cooperative problem solving and teaching in preschoolers

Cooperative problem-solving and teaching in preschoolers

The current study investigated the ontogenetic origins of children's skills of cooperative problem-solving in a task involving two complementary roles. Participants were peer dyads of 24, 30, 36, and 42 months of age. Primary dyads were initially presented with an instrumental problem whose solution required them to cooperate by coordinating two complementary actions. To further investigate their understanding of the task, these same dyads were then presented with the same problem but with roles reversed. Finally, after each of these primary participants had demonstrated proficiency in both roles, each was separately paired with a naive peer and given the opportunity to teach the naive partner the task. A clear ontogenetic trend emerged. Even with adult assistance, 24-month-old children never became independently proficient at the task. Thirty-and 36-month-old children became proficient mostly independently, but only relatively slowly and without demonstrating extensive amounts of behavioral coordination or the use of explicitly directive language to facilitate coordination. Although they did show evidence of recognizing when a peer was new to the task, children of this age engaged in little explicit teaching of naive peers. In contrast, 42-month-old children mastered the task much more quickly than the other children, responded much more quickly and accurately when their roles were reversed, coordinated both their actions and language in the task to a much greater extent, and engaged in more explicit teaching of naive peers. Results are discussed in terms of the developing social cognitive skills that enable children from 2 to 4 years of age to understand other persons as mental agents with whom they may share mental perspectives.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats

Dimensions citation stats, published in, publication date, start / end page, related subject headings.

• Developmental & Child Psychology
• 5205 Social and personality psychology
• 5202 Biological psychology
• 5201 Applied and developmental psychology
• 1701 Psychology

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 January 2023

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature

• Enwei Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6424-8169 1 ,
• Wei Wang 1 &
• Qingxia Wang 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  16 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

21 Citations

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely embraced in the classroom instruction of critical thinking, which is regarded as the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education as well as a key competence for learners in the 21st century. However, the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking remains uncertain. This current research presents the major findings of a meta-analysis of 36 pieces of the literature revealed in worldwide educational periodicals during the 21st century to identify the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and to determine, based on evidence, whether and to what extent collaborative problem solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. The findings show that (1) collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster students’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]); (2) in respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem solving can significantly and successfully enhance students’ attitudinal tendencies (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI[0.58, 0.82]); and (3) the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have an impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. On the basis of these results, recommendations are made for further study and instruction to better support students’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Similar content being viewed by others

A meta-analysis of the effects of design thinking on student learning

Fostering twenty-first century skills among primary school students through math project-based learning

A meta-analysis to gauge the impact of pedagogies employed in mixed-ability high school biology classrooms

Introduction.

Although critical thinking has a long history in research, the concept of critical thinking, which is regarded as an essential competence for learners in the 21st century, has recently attracted more attention from researchers and teaching practitioners (National Research Council, 2012 ). Critical thinking should be the core of curriculum reform based on key competencies in the field of education (Peng and Deng, 2017 ) because students with critical thinking can not only understand the meaning of knowledge but also effectively solve practical problems in real life even after knowledge is forgotten (Kek and Huijser, 2011 ). The definition of critical thinking is not universal (Ennis, 1989 ; Castle, 2009 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). In general, the definition of critical thinking is a self-aware and self-regulated thought process (Facione, 1990 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). It refers to the cognitive skills needed to interpret, analyze, synthesize, reason, and evaluate information as well as the attitudinal tendency to apply these abilities (Halpern, 2001 ). The view that critical thinking can be taught and learned through curriculum teaching has been widely supported by many researchers (e.g., Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), leading to educators’ efforts to foster it among students. In the field of teaching practice, there are three types of courses for teaching critical thinking (Ennis, 1989 ). The first is an independent curriculum in which critical thinking is taught and cultivated without involving the knowledge of specific disciplines; the second is an integrated curriculum in which critical thinking is integrated into the teaching of other disciplines as a clear teaching goal; and the third is a mixed curriculum in which critical thinking is taught in parallel to the teaching of other disciplines for mixed teaching training. Furthermore, numerous measuring tools have been developed by researchers and educators to measure critical thinking in the context of teaching practice. These include standardized measurement tools, such as WGCTA, CCTST, CCTT, and CCTDI, which have been verified by repeated experiments and are considered effective and reliable by international scholars (Facione and Facione, 1992 ). In short, descriptions of critical thinking, including its two dimensions of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, different types of teaching courses, and standardized measurement tools provide a complex normative framework for understanding, teaching, and evaluating critical thinking.

Cultivating critical thinking in curriculum teaching can start with a problem, and one of the most popular critical thinking instructional approaches is problem-based learning (Liu et al., 2020 ). Duch et al. ( 2001 ) noted that problem-based learning in group collaboration is progressive active learning, which can improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Collaborative problem-solving is the organic integration of collaborative learning and problem-based learning, which takes learners as the center of the learning process and uses problems with poor structure in real-world situations as the starting point for the learning process (Liang et al., 2017 ). Students learn the knowledge needed to solve problems in a collaborative group, reach a consensus on problems in the field, and form solutions through social cooperation methods, such as dialogue, interpretation, questioning, debate, negotiation, and reflection, thus promoting the development of learners’ domain knowledge and critical thinking (Cindy, 2004 ; Liang et al., 2017 ).

Collaborative problem-solving has been widely used in the teaching practice of critical thinking, and several studies have attempted to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature on critical thinking from various perspectives. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of collaborative problem-solving on critical thinking. Therefore, the best approach for developing and enhancing critical thinking throughout collaborative problem-solving is to examine how to implement critical thinking instruction; however, this issue is still unexplored, which means that many teachers are incapable of better instructing critical thinking (Leng and Lu, 2020 ; Niu et al., 2013 ). For example, Huber ( 2016 ) provided the meta-analysis findings of 71 publications on gaining critical thinking over various time frames in college with the aim of determining whether critical thinking was truly teachable. These authors found that learners significantly improve their critical thinking while in college and that critical thinking differs with factors such as teaching strategies, intervention duration, subject area, and teaching type. The usefulness of collaborative problem-solving in fostering students’ critical thinking, however, was not determined by this study, nor did it reveal whether there existed significant variations among the different elements. A meta-analysis of 31 pieces of educational literature was conducted by Liu et al. ( 2020 ) to assess the impact of problem-solving on college students’ critical thinking. These authors found that problem-solving could promote the development of critical thinking among college students and proposed establishing a reasonable group structure for problem-solving in a follow-up study to improve students’ critical thinking. Additionally, previous empirical studies have reached inconclusive and even contradictory conclusions about whether and to what extent collaborative problem-solving increases or decreases critical thinking levels. As an illustration, Yang et al. ( 2008 ) carried out an experiment on the integrated curriculum teaching of college students based on a web bulletin board with the goal of fostering participants’ critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These authors’ research revealed that through sharing, debating, examining, and reflecting on various experiences and ideas, collaborative problem-solving can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking in real-life problem situations. In contrast, collaborative problem-solving had a positive impact on learners’ interaction and could improve learning interest and motivation but could not significantly improve students’ critical thinking when compared to traditional classroom teaching, according to research by Naber and Wyatt ( 2014 ) and Sendag and Odabasi ( 2009 ) on undergraduate and high school students, respectively.

