project focuses on the problem-solving skills of students

through the use of puzzles. The focus will be to find out how a teacher can improve a students’

problem-solving skills through the use of puzzles and showing students how to separate the

pieces based on color, shape, and size. I will be observing the different techniques that each

student shows while completing the puzzles. I want to see where the students' baseline lands and

how they are able to improve over time. It sets out to answer the following question of how can I

get better at helping students to apply problem-solving skills through the use of puzzles?
 3

Problem-solving is a skill that is developed over time and takes practice and repetition.

Problem-solving is important to explore and investigate with young learners because they will

need these skills throughout their entire lives. The three points I want to get across are that I want

students to not give up and challenge themselves, I want to improve how problem-solving is

taught in schools and build a growth mindset. There are always going to be challenges in life and

school, so I wanted to experiment on how much we can give them these experiences early to

better improve these skills. Puzzles can be a good start to introduce the students to a problem and

they will be independently solving the puzzle which can connect to solving real-life problems. It

is a small start, but it can make a big difference. Another reason is to bring knowledge to

teachers on how to effectively teach problem-solving because it is such a difficult thing to teach.

Problem-solving skills may not be a unit of learning, but it is always great to find ways to

improve these skills. Problem-solving is not being taught enough in schools and I want to change

that and show strategies on how to teach these skills properly. The last reason is that when there

come problem-solving skills, comes a growth mindset which is so important to have at this age

of development. I do not want the students to be giving up on these puzzles. I want them to have

a growth mindset to finish their activities and believe in themselves.

As a result of this teacher research project, I hope to learn three specific things regarding

problem-solving. First, I hope to learn the problem-solving habits of students by varying the

puzzle pieces given to the students whether it is giving them more than the puzzle amount or less

than the puzzle amount. I want to observe how they adjust to these problems. Second, I hope to

learn how I can better facilitate problem-solving skills by having interactive discussions with the

students to see how they are strategizing to complete the puzzle. This will help me understand

the thought process of the students when there is a problem at-hand. Third, I hope to learn how I
 4

can adjust problem-solving activities to students’ needs by observing the different strategies

being used and introducing the students to a variety of different ways to organize and solve a

problem. I want to introduce the most effective ways to problem-solve using their strengths.

Overall, I want to experiment how I can improve the students’ problem-solving skills through the

use of puzzles.
 5

Part 2 — Literature Review

There is very little in the literature regarding how puzzles can improve problem-solving

for young students. Problem-solving skills are a challenging aspect to examine when interacting

with young children. When the students are doing puzzles, a teacher can evaluate how a student

is manipulating different pieces to solve the puzzle. Every student can have a different way of

solving a puzzle, but a teacher should introduce the most efficient and productive way to solve a

puzzle. Tchernigowa (1995) states “Puzzles greatly appreciated by young children are an

excellent resource for developing good problem-solving skills. This thinking, manipulating and

independent activity, provides the developmental milestones for logical, as well as abstract

thinking” (p. 4). Puzzles are a fun way to engage the students to improve their own

problem-solving and be able to have different strategies to simplify the problem.

A few studies have examined how teachers can help improve problem-solving skills

through puzzles. For example, Vallotton, Fusaro, Hayden, Decker, and Gutowski (2015) studied

which nonverbal cues are effective while promoting a student’s problem-solving skills through

three stages of a puzzle. The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of child age on both,

the frequency and type of gesture used while completing puzzles and how this supported

problem-solving. They set out to discover which gestures most children understand. They wanted

to investigate how students adjust their strategies when given a nonverbal gesture. With this, they

wanted to see what the reaction time was to find out when they would figure out why they were

giving the student a gesture. The authors, Vallotton et. al. (2015) set out to answer three research

questions that they wanted to explore which included “Does parents’ freedom to use gestures in a

teaching and learning task affect children’s independent performance? Does this effect vary by

child age?”, “Do the frequency and types of parents’ gestures vary based on children’s ages and
 6

skill levels, reflecting child-directed gesturing? Does the frequency or types of parents’ gestures

affect children’s independent performance? Does this vary by child age?” (714, 715)

The participants of the study included 134 children and parents visiting the Boston

Museum of Science that were between 1.5 and 6 years old. The design of the study involved

each of the children’s parents were invited to participate in the study but were not told the

purpose of the study. The parents and children were directed to a table with a puzzle on it. A

researcher brought the assembled puzzle to the child and took the pieces off the board. The

researcher said to the child, ‘‘This is a puzzle for you to do. I’m going to take the pieces out.

There are many ways to solve the puzzle. Let’s see if you can put the pieces back together!’’

Then the researcher said to the parent, ‘‘For the first minute, we’ll let your child work on his/her

own. Then, for the next 2 min, it will be time for you to help. For the last minute, we’ll let

him/her work alone again.” (Vallotton et al., p. 716). Three different research coders observed

different parts of this investigation. One of the coders identified the point at which the puzzle

was most complete in each phase. At this point, a peak score was calculated, equal to the number

of puzzle pieces lying flat on the board. Pieces were excluded from the peak score if they were

not properly put on the puzzle board. The second group of coders evaluated the parents’

nonverbal gestures to examine how effective they were. The third group examined the language

being used by the parents and how effective it was for the children.

