{"id":868,"date":"2024-02-10T11:11:38","date_gmt":"2024-02-10T16:11:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/childthink\/?post_type=chapter&p=868"},"modified":"2024-12-06T21:19:21","modified_gmt":"2024-12-07T02:19:21","slug":"6-observing-childrens-problem-solving","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/childthink\/chapter\/6-observing-childrens-problem-solving\/","title":{"raw":"Observing Children\u2019s Problem Solving","rendered":"Observing Children\u2019s Problem Solving"},"content":{"raw":"So far in this chapter, I have pointed out different kinds of problem-solving, such as block-building and puzzle play. Now, let\u2019s look at some specific components of problem-solving and how we can observe children engaged in tasks, either in naturalistic observations or in research.\r\n

Components of Problem Solving<\/h2>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_972\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"350\"]\"A Photo<\/a> by Prince Photos<\/a> from Pexels<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n\r\nFrom infancy, we see the use of problem-solving in socially-embedded ways. Siegler and Alibali (2019) suggest that the earliest \u201cproblems\u201d an infant identifies may be to simply get their needs met. They may act independently by reaching for desired objects or even removing barriers to them.\r\n\r\nBut they also look to those around them \u2014 even when they are preverbal \u2014 for assistance in getting what they need or want. For example, young children will often look towards an adult while they are reaching for something in an understanding of how to get what they want, with the adult serving as a sort of problem-solving \u201ctool.\u201d We will explore the social connections involved in children\u2019s thinking and learning in more depth in Chapter 7.\r\n\r\nOnce a child has identified a problem, they use components like mental models, task analysis, and means-ends analysis to address their need and resolve the problem (Siegler and Alibali, 2019).\r\n\r\nMental models refer to the internal understanding of steps in a task. These models are formed from the physical problem-solving and step-by-step analysis of tasks, particularly through task analysis and means-ends analysis. We don\u2019t often think of young children as analyzing, butas humans, we are drawn to analysis of things and people around us from very early on.\r\n\r\nTask analysis is breaking down a task into its component parts. Studies done in the West demonstrate that this occurs as early as infancy. For example, the use of tools such as a rake to grab a toy that is out of reach (as discussed by Siegler and Alibali, 2019) requires an infant to know the goal to be solved in a problem and to identify a way to achieve that goal through the use of a concrete tool.\r\n\r\nThis analysis of steps that are needed to achieve a certain task is actually quite abstract because while using a rake to reach an object out of reach, a child is not acting on the immediate environment; rather, they are looking ahead a couple of steps. Therefore, imagining an outcome that is not imminently clear is evidence of using a tool as a means towards an end (versus just grabbing something that is right in front of you).\r\n\r\nMeans-ends analysis involves choosing from a set of possible (and sometimes conflicting) steps to solve a problem. Klahr (1985, as cited in Siegler and Alibali, 2019) studied five-yea-olds and their ability to choose among steps that lead to a goal. Not only do young children have to work through steps to solve problems, but sometimes, a step they take will get them farther away from their goal! In this way, they have to go against what might seem the most logical next step in a problem to figure out the best, most efficient way to solve it.\r\n

Tower of Hanoi Game<\/h2>\r\nI am familiar with measuring means-end analysis in young children, and I think a common research tool that demonstrates it well is the Tower of Hanoi. This is a logic-based game in which one must move discs of different diameters from one wooden peg to another according to three rules:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. You can only move one disc at a time<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. You must move the disc either on top of another disc or on an empty peg<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. You cannot put a disc on top of another disc that is smaller<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nI have used this task in Nigeria as well as in Canada. In my experience, children respond well to its simple wooden design, and they seem to understand the goal of the game and its rules very well.\r\n\r\nBelow, I would like you to watch a child doing the task while violating the rules first to get a sense of what it looks like, and then a second time with the child following the rules.\r\n\r\nVideo: Tower of Hanoi Demonstration (duration: 2:45)<\/strong><\/em>\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/mBxPDiSpKp4\r\n
    \r\n

    Knowledge Check<\/h3>\r\n<\/header>\r\n
    \r\n\r\nAfter watching the video above, check your understanding with the following questions.\r\n\r\n[h5p id=\"22\"]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n ","rendered":"

    So far in this chapter, I have pointed out different kinds of problem-solving, such as block-building and puzzle play. Now, let\u2019s look at some specific components of problem-solving and how we can observe children engaged in tasks, either in naturalistic observations or in research.<\/p>\n

    Components of Problem Solving<\/h2>\n
    \"A
    Photo<\/a> by Prince Photos<\/a> from Pexels<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    From infancy, we see the use of problem-solving in socially-embedded ways. Siegler and Alibali (2019) suggest that the earliest \u201cproblems\u201d an infant identifies may be to simply get their needs met. They may act independently by reaching for desired objects or even removing barriers to them.<\/p>\n

    But they also look to those around them \u2014 even when they are preverbal \u2014 for assistance in getting what they need or want. For example, young children will often look towards an adult while they are reaching for something in an understanding of how to get what they want, with the adult serving as a sort of problem-solving \u201ctool.\u201d We will explore the social connections involved in children\u2019s thinking and learning in more depth in Chapter 7.<\/p>\n

    Once a child has identified a problem, they use components like mental models, task analysis, and means-ends analysis to address their need and resolve the problem (Siegler and Alibali, 2019).<\/p>\n

    Mental models refer to the internal understanding of steps in a task. These models are formed from the physical problem-solving and step-by-step analysis of tasks, particularly through task analysis and means-ends analysis. We don\u2019t often think of young children as analyzing, butas humans, we are drawn to analysis of things and people around us from very early on.<\/p>\n

    Task analysis is breaking down a task into its component parts. Studies done in the West demonstrate that this occurs as early as infancy. For example, the use of tools such as a rake to grab a toy that is out of reach (as discussed by Siegler and Alibali, 2019) requires an infant to know the goal to be solved in a problem and to identify a way to achieve that goal through the use of a concrete tool.<\/p>\n

    This analysis of steps that are needed to achieve a certain task is actually quite abstract because while using a rake to reach an object out of reach, a child is not acting on the immediate environment; rather, they are looking ahead a couple of steps. Therefore, imagining an outcome that is not imminently clear is evidence of using a tool as a means towards an end (versus just grabbing something that is right in front of you).<\/p>\n

    Means-ends analysis involves choosing from a set of possible (and sometimes conflicting) steps to solve a problem. Klahr (1985, as cited in Siegler and Alibali, 2019) studied five-yea-olds and their ability to choose among steps that lead to a goal. Not only do young children have to work through steps to solve problems, but sometimes, a step they take will get them farther away from their goal! In this way, they have to go against what might seem the most logical next step in a problem to figure out the best, most efficient way to solve it.<\/p>\n

    Tower of Hanoi Game<\/h2>\n

    I am familiar with measuring means-end analysis in young children, and I think a common research tool that demonstrates it well is the Tower of Hanoi. This is a logic-based game in which one must move discs of different diameters from one wooden peg to another according to three rules:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. You can only move one disc at a time<\/li>\n
    2. You must move the disc either on top of another disc or on an empty peg<\/li>\n
    3. You cannot put a disc on top of another disc that is smaller<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      I have used this task in Nigeria as well as in Canada. In my experience, children respond well to its simple wooden design, and they seem to understand the goal of the game and its rules very well.<\/p>\n

      Below, I would like you to watch a child doing the task while violating the rules first to get a sense of what it looks like, and then a second time with the child following the rules.<\/p>\n

      Video: Tower of Hanoi Demonstration (duration: 2:45)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n