The above studies show that there is inconsistency regarding the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a thorough and trustworthy review to detect and decide whether and to what degree collaborative problem-solving can result in a rise or decrease in critical thinking. Meta-analysis is a quantitative analysis approach that is utilized to examine quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. This approach characterizes the effectiveness of its impact by averaging the effect sizes of numerous qualitative studies in an effort to reduce the uncertainty brought on by independent research and produce more conclusive findings (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ).

This paper used a meta-analytic approach and carried out a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking in order to make a contribution to both research and practice. The following research questions were addressed by this meta-analysis:

What is the overall effect size of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills)?

How are the disparities between the study conclusions impacted by various moderating variables if the impacts of various experimental designs in the included studies are heterogeneous?

This research followed the strict procedures (e.g., database searching, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal, and analysis of included studies) of Cooper’s ( 2010 ) proposed meta-analysis approach for examining quantitative data from various separate studies that are all focused on the same research topic. The relevant empirical research that appeared in worldwide educational periodicals within the 21st century was subjected to this meta-analysis using Rev-Man 5.4. The consistency of the data extracted separately by two researchers was tested using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and a publication bias test and a heterogeneity test were run on the sample data to ascertain the quality of this meta-analysis.

Data sources and search strategies

There were three stages to the data collection process for this meta-analysis, as shown in Fig. 1 , which shows the number of articles included and eliminated during the selection process based on the statement and study eligibility criteria.

This flowchart shows the number of records identified, included and excluded in the article.

First, the databases used to systematically search for relevant articles were the journal papers of the Web of Science Core Collection and the Chinese Core source journal, as well as the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) source journal papers included in CNKI. These databases were selected because they are credible platforms that are sources of scholarly and peer-reviewed information with advanced search tools and contain literature relevant to the subject of our topic from reliable researchers and experts. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the Web of Science was “TS = (((“critical thinking” or “ct” and “pretest” or “posttest”) or (“critical thinking” or “ct” and “control group” or “quasi experiment” or “experiment”)) and (“collaboration” or “collaborative learning” or “CSCL”) and (“problem solving” or “problem-based learning” or “PBL”))”. The research area was “Education Educational Research”, and the search period was “January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2021”. A total of 412 papers were obtained. The search string with the Boolean operator used in the CNKI was “SU = (‘critical thinking’*‘collaboration’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘collaborative learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘CSCL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem solving’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem-based learning’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘PBL’ + ‘critical thinking’*‘problem oriented’) AND FT = (‘experiment’ + ‘quasi experiment’ + ‘pretest’ + ‘posttest’ + ‘empirical study’)” (translated into Chinese when searching). A total of 56 studies were found throughout the search period of “January 2000 to December 2021”. From the databases, all duplicates and retractions were eliminated before exporting the references into Endnote, a program for managing bibliographic references. In all, 466 studies were found.

Second, the studies that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were chosen by two researchers after they had reviewed the abstracts and titles of the gathered articles, yielding a total of 126 studies.

Third, two researchers thoroughly reviewed each included article’s whole text in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meanwhile, a snowball search was performed using the references and citations of the included articles to ensure complete coverage of the articles. Ultimately, 36 articles were kept.

Two researchers worked together to carry out this entire process, and a consensus rate of almost 94.7% was reached after discussion and negotiation to clarify any emerging differences.

Eligibility criteria

Since not all the retrieved studies matched the criteria for this meta-analysis, eligibility criteria for both inclusion and exclusion were developed as follows:

The publication language of the included studies was limited to English and Chinese, and the full text could be obtained. Articles that did not meet the publication language and articles not published between 2000 and 2021 were excluded.

The research design of the included studies must be empirical and quantitative studies that can assess the effect of collaborative problem-solving on the development of critical thinking. Articles that could not identify the causal mechanisms by which collaborative problem-solving affects critical thinking, such as review articles and theoretical articles, were excluded.

The research method of the included studies must feature a randomized control experiment or a quasi-experiment, or a natural experiment, which have a higher degree of internal validity with strong experimental designs and can all plausibly provide evidence that critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving are causally related. Articles with non-experimental research methods, such as purely correlational or observational studies, were excluded.

The participants of the included studies were only students in school, including K-12 students and college students. Articles in which the participants were non-school students, such as social workers or adult learners, were excluded.

The research results of the included studies must mention definite signs that may be utilized to gauge critical thinking’s impact (e.g., sample size, mean value, or standard deviation). Articles that lacked specific measurement indicators for critical thinking and could not calculate the effect size were excluded.

Data coding design

In order to perform a meta-analysis, it is necessary to collect the most important information from the articles, codify that information’s properties, and convert descriptive data into quantitative data. Therefore, this study designed a data coding template (see Table 1 ). Ultimately, 16 coding fields were retained.

The designed data-coding template consisted of three pieces of information. Basic information about the papers was included in the descriptive information: the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper.

The variable information for the experimental design had three variables: the independent variable (instruction method), the dependent variable (critical thinking), and the moderating variable (learning stage, teaching type, intervention duration, learning scaffold, group size, measuring tool, and subject area). Depending on the topic of this study, the intervention strategy, as the independent variable, was coded into collaborative and non-collaborative problem-solving. The dependent variable, critical thinking, was coded as a cognitive skill and an attitudinal tendency. And seven moderating variables were created by grouping and combining the experimental design variables discovered within the 36 studies (see Table 1 ), where learning stages were encoded as higher education, high school, middle school, and primary school or lower; teaching types were encoded as mixed courses, integrated courses, and independent courses; intervention durations were encoded as 0–1 weeks, 1–4 weeks, 4–12 weeks, and more than 12 weeks; group sizes were encoded as 2–3 persons, 4–6 persons, 7–10 persons, and more than 10 persons; learning scaffolds were encoded as teacher-supported learning scaffold, technique-supported learning scaffold, and resource-supported learning scaffold; measuring tools were encoded as standardized measurement tools (e.g., WGCTA, CCTT, CCTST, and CCTDI) and self-adapting measurement tools (e.g., modified or made by researchers); and subject areas were encoded according to the specific subjects used in the 36 included studies.

The data information contained three metrics for measuring critical thinking: sample size, average value, and standard deviation. It is vital to remember that studies with various experimental designs frequently adopt various formulas to determine the effect size. And this paper used Morris’ proposed standardized mean difference (SMD) calculation formula ( 2008 , p. 369; see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Procedure for extracting and coding data

According to the data coding template (see Table 1 ), the 36 papers’ information was retrieved by two researchers, who then entered them into Excel (see Supplementary Table S1 ). The results of each study were extracted separately in the data extraction procedure if an article contained numerous studies on critical thinking, or if a study assessed different critical thinking dimensions. For instance, Tiwari et al. ( 2010 ) used four time points, which were viewed as numerous different studies, to examine the outcomes of critical thinking, and Chen ( 2013 ) included the two outcome variables of attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills, which were regarded as two studies. After discussion and negotiation during data extraction, the two researchers’ consistency test coefficients were roughly 93.27%. Supplementary Table S2 details the key characteristics of the 36 included articles with 79 effect quantities, including descriptive information (e.g., the publishing year, author, serial number, and title of the paper), variable information (e.g., independent variables, dependent variables, and moderating variables), and data information (e.g., mean values, standard deviations, and sample size). Following that, testing for publication bias and heterogeneity was done on the sample data using the Rev-Man 5.4 software, and then the test results were used to conduct a meta-analysis.