The findings of this research study revealed that hand gestures had no real benefit to the

children especially with the younger children. The older group of children responded better with

the nonverbal cues, but there was not enough evidence to support that the hand gestures made a

difference. They also found that with smaller cues, the childrens’ problem-solving skills could be

improved with slight verbal interaction. The overall conclusion of the study suggests that puzzles
 7

do have an impact with problem-solving skills if there is verbal interaction to help guide the

children.

Tchernigowa (1995) studied gender differences with problem-solving. This research

study was designed to investigate whether there are differences in the cognitive ability of

preschool boys and girls in their problem-solving ability. This study set out to explore private

speech as well to learn more about the phenomenon of children’s thinking. The purpose of this

study was to evaluate children's different talk while solving a puzzle. The researchers also

wanted to explore how differently the genders solve a puzzle to see any correlating strategies.

The participants of the study were 20 children ranging in age 3,5 - 4,5 with a median age of 4,1.

There was an equal number of boys and girls. All children were attending Child Development

Center in Bronx, New York. The children were from multicultural middle-class families

The students were given four puzzles to complete and to be done one at a time. The

puzzles were all different sizes that contained a different number of pieces and would be given

the picture of the puzzle while solving it. The participants were asked to solve the puzzle as

quickly as they could and to beat the timer. The students had five minutes to work on the puzzle

and this was the main problem for some of the students. A teacher would sit next to the student

while doing the puzzle for any questions. The teachers were not to intervene for the first minute

and then they were only able to respond to the student if they asked a question. The data

collection consisted of observing the students’ speech throughout the completion of the puzzle.

The researchers examined the type of language the students were using whether their comments

were on topic or off topic or just humming along to help them focus. It also consisted of tracking

how the students are moved around the puzzle pieces and what they were looking at while doing

the puzzle.
 8

The findings of the study revealed significant differences in the way boys and girls solved

puzzles and used their metacognitive skills. None of the girls failed completing all of the puzzles,

yet there were three boys that failed to complete one of each puzzle. Trial and error was a

common strategy used for 90% of the boys in the study. Girls would tend to use the picture of the

puzzle and find clues. Tchernigowa (1995) states “While working with puzzles, the girls were

very concentrated and independent. They did not use social speech in order to get help from the

experimenter. The boys were quite the opposite, they constantly were looking for support or

help” (p. 14). Surprisingly, the overall conclusion of this study suggests that private talk did not

help students succeed and actually more students failed that used private speech.

Marulis & Nelson (2019) studied metacognitive processes and associations to executive

function and motivation during a problem-solving task in 3–5 year old children. They set out to

investigate early metacognition across two developmentally appropriate measures. They also set

out to examine associations to executive function and motivation. The purpose of the study was

to explain metacognitive processes that are centered on metacognitive knowledge and

metacognitive skills in 3–5 year-old children. The participants in the study were 77 children

between the ages of 3-5 who were recruited from six classrooms at a College Lab School in the

Northeast region of the US. Participants came from predominantly English-speaking

middle-class families.

The design of the study involved each student being given a Wedgits puzzle and

performed a metacognitive knowledge interview. The researcher was able to intervene and

verbally assist the student while performing the puzzle. The researchers recorded the interactions

and observed how the students broke down tasks and solved the puzzles. The data collection

consisted of observations regarding the students’ motivation and urgency to complete the puzzle.
 9

The researchers included the time allotted to complete each puzzle including the time they were

being assisted. The findings revealed that there was a correlation between metacognitive and

problem-solving skills. The researchers found that short verbal interactions (active questioning)

helped the students solve the puzzles at a faster rate rather than the nonverbal puzzles they would

do. The study’s findings suggest that verbal interactions to break down larger steps can help

improve a student’s problem-solving skills.

What makes these studies significant is that they all include puzzles and help to improve

problem-solving together through interaction. All the studies had different goals and different

hypotheses that they wanted to experiment with. Patterns emerge across the studies in the

following ways: First, short verbal interactions help guide students to solve the puzzles more

efficiently. Second, nonverbal cues are not as effective to younger children than they are to older

children. Verbal interactions help introduce new strategies for them to try out. Nonverbal cues

were not as effective, and more students seemed to be more confused by them. The findings of

my literature review are that verbal interaction and active questioning is more productive and

efficient when trying to improve problem-solving skills. The purpose of my research study is to

find the most productive way to improve problem-solving skills through puzzles and this

research helps to inform my study by pointing to the effectiveness of active questioning during

puzzle activities.
 10

Part 3 — Methods

Setting

The setting of my action research project was at Henry Houck Elementary School in

Lebanon , Pennsylvania. The school is in an urban neighborhood towards the center of the city of

Lebanon. I was in a Pre-Kindergarten classroom where I was able to perform all of my methods

every Tuesday between September 7th through December 7th.