Publication bias test

When the sample of studies included in a meta-analysis does not accurately reflect the general status of research on the relevant subject, publication bias is said to be exhibited in this research. The reliability and accuracy of the meta-analysis may be impacted by publication bias. Due to this, the meta-analysis needs to check the sample data for publication bias (Stewart et al., 2006 ). A popular method to check for publication bias is the funnel plot; and it is unlikely that there will be publishing bias when the data are equally dispersed on either side of the average effect size and targeted within the higher region. The data are equally dispersed within the higher portion of the efficient zone, consistent with the funnel plot connected with this analysis (see Fig. 2 ), indicating that publication bias is unlikely in this situation.

This funnel plot shows the result of publication bias of 79 effect quantities across 36 studies.

Heterogeneity test

To select the appropriate effect models for the meta-analysis, one might use the results of a heterogeneity test on the data effect sizes. In a meta-analysis, it is common practice to gauge the degree of data heterogeneity using the I 2 value, and I 2  ≥ 50% is typically understood to denote medium-high heterogeneity, which calls for the adoption of a random effect model; if not, a fixed effect model ought to be applied (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001 ). The findings of the heterogeneity test in this paper (see Table 2 ) revealed that I 2 was 86% and displayed significant heterogeneity ( P  < 0.01). To ensure accuracy and reliability, the overall effect size ought to be calculated utilizing the random effect model.

The analysis of the overall effect size

This meta-analysis utilized a random effect model to examine 79 effect quantities from 36 studies after eliminating heterogeneity. In accordance with Cohen’s criterion (Cohen, 1992 ), it is abundantly clear from the analysis results, which are shown in the forest plot of the overall effect (see Fig. 3 ), that the cumulative impact size of cooperative problem-solving is 0.82, which is statistically significant ( z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]), and can encourage learners to practice critical thinking.

This forest plot shows the analysis result of the overall effect size across 36 studies.

In addition, this study examined two distinct dimensions of critical thinking to better understand the precise contributions that collaborative problem-solving makes to the growth of critical thinking. The findings (see Table 3 ) indicate that collaborative problem-solving improves cognitive skills (ES = 0.70) and attitudinal tendency (ES = 1.17), with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.95, P  < 0.01). Although collaborative problem-solving improves both dimensions of critical thinking, it is essential to point out that the improvements in students’ attitudinal tendency are much more pronounced and have a significant comprehensive effect (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]), whereas gains in learners’ cognitive skill are slightly improved and are just above average. (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

The analysis of moderator effect size

The whole forest plot’s 79 effect quantities underwent a two-tailed test, which revealed significant heterogeneity ( I 2  = 86%, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01), indicating differences between various effect sizes that may have been influenced by moderating factors other than sampling error. Therefore, exploring possible moderating factors that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis, such as the learning stage, learning scaffold, teaching type, group size, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, in order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking. The findings (see Table 4 ) indicate that various moderating factors have advantageous effects on critical thinking. In this situation, the subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01), and teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05) are all significant moderators that can be applied to support the cultivation of critical thinking. However, since the learning stage and the measuring tools did not significantly differ among intergroup (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05, and chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05), we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving. These are the precise outcomes, as follows:

Various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively, without significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05). High school was first on the list of effect sizes (ES = 1.36, P  < 0.01), then higher education (ES = 0.78, P  < 0.01), and middle school (ES = 0.73, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the learning stage’s beneficial influence on cultivating learners’ critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is essential for cultivating critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Different teaching types had varying degrees of positive impact on critical thinking, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05). The effect size was ranked as follows: mixed courses (ES = 1.34, P  < 0.01), integrated courses (ES = 0.81, P  < 0.01), and independent courses (ES = 0.27, P  < 0.01). These results indicate that the most effective approach to cultivate critical thinking utilizing collaborative problem solving is through the teaching type of mixed courses.

Various intervention durations significantly improved critical thinking, and there were significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01). The effect sizes related to this variable showed a tendency to increase with longer intervention durations. The improvement in critical thinking reached a significant level (ES = 0.85, P  < 0.01) after more than 12 weeks of training. These findings indicate that the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated, with a longer intervention duration having a greater effect.

Different learning scaffolds influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01). The resource-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.69, P  < 0.01) acquired a medium-to-higher level of impact, the technique-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.63, P  < 0.01) also attained a medium-to-higher level of impact, and the teacher-supported learning scaffold (ES = 0.92, P  < 0.01) displayed a high level of significant impact. These results show that the learning scaffold with teacher support has the greatest impact on cultivating critical thinking.

Various group sizes influenced critical thinking positively, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05). Critical thinking showed a general declining trend with increasing group size. The overall effect size of 2–3 people in this situation was the biggest (ES = 0.99, P  < 0.01), and when the group size was greater than 7 people, the improvement in critical thinking was at the lower-middle level (ES < 0.5, P  < 0.01). These results show that the impact on critical thinking is positively connected with group size, and as group size grows, so does the overall impact.

Various measuring tools influenced critical thinking positively, with significant intergroup differences (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05). In this situation, the self-adapting measurement tools obtained an upper-medium level of effect (ES = 0.78), whereas the complete effect size of the standardized measurement tools was the largest, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 0.84, P  < 0.01). These results show that, despite the beneficial influence of the measuring tool on cultivating critical thinking, we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Different subject areas had a greater impact on critical thinking, and the intergroup differences were statistically significant (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05). Mathematics had the greatest overall impact, achieving a significant level of effect (ES = 1.68, P  < 0.01), followed by science (ES = 1.25, P  < 0.01) and medical science (ES = 0.87, P  < 0.01), both of which also achieved a significant level of effect. Programming technology was the least effective (ES = 0.39, P  < 0.01), only having a medium-low degree of effect compared to education (ES = 0.72, P  < 0.01) and other fields (such as language, art, and social sciences) (ES = 0.58, P  < 0.01). These results suggest that scientific fields (e.g., mathematics, science) may be the most effective subject areas for cultivating critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

According to this meta-analysis, using collaborative problem-solving as an intervention strategy in critical thinking teaching has a considerable amount of impact on cultivating learners’ critical thinking as a whole and has a favorable promotional effect on the two dimensions of critical thinking. According to certain studies, collaborative problem solving, the most frequently used critical thinking teaching strategy in curriculum instruction can considerably enhance students’ critical thinking (e.g., Liang et al., 2017 ; Liu et al., 2020 ; Cindy, 2004 ). This meta-analysis provides convergent data support for the above research views. Thus, the findings of this meta-analysis not only effectively address the first research query regarding the overall effect of cultivating critical thinking and its impact on the two dimensions of critical thinking (i.e., attitudinal tendency and cognitive skills) utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving, but also enhance our confidence in cultivating critical thinking by using collaborative problem-solving intervention approach in the context of classroom teaching.

Furthermore, the associated improvements in attitudinal tendency are much stronger, but the corresponding improvements in cognitive skill are only marginally better. According to certain studies, cognitive skill differs from the attitudinal tendency in classroom instruction; the cultivation and development of the former as a key ability is a process of gradual accumulation, while the latter as an attitude is affected by the context of the teaching situation (e.g., a novel and exciting teaching approach, challenging and rewarding tasks) (Halpern, 2001 ; Wei and Hong, 2022 ). Collaborative problem-solving as a teaching approach is exciting and interesting, as well as rewarding and challenging; because it takes the learners as the focus and examines problems with poor structure in real situations, and it can inspire students to fully realize their potential for problem-solving, which will significantly improve their attitudinal tendency toward solving problems (Liu et al., 2020 ). Similar to how collaborative problem-solving influences attitudinal tendency, attitudinal tendency impacts cognitive skill when attempting to solve a problem (Liu et al., 2020 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ), and stronger attitudinal tendencies are associated with improved learning achievement and cognitive ability in students (Sison, 2008 ; Zhang et al., 2022 ). It can be seen that the two specific dimensions of critical thinking as well as critical thinking as a whole are affected by collaborative problem-solving, and this study illuminates the nuanced links between cognitive skills and attitudinal tendencies with regard to these two dimensions of critical thinking. To fully develop students’ capacity for critical thinking, future empirical research should pay closer attention to cognitive skills.

The moderating effects of collaborative problem solving with regard to teaching critical thinking

In order to further explore the key factors that influence critical thinking, exploring possible moderating effects that might produce considerable heterogeneity was done using subgroup analysis. The findings show that the moderating factors, such as the teaching type, learning stage, group size, learning scaffold, duration of the intervention, measuring tool, and the subject area included in the 36 experimental designs, could all support the cultivation of collaborative problem-solving in critical thinking. Among them, the effect size differences between the learning stage and measuring tool are not significant, which does not explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

In terms of the learning stage, various learning stages influenced critical thinking positively without significant intergroup differences, indicating that we are unable to explain why it is crucial in fostering the growth of critical thinking.

Although high education accounts for 70.89% of all empirical studies performed by researchers, high school may be the appropriate learning stage to foster students’ critical thinking by utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving since it has the largest overall effect size. This phenomenon may be related to student’s cognitive development, which needs to be further studied in follow-up research.

With regard to teaching type, mixed course teaching may be the best teaching method to cultivate students’ critical thinking. Relevant studies have shown that in the actual teaching process if students are trained in thinking methods alone, the methods they learn are isolated and divorced from subject knowledge, which is not conducive to their transfer of thinking methods; therefore, if students’ thinking is trained only in subject teaching without systematic method training, it is challenging to apply to real-world circumstances (Ruggiero, 2012 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Teaching critical thinking as mixed course teaching in parallel to other subject teachings can achieve the best effect on learners’ critical thinking, and explicit critical thinking instruction is more effective than less explicit critical thinking instruction (Bensley and Spero, 2014 ).

In terms of the intervention duration, with longer intervention times, the overall effect size shows an upward tendency. Thus, the intervention duration and critical thinking’s impact are positively correlated. Critical thinking, as a key competency for students in the 21st century, is difficult to get a meaningful improvement in a brief intervention duration. Instead, it could be developed over a lengthy period of time through consistent teaching and the progressive accumulation of knowledge (Halpern, 2001 ; Hu and Liu, 2015 ). Therefore, future empirical studies ought to take these restrictions into account throughout a longer period of critical thinking instruction.

With regard to group size, a group size of 2–3 persons has the highest effect size, and the comprehensive effect size decreases with increasing group size in general. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a group composed of two to four members is most appropriate for collaborative learning (Schellens and Valcke, 2006 ). However, the meta-analysis results also indicate that once the group size exceeds 7 people, small groups cannot produce better interaction and performance than large groups. This may be because the learning scaffolds of technique support, resource support, and teacher support improve the frequency and effectiveness of interaction among group members, and a collaborative group with more members may increase the diversity of views, which is helpful to cultivate critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

With regard to the learning scaffold, the three different kinds of learning scaffolds can all enhance critical thinking. Among them, the teacher-supported learning scaffold has the largest overall effect size, demonstrating the interdependence of effective learning scaffolds and collaborative problem-solving. This outcome is in line with some research findings; as an example, a successful strategy is to encourage learners to collaborate, come up with solutions, and develop critical thinking skills by using learning scaffolds (Reiser, 2004 ; Xu et al., 2022 ); learning scaffolds can lower task complexity and unpleasant feelings while also enticing students to engage in learning activities (Wood et al., 2006 ); learning scaffolds are designed to assist students in using learning approaches more successfully to adapt the collaborative problem-solving process, and the teacher-supported learning scaffolds have the greatest influence on critical thinking in this process because they are more targeted, informative, and timely (Xu et al., 2022 ).

With respect to the measuring tool, despite the fact that standardized measurement tools (such as the WGCTA, CCTT, and CCTST) have been acknowledged as trustworthy and effective by worldwide experts, only 54.43% of the research included in this meta-analysis adopted them for assessment, and the results indicated no intergroup differences. These results suggest that not all teaching circumstances are appropriate for measuring critical thinking using standardized measurement tools. “The measuring tools for measuring thinking ability have limits in assessing learners in educational situations and should be adapted appropriately to accurately assess the changes in learners’ critical thinking.”, according to Simpson and Courtney ( 2002 , p. 91). As a result, in order to more fully and precisely gauge how learners’ critical thinking has evolved, we must properly modify standardized measuring tools based on collaborative problem-solving learning contexts.

With regard to the subject area, the comprehensive effect size of science departments (e.g., mathematics, science, medical science) is larger than that of language arts and social sciences. Some recent international education reforms have noted that critical thinking is a basic part of scientific literacy. Students with scientific literacy can prove the rationality of their judgment according to accurate evidence and reasonable standards when they face challenges or poorly structured problems (Kyndt et al., 2013 ), which makes critical thinking crucial for developing scientific understanding and applying this understanding to practical problem solving for problems related to science, technology, and society (Yore et al., 2007 ).

Suggestions for critical thinking teaching

Other than those stated in the discussion above, the following suggestions are offered for critical thinking instruction utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

First, teachers should put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, to design real problems based on collaborative situations. This meta-analysis provides evidence to support the view that collaborative problem-solving has a strong synergistic effect on promoting students’ critical thinking. Asking questions about real situations and allowing learners to take part in critical discussions on real problems during class instruction are key ways to teach critical thinking rather than simply reading speculative articles without practice (Mulnix, 2012 ). Furthermore, the improvement of students’ critical thinking is realized through cognitive conflict with other learners in the problem situation (Yang et al., 2008 ). Consequently, it is essential for teachers to put a special emphasis on the two core elements, which are collaboration and problem-solving, and design real problems and encourage students to discuss, negotiate, and argue based on collaborative problem-solving situations.

Second, teachers should design and implement mixed courses to cultivate learners’ critical thinking, utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving. Critical thinking can be taught through curriculum instruction (Kuncel, 2011 ; Leng and Lu, 2020 ), with the goal of cultivating learners’ critical thinking for flexible transfer and application in real problem-solving situations. This meta-analysis shows that mixed course teaching has a highly substantial impact on the cultivation and promotion of learners’ critical thinking. Therefore, teachers should design and implement mixed course teaching with real collaborative problem-solving situations in combination with the knowledge content of specific disciplines in conventional teaching, teach methods and strategies of critical thinking based on poorly structured problems to help students master critical thinking, and provide practical activities in which students can interact with each other to develop knowledge construction and critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem-solving.

Third, teachers should be more trained in critical thinking, particularly preservice teachers, and they also should be conscious of the ways in which teachers’ support for learning scaffolds can promote critical thinking. The learning scaffold supported by teachers had the greatest impact on learners’ critical thinking, in addition to being more directive, targeted, and timely (Wood et al., 2006 ). Critical thinking can only be effectively taught when teachers recognize the significance of critical thinking for students’ growth and use the proper approaches while designing instructional activities (Forawi, 2016 ). Therefore, with the intention of enabling teachers to create learning scaffolds to cultivate learners’ critical thinking utilizing the approach of collaborative problem solving, it is essential to concentrate on the teacher-supported learning scaffolds and enhance the instruction for teaching critical thinking to teachers, especially preservice teachers.