Participants

There were twenty students in the classroom, but only four of the students participated in

my research. Out of the four students, there were two females and two males. One male and one

female are English language learners. The other two students were mid level learners. All of the

students struggled earlier in the semester with persevering through different activities so I

targeted these students specifically to improve their problem solving skills.

Research Design

My research was performed individually, but inside the classroom with their classmates.

There were some distractions from the rest of the class, but most of the time it was a controlled

environment. There were three different puzzles that I have used during this process. There was a

6, 8, and 10 piece puzzle that I used. I timed myself and the students; I timed myself for the time

I intervened and I timed the students for when they completed the puzzle. Every week I would

devote towards puzzle time. I would intervene, but not too much. When videotaping, I would not

step in to help as much.

 11

Data Collection and Analysis

I used two types of data collection; a personal rating instruction tool and an interview of

one of the participants. The personal rating instruction tool had nine questions and I would

personally rate myself on how I think I performed in the different aspects. I described why I gave

myself that specific rating. Through this tool, I found that verbal cues are so much more efficient

than nonverbal cues. I also learned that it is important to not just ask any type of question, but

quality questioning in order for the student to succeed. The interview with the student helped me

get the student’s perspective. The student was able to give me four main ideas on how this puzzle

process helped him. It gave him a sense of accomplishment, he was proud of his own work,

learned how to work through problems, and how to not give up. Overall, these are the four things

that I wanted to target during my research.

Findings

Tool #1 Part 1

This was a baseline for myself. This

was a videotape self-reflection where

I was able to critique myself. I had a

list of questions that I was able to rate

myself and this tool helped me track

my progression of these skills. I

started off with lower ratings because

my questioning was not exactly where

I wanted it to be.
 12

Tool #1 Part 1 Continued

Tool #1 Part 2

For my second rating, I improved my

questioning immensely. I started to ask in

depth questions that actually benefited

the students. I was also able to

differentiate my questioning as well to fit

the students’ needs. I also was able to

intervene at more appropriate times and

give the students more freedom to work.

 13

Tool #1 Part 2 Continued

Visual Findings
 14

ABCD are in order of the questions for the tools. You can see the improvement with the time to

intervene and also my questioning has improved.

Tool #2-Interview with Mid-level male student

For this interview, I wanted to see how the student felt during this process. I performed this

interview after the second recording. The second question is the most amazing answer that I

wanted to see. I wanted them to feel accomplished after solving something challenging and this

student has shown that giving up is not the answer.

1. How did you feel when you were struggling to find the right spot to place the puzzle

piece?

a. I did not like it. I kept trying, but sometimes I could not get it.

2. When did you feel the best during this puzzle-making process?

a. I think when I solved a piece that I could not get for a while. I like when I can do

something hard.

3. Do you feel better that you can complete the puzzle rather than giving up?

a. I am happy I was able to finish it. I already showed it to Mrs. Garrett.

Conclusion

Students responded more efficiently when confronted with a verbal cue other than

nonverbal. Throughout my research, students did not respond well to nonverbal cues. They did

start to pick up on the verbal cues and use active questioning to prompt them. I found that it is

important to give the students freedom to work things out by themselves and force the students to

think more independently rather than becoming reliant on a teacher. It is important to let students
 15

know that it is ok to fail. I believe this is commonly misunderstood by many people, but with

failure comes success. Trial and error is not a bad thing. It is not a bad thing because people learn

from their mistakes and it can be beneficial if they learn that at a young age. During this process,

I did find puzzles to be an effective activity to build problem-solving skills and persistence.

Limitations

There were four limitations to this study which included videotaping, time, age, and

behavior. Videotaping was a limitation because I was not allowed to videotape the children. It

would have been helpful if I was able to see how the students were maneuvering the puzzle

pieces to see how they worked through challenges. Second, time was also a struggle because

they had different centers that they needed to participate in. Sometimes, we did not have time for

puzzles for some weeks. Third, these students were young and it was hard to keep them focused

because of the lack of attention span. With that comes their behavior, students would be making

a scene causing the participants to be distracted, but they did try their best which I appreciated.

New Design

There would be three things that I would change to this research design which includes

the setting, time, and the video. For the setting, I would recommend going out in the hallway or

somewhere it is less quiet to prevent distractions from other students. Second, I would try to

devote more time for the students to work on the puzzles. I would not extend it longer than a half

an hour though. I would recommend 15-30 minutes once or twice a week. Lastly, I would

recommend requesting permission to videotape the students because it would be a helpful tool to

help you observe yourself more clearly.

 16

References

Marulis, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2020). Metacognitive processes and associations to executive

function and motivation during a problem-solving task in 3–5 year olds. Metacognition and

Learning, 16(1), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09244-6

Tchernigowa, S. (1995). Puzzling Boys and Girls. ERIC.

Vallotton, C., Fusaro, M., Hayden, J., Decker, K., & Gutowski, E. (2015). Give me a hand:

Differential effects of gesture type in guiding young children’s problem-solving.

Instructional Science, 43(6), 709–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9357-6