Implications and limitations

There are certain limitations in this meta-analysis, but future research can correct them. First, the search languages were restricted to English and Chinese, so it is possible that pertinent studies that were written in other languages were overlooked, resulting in an inadequate number of articles for review. Second, these data provided by the included studies are partially missing, such as whether teachers were trained in the theory and practice of critical thinking, the average age and gender of learners, and the differences in critical thinking among learners of various ages and genders. Third, as is typical for review articles, more studies were released while this meta-analysis was being done; therefore, it had a time limit. With the development of relevant research, future studies focusing on these issues are highly relevant and needed.

Conclusions

The subject of the magnitude of collaborative problem-solving’s impact on fostering students’ critical thinking, which received scant attention from other studies, was successfully addressed by this study. The question of the effectiveness of collaborative problem-solving in promoting students’ critical thinking was addressed in this study, which addressed a topic that had gotten little attention in earlier research. The following conclusions can be made:

Regarding the results obtained, collaborative problem solving is an effective teaching approach to foster learners’ critical thinking, with a significant overall effect size (ES = 0.82, z  = 12.78, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.69, 0.95]). With respect to the dimensions of critical thinking, collaborative problem-solving can significantly and effectively improve students’ attitudinal tendency, and the comprehensive effect is significant (ES = 1.17, z  = 7.62, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.87, 1.47]); nevertheless, it falls short in terms of improving students’ cognitive skills, having only an upper-middle impact (ES = 0.70, z  = 11.55, P  < 0.01, 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]).

As demonstrated by both the results and the discussion, there are varying degrees of beneficial effects on students’ critical thinking from all seven moderating factors, which were found across 36 studies. In this context, the teaching type (chi 2  = 7.20, P  < 0.05), intervention duration (chi 2  = 12.18, P  < 0.01), subject area (chi 2  = 13.36, P  < 0.05), group size (chi 2  = 8.77, P  < 0.05), and learning scaffold (chi 2  = 9.03, P  < 0.01) all have a positive impact on critical thinking, and they can be viewed as important moderating factors that affect how critical thinking develops. Since the learning stage (chi 2  = 3.15, P  = 0.21 > 0.05) and measuring tools (chi 2  = 0.08, P  = 0.78 > 0.05) did not demonstrate any significant intergroup differences, we are unable to explain why these two factors are crucial in supporting the cultivation of critical thinking in the context of collaborative problem-solving.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included within the article and its supplementary information files, and the supplementary information files are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/IPFJO6 .

Bensley DA, Spero RA (2014) Improving critical thinking skills and meta-cognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Think Skills Creat 12:55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Castle A (2009) Defining and assessing critical thinking skills for student radiographers. Radiography 15(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2007.10.007

Chen XD (2013) An empirical study on the influence of PBL teaching model on critical thinking ability of non-English majors. J PLA Foreign Lang College 36 (04):68–72

Google Scholar  

Cohen A (1992) Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130602

Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, London, England

Cindy HS (2004) Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ Psychol Rev 51(1):31–39

Duch BJ, Gron SD, Allen DE (2001) The power of problem-based learning: a practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Stylus Educ Sci 2:190–198

Ennis RH (1989) Critical thinking and subject specificity: clarification and needed research. Educ Res 18(3):4–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x018003004

Facione PA (1990) Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Eric document reproduction service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed315423

Facione PA, Facione NC (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) and the CCTDI test manual. California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA

Forawi SA (2016) Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Think Skills Creat 20:52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.02.005

Halpern DF (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. J Gen Educ 50(4):270–286. https://doi.org/10.2307/27797889

Hu WP, Liu J (2015) Cultivation of pupils’ thinking ability: a five-year follow-up study. Psychol Behav Res 13(05):648–654. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.05.010

Huber K (2016) Does college teach critical thinking? A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res 86(2):431–468. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315605917

Kek MYCA, Huijser H (2011) The power of problem-based learning in developing critical thinking skills: preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. High Educ Res Dev 30(3):329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501074

Kuncel NR (2011) Measurement and meaning of critical thinking (Research report for the NRC 21st Century Skills Workshop). National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kyndt E, Raes E, Lismont B, Timmers F, Cascallar E, Dochy F (2013) A meta-analysis of the effects of face-to-face cooperative learning. Do recent studies falsify or verify earlier findings? Educ Res Rev 10(2):133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.02.002

Leng J, Lu XX (2020) Is critical thinking really teachable?—A meta-analysis based on 79 experimental or quasi experimental studies. Open Educ Res 26(06):110–118. https://doi.org/10.13966/j.cnki.kfjyyj.2020.06.011

Liang YZ, Zhu K, Zhao CL (2017) An empirical study on the depth of interaction promoted by collaborative problem solving learning activities. J E-educ Res 38(10):87–92. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2017.10.014

Lipsey M, Wilson D (2001) Practical meta-analysis. International Educational and Professional, London, pp. 92–160

Liu Z, Wu W, Jiang Q (2020) A study on the influence of problem based learning on college students’ critical thinking-based on a meta-analysis of 31 studies. Explor High Educ 03:43–49

Morris SB (2008) Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 11(2):364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106291059

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mulnix JW (2012) Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educ Philos Theory 44(5):464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

Naber J, Wyatt TH (2014) The effect of reflective writing interventions on the critical thinking skills and dispositions of baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 34(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.002

National Research Council (2012) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Niu L, Behar HLS, Garvan CW (2013) Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educ Res Rev 9(12):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002

Peng ZM, Deng L (2017) Towards the core of education reform: cultivating critical thinking skills as the core of skills in the 21st century. Res Educ Dev 24:57–63. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2017.24.011

Reiser BJ (2004) Scaffolding complex learning: the mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. J Learn Sci 13(3):273–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Ruggiero VR (2012) The art of thinking: a guide to critical and creative thought, 4th edn. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

Schellens T, Valcke M (2006) Fostering knowledge construction in university students through asynchronous discussion groups. Comput Educ 46(4):349–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.010

Sendag S, Odabasi HF (2009) Effects of an online problem based learning course on content knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 53(1):132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008

Sison R (2008) Investigating Pair Programming in a Software Engineering Course in an Asian Setting. 2008 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2008.61

Simpson E, Courtney M (2002) Critical thinking in nursing education: literature review. Mary Courtney 8(2):89–98

Stewart L, Tierney J, Burdett S (2006) Do systematic reviews based on individual patient data offer a means of circumventing biases associated with trial publications? Publication bias in meta-analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, pp. 261–286

Tiwari A, Lai P, So M, Yuen K (2010) A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med Educ 40(6):547–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02481.x

Wood D, Bruner JS, Ross G (2006) The role of tutoring in problem solving. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 17(2):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wei T, Hong S (2022) The meaning and realization of teachable critical thinking. Educ Theory Practice 10:51–57

Xu EW, Wang W, Wang QX (2022) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11445-2

Yang YC, Newby T, Bill R (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: a quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Comput Educ 50(4):1572–1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.04.006

Yore LD, Pimm D, Tuan HL (2007) The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. Int J Sci Math Educ 5(4):559–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9089-4

Zhang T, Zhang S, Gao QQ, Wang JH (2022) Research on the development of learners’ critical thinking in online peer review. Audio Visual Educ Res 6:53–60. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2022.06.08

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the graduate scientific research and innovation project of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region named “Research on in-depth learning of high school information technology courses for the cultivation of computing thinking” (No. XJ2022G190) and the independent innovation fund project for doctoral students of the College of Educational Science of Xinjiang Normal University named “Research on project-based teaching of high school information technology courses from the perspective of discipline core literacy” (No. XJNUJKYA2003).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Educational Science, Xinjiang Normal University, 830017, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China

Enwei Xu, Wei Wang & Qingxia Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enwei Xu or Wei Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary tables, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, E., Wang, W. & Wang, Q. The effectiveness of collaborative problem solving in promoting students’ critical thinking: A meta-analysis based on empirical literature. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 16 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Download citation

Received : 07 August 2022

Accepted : 04 January 2023

Published : 11 January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01508-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Impacts of online collaborative learning on students’ intercultural communication apprehension and intercultural communicative competence.

• Hoa Thi Hoang Chau
• Hung Phu Bui
• Quynh Thi Huong Dinh

Education and Information Technologies (2024)

Exploring the effects of digital technology on deep learning: a meta-analysis

The impacts of computer-supported collaborative learning on students’ critical thinking: a meta-analysis.

• Yoseph Gebrehiwot Tedla
• Hsiu-Ling Chen

Sustainable electricity generation and farm-grid utilization from photovoltaic aquaculture: a bibliometric analysis

• A. A. Amusa
• M. Alhassan

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Please note that a newer version of this item is available: https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_1556370_2

Ashley, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Cooperative Problem Solving and Teaching in Preschoolers. Social Development, 7 , 143-163.

Project information

Teaching children to cooperate

Activities and steps for teaching young children cooperation skills.

"What can I do with this child? When the other children are working on an art project, she doesn't want to do it. When I ask her if she's ready for lunch, she always says no. When everyone wants to play outside, she throws a tantrum. When will this child learn to cooperate?" -- A frustrated caregiver

Learning to cooperate means that a person can think about and balance their own needs and wants with another person's needs and wants. Many people think that cooperation means the child does what the adult wants. That's not the case. True cooperation is a give and take between people that ends up with something they both agree on.

Cooperation is a skill that must be learned. Here are some things you can do with the children in your care to help them learn the skill of cooperation.

Teach children the skills to learn how to cooperate.

Taking turns.

Babies as young as six to nine months can begin learning to take turns. Start by playing games with a baby where you do something, then ask her to do the same thing. You drop a block in a bucket, and then give her a block to put in the bucket. As the baby gets a little older, try rolling a ball to her and have her roll it back to you. For toddlers and preschool-age children, taking turns is a good way to help two children who want to play with the same toy at the same time. Tell the child who had the truck first, "Carla, you were playing with the truck, but Julio wants to play with it too. Would you tell Julio when you are finished playing with it, so he can take a turn?"

Explain the rules.

Children as young as two can begin to understand simple reasons. When you remind children of a rule, give them a simple reason. "Please stand back from the stove. It is hot and you could get burned." "Keep your feet on the floor, so you don't kick anyone and hurt them."

Cooperation is give and take between people.

Problem-solve with children.

You hear it every day. "He did this. She did that." With your help, children as young as three can begin to solve their own problems.

• Ask each child to name the problem by saying, "You two are having a problem. What is it?"
• Ask each child for ways to solve the problem by saying, "What can we do?"
• Make sure that both children agree to the solution.

Give children choices.

Giving children choices helps them feel like they have some power. "Do you want a peanut butter sandwich or peanut butter and raisins?" "Would you like to sit with us to hear a story or go to the table and color?" These are good choices for children to make. Be careful not to give choices when the child doesn't really have a choice. "Do you want to take a nap?" is not a good question if you want all the children to take naps now. "We're going to have lunch now, OK?" What if the child says, "No, I want to play some more?" Make sure you can agree with any choices you give to a child.

Give ideas, not commands.

From around age two, children are learning to be independent. They like to feel they have some control and power. When you say to a child, "It looks like you are finished eating. Have you had enough to eat?" you give the child the right to decide if he wants to eat more. If you say, "Clean your plate, there's still some food on it," you set the stage for a power struggle with that child.

Give positive reinforcement.

Be sure to point out what was done and why it is important. "John and Emily, you worked together to pick up those blocks and put them away. Working together makes the job easier." "Kendra, you hung up your coat without me asking you to do it. That helps me and no one will step on it."

Download PDF Version

Social Media

• X (Twitter)
• Degrees & Programs
• College Directory

Information for

• Faculty & Staff
• Visitors & Public

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

The Power of Playful Learning in the Early Childhood Setting

You are here

Play versus learning represents a false dichotomy in education (e.g., Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff 2008). In part, the persistent belief that learning must be rigid and teacher directed—the opposite of play—is motivated by the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes playful learning (Zosh et al. 2018). And, in part, it is motivated by older perceptions of play and learning. Newer research, however, allows us to reframe the debate as learning via play—as playful learning.

This piece, which is an excerpt from Chapter 5 in  Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8, Fourth Edition (NAEYC 2022), suggests that defining play on a spectrum (Zosh et al. 2018, an idea first introduced by Bergen 1988) helps to resolve old divisions and provides a powerful framework that puts  playful learning —rich curriculum coupled with a playful pedagogy—front and center as a model for all early childhood educators. ( See below for a discussion of play on a spectrum.)

This excerpt also illustrates the ways in which play and learning mutually support one another and how teachers connect learning goals to children’s play. Whether solitary, dramatic, parallel, social, cooperative, onlooker, object, fantasy, physical, constructive, or games with rules, play, in all of its forms, is a teaching practice that optimally facilitates young children’s development and learning. By maximizing children’s choice, promoting wonder and enthusiasm for learning, and leveraging joy, playful learning pedagogies support development across domains and content areas and increase learning relative to more didactic methods (Alfieri et al. 2011; Bonawitz et al. 2011; Sim & Xu 2015).

Playful Learning: A Powerful Teaching Tool

This narrowing of the curriculum and high-stakes assessment practices (such as paper-and-pencil tests for kindergartners) increased stress on educators, children, and families but failed to deliver on the promise of narrowing—let alone closing—the gap.  All  children need well-thought-out curricula, including reading and STEM experiences and an emphasis on executive function skills such as attention, impulse control, and memory (Duncan et al. 2007). But to promote happy, successful, lifelong learners, children must be immersed in developmentally appropriate practice and rich curricular learning that is culturally relevant (NAEYC 2020). Playful learning is a vehicle for achieving this. Schools must also address the inequitable access to play afforded to children (see “Both/And: Early Childhood Education Needs Both Play and Equity,” by Ijumaa Jordan.) All children should be afforded opportunities to play, regardless of their racial group, socioeconomic class, and disability if they have been diagnosed with one. We second the call of Maria Souto-Manning (2017): “Although play has traditionally been positioned as a privilege, it must be (re)positioned as a right, as outlined by the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31” (785).

What Is Playful Learning?

Playful learning describes a learning context in which children learn content while playing freely (free play or self-directed play), with teacher guidance (guided play), or in a structured game. By harnessing children’s natural curiosity and their proclivities to experiment, explore, problem solve, and stay engaged in meaningful activities—especially when doing so with others—teachers maximize learning while individualizing learning goals. Central to this concept is the idea that teachers act more as the Socratic “guide at the side” than a “sage on the stage” (e.g., King 1993, 30; Smith 1993, 35). Rather than view children as empty vessels receiving information, teachers see children as active explorers and discoverers who bring their prior knowledge into the learning experience and construct an understanding of, for example, words such as  forecast  and  low pressure  as they explore weather patterns and the science behind them. In other words, teachers support children as active learners.

Importantly, playful learning pedagogies naturally align with the characteristics that research in the science of learning suggests help humans learn. Playful learning leverages the power of active (minds-on), engaging (not distracting), meaningful, socially interactive, and iterative thinking and learning (Zosh et al. 2018) in powerful ways that lead to increased learning.

Free play lets children explore and express themselves—to be the captains of their own ship. While free play is important, if a teacher has a learning goal, guided play and games are the road to successful outcomes for children (see Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013 for a review). Playful learning in the form of guided play, in which the teacher builds in the learning as part of a fun context such as a weather report, keeps the child’s agency but adds an intentional component to the play that helps children learn more from the experience. In fact, when researchers compared children’s skill development during free play in comparison to guided play, they found that children learned more vocabulary (Toub et al. 2018) and spatial skills (Fisher et al. 2013) in guided play than in free play.

Self-Directed Play, Free Play

NAEYC’s 2020 position statement on developmentally appropriate practice uses the term  self-directed play  to refer to play that is initiated and directed by children. Such play is termed  free play  in the larger works of the authors of this excerpt; therefore, free play is the primary term used in this article, with occasional references to self-directed play, the term used in the rest of the DAP book.

Imagine an everyday block corner. The children are immersed in play with each other—some trying to build high towers and others creating a tunnel for the small toy cars on the nearby shelves. But what if there were a few model pictures on the wall of what children could strive to make as they collaborated in that block corner? Might they rotate certain pieces purposely? Might they communicate with one another that the rectangle needs to go on top of the square? Again, a simple insertion of a design that children can try to copy turns a play situation into one ripe with spatial learning. Play is a particularly effective way to engage children with specific content learning when there is a learning goal.

Why Playful Learning Is Critical

Teachers play a crucial role in creating places and spaces where they can introduce playful learning to help all children master not only content but also the skills they will need for future success. The science of learning literature (e.g., Fisher et al. 2013; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013; Zosh et al. 2018) suggests that playful learning can change the “old equation” for learning, which posited that direct, teacher-led instruction, such as lectures and worksheets, was the way to achieve rich content learning. This “new equation” moves beyond a sole focus on content and instead views playful learning as a way to support a breadth of skills while embracing developmentally appropriate practice guidelines (see Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2020).

Using a playful learning pedagogical approach leverages the skill sets of today’s educators and enhances their ability to help children attain curricular goals. It engages what has been termed active learning that is also developmentally appropriate and offers a more equitable way of engaging children by increasing access to participation. When topics are important and culturally relevant to children, they can better identify with the subject and the learning becomes more seamless.

While educators of younger children are already well versed in creating playful and joyful experiences to support social goals (e.g., taking turns and resolving conflicts), they can use this same skill set to support more content-focused curricular goals (e.g., mathematics and literacy). Similarly, while teachers of older children have plenty of experience determining concrete content-based learning goals (e.g., attaining Common Core Standards), they can build upon this set of skills and use playful learning as a pedagogy to meet those goals.

Learning Through Play: A Play Spectrum

As noted previously, play can be thought of as lying on a spectrum that includes free play (or self-directed play), guided play, games, playful instruction, and direct instruction (Bergen 1988; Zosh et al. 2018). For the purposes of this piece, we use a spectrum that includes the first three of these aspects of playful learning, as illustrated in “Play Spectrum Showing Three Types of Playful Learning Situations” below.

The following variables determine the degree to which an activity can be considered playful learning:

• level of adult involvement
• extent to which the child is directing the learning
• presence of a learning goal

Toward the left end of the spectrum are activities with more child agency, less adult involvement, and loosely defined or no particular learning goals. Further to the right, adults are more involved, but children still direct the activity or interaction.

Developmentally appropriate practice does not mean primarily that children play without a planned learning environment or learn mostly through direct instruction (NAEYC 2020). Educators in high-quality early childhood programs offer a range of learning experiences that fall all along this spectrum. By thinking of play as a spectrum, educators can more easily assess where their learning activities and lessons fall on this spectrum by considering the components and intentions of the lesson. Using their professional knowledge of how children develop and learn, their knowledge of individual children, and their understanding of social and cultural contexts, educators can then begin to think strategically about how to target playful learning (especially guided play and games) to leverage how children naturally learn. This more nuanced view of play and playful learning can be used to both meet age-appropriate learning objectives and support engaged, meaningful learning.   

In the kindergarten classroom in the following vignette, children have ample time for play and exploration in centers, where they decide what to play with and what they want to create. These play centers are the focus of the room and the main tool for developing social and emotional as well as academic skills; they reflect and support what the children are learning through whole-group discussions, lessons, and skills-focused stations. In the vignette, the teacher embeds guided play opportunities within the children’s free play.

Studying Bears: Self-Directed Play that Extends What Kindergartners Are Learning

While studying the habits of animals in winter, the class is taking a deeper dive into the lives of American black bears, animals that make their homes in their region. In the block center, one small group of children uses short lengths and cross-sections of real tree branches as blocks along with construction paper to create a forest habitat for black bear figurines. They enlist their friends in the art center to assist in making trees and bushes. Two children are in the writing center. Hearing that their friends are looking for help to create a habitat, they look around and decide a hole punch and blue paper are the perfect tools for making blueberries—a snack black bears love to eat! Now multiple centers and groups of children are involved in making the block center become a black bear habitat.

In the dramatic play center, some of the children pretend to be bear biologists, using stethoscopes, scales, and magnifying glasses to study the health of a couple of plush black bears. When these checkups are complete, the teacher suggests the children could describe the bears’ health in a written “report,” thus embedding guided play within their free play. A few children at the easels in the art center are painting pictures of black bears.

Contributed by Amy Blessing

Free play, or self-directed play, is often heralded as the gold standard of play. It encourages children’s initiative, independence, and problem solving and has been linked to benefits in social and emotional development (e.g., Singer & Singer 1990; Pagani et al. 2010; Romano et al. 2010; Gray 2013) and language and literacy (e.g., Neuman & Roskos 1992). Through play, children explore and make sense of their world, develop imaginative and symbolic thinking, and develop physical competence. The kindergarten children in the example above were developing their fine motor and collaboration skills, displaying their understanding of science concepts (such as the needs of animals and living things), and exercising their literacy and writing skills. Such benefits are precisely why free play has an important role in developmentally appropriate practice. To maximize learning, teachers also provide guided play experiences.

Guided Play

While free play has great value for children, empirical evidence suggests that it is not always sufficient  when there is a pedagogical goal at stake  (Smith & Pellegrini 2008; Alfieri et al. 2011; Fisher et al. 2013; Lillard 2013; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013; Toub et al. 2018). This is where guided play comes in.

Guided play allows teachers to focus children’s play around specific learning goals (e.g., standards-based goals), which can be applied to a variety of topics, from learning place value in math to identifying rhyming words in literacy activities. Note, however, that the teacher does not take over the play activity or even direct it. Instead, she asks probing questions that guide the next level of child-directed exploration. This is a perfect example of how a teacher can initiate a context for learning while still leaving the child in charge. In the previous kindergarten vignette, the teacher guided the children in developing their literacy skills as she embedded writing activities within the free play at the centers.

Facilitating Guided Play

Skilled teachers set up environments and facilitate development and learning throughout the early childhood years, such as in the following:

• Ms. Taglieri notices what 4-month-old Anthony looks at and shows interest in. Following his interest and attention, she plays Peekaboo, adjusting her actions (where she places the blanket and peeks out at him) to maintain engagement.
• Ms. Eberhard notices that 22-month-old Abe knows the color yellow. She prepares her environment based on this observation, placing a few yellow objects along with a few red ones on a small table. Abe immediately goes to the table, picking up each yellow item and verbally labeling them (“Lellow!”).
• Mr. Gorga creates intrigue and participation by inviting his preschool class to “be shape detectives” and to “discover the secret of shapes.” As the children explore the shapes, Mr. Gorga offers questions and prompts to guide children to answer the question “What makes them the same kind of shapes?”

An analogy for facilitating guided play is bumper bowling. If bumpers are in place, most children are more likely than not to knock down some pins when they throw the ball down the lane. That is different than teaching children exactly how to throw it (although some children, such as those who have disabilities or who become frustrated if they feel a challenge is too great, may require that level of support or instruction). Guided play is not a one-size-fits-all prescriptive pedagogical technique. Instead, teachers match the level of support they give in guided play to the children in front of them.

Critically, many teachers already implement these kinds of playful activities. When the children are excited by the birds they have seen outside of their window for the past couple of days, the teachers may capitalize on this interest and provide children with materials for a set of playful activities about bird names, diets, habitats, and songs. Asking children to use their hands to mimic an elephant’s trunk when learning vocabulary can promote learning through playful instruction that involves movement. Similarly, embedding vocabulary in stories that are culturally relevant promotes language and early literacy development (García-Alvarado, Arreguín, & Ruiz-Escalante 2020). For example, a teacher who has several children in his class with Mexican heritage decides to read aloud  Too Many Tamales  (by Gary Soto, illus. Ed Martinez) and have the children reenact scenes from it, learning about different literary themes and concepts through play. The children learn more vocabulary, have a better comprehension of the text, and see themselves and their experiences reflected. The teacher also adds some of the ingredients and props for making tamales into the sociodramatic play center (Salinas-González, Arreguín-Anderson, & Alanís 2018) and invites families to share stories about family  tamaladas  (tamale-making parties).

Evidence Supporting Guided Play as a Powerful Pedagogical Tool

Evidence from the science of learning suggests that discovery-based guided play actually results in increased learning for all children relative to both free play and direct instruction (see Alferi et al. 2011). These effects hold across content areas including spatial learning (Fisher et al. 2013), literacy (Han et al. 2010; Nicolopoulou et al. 2015; Hassinger-Das et al. 2016; Cavanaugh et al. 2017; Toub et al. 2018; Moedt & Holmes 2020), and mathematics (Zosh et al. 2016).

There are several possible reasons for guided play’s effectiveness. First, it harnesses the joy that is critical to creativity and learning (e.g., Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki 1987; Resnick 2007). Second, during guided play, the adults help “set the stage for thought and action” by essentially limiting the number of possible outcomes for the children so that the learning goal is discoverable, but children still direct the activity (Weisberg et al. 2014, 276). Teachers work to provide high-quality materials, eliminate distractions, and prepare the space, but then, critically, they let the child play the active role of construction. Third, in guided play, the teacher points the way toward a positive outcome and hence lessens the ambiguity (the degrees of freedom) without directing children to an answer or limiting children to a single discovery (e.g., Bonawitz et al. 2011). And finally, guided play provides the opportunity for new information to be integrated with existing knowledge and updated as children explore.

Reinforcing Numeracy with a Game

The children in Mr. Cohen’s preschool class are at varying levels of understanding in early numeracy skills (e.g., cardinality, one-to-one correspondence, order irrelevance). He knows that his children need some practice with these skills but wants to make the experience joyful while also building these foundational skills. One day, he brings out a new game for them to play—The Great Race. Carla and Michael look up expectantly, and their faces light up when they realize they will be playing a game instead of completing a worksheet. The two quickly pull out the box, setting up the board and choosing their game pieces. Michael begins by flicking the spinner with his finger, landing on 2. “Nice!” Carla exclaims, as Michael moves his game piece, counting “One, two.” Carla takes a turn next, spinning a 1 and promptly counting “one” as she moves her piece one space ahead. “My turn!” Michael says, eager to win the race. As he spins a 2, he pauses. “One . . . two,” he says, hesitating, as he moves his piece to space 4 on the board. Carla corrects him, “I think you mean ‘three, four,’ right? You have to count up from where you are on the board.” Michael nods, remembering the rules Mr. Cohen taught him earlier that day. “Right,” he says, “three, four.”

Similar to guided play, games can be designed in ways that help support learning goals (Hassinger-Das et al. 2017). In this case, instead of adults playing the role of curating the activity, the games themselves provide this type of external scaffolding. The example with Michael and Carla shows how children can learn through games, which is supported by research. In one well-known study, playing a board game (i.e., The Great Race) in which children navigated through a linear, numerical-based game board (i.e., the game board had equally spaced game spaces that go from left to right) resulted in increased numerical development as compared to playing the same game where the numbers were replaced by colors (Siegler & Ramani 2008) or with numbers organized in a circular fashion (Siegler & Ramani 2009). Structuring experiences so that the learning goal is intertwined naturally with children’s play supports their learning. A critical point with both guided play and games is that children are provided with support but still lead their own learning.

Digital educational games have become enormously popular, with tens of thousands of apps marketed as “educational,” although there is no independent review of these apps. Apps and digital games may have educational value when they inspire active, engaged, meaningful, and socially interactive experiences (Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2015), but recent research suggests that many of the most downloaded educational apps do not actually align with these characteristics that lead to learning (Meyer et al. 2021). Teachers should exercise caution and evaluate any activity—digital or not—to see how well it harnesses the power of playful learning.

Next Steps for Educators

Educators are uniquely positioned to prepare today’s children for achievement today and success tomorrow. Further, the evidence is mounting that playful pedagogies appear to be an accessible, powerful tool that harnesses the pillars of learning. This approach can be used across ages and is effective in learning across domains.

By leveraging children’s own interests and mindfully creating activities that let children play their way to new understanding and skills, educators can start using this powerful approach today. By harnessing the children’s interests at different ages and engaging them in playful learning activities, educators can help children learn while having fun. And, importantly, educators will have more fun too when they see children happy and engaged.

As the tide begins to change in individual classrooms, educators need to acknowledge that vast inequalities (e.g., socioeconomic achievement gaps) continue to exist (Kearney & Levine 2016). The larger challenge remains in propelling a cultural shift so that administrators, families, and policymakers understand the way in which educators can support the success of all children through high-quality, playful learning experiences.

Consider the following reflection questions as you reflect how to support equitable playful learning experiences for each and every child:

• One of the best places to start is by thinking about your teaching strengths. Perhaps you are great at sparking joy and engagement. Or maybe you are able to frequently leverage children’s home lives in your lessons. How can you expand practices you already use as an educator or are learning about in your courses to incorporate the playful learning described in this article?
• How can you share the information in this chapter with families, administrators, and other educators? How can you help them understand how play can engage children in deep, joyful learning?

This piece is excerpted from NAEYC’s recently published book  Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8,  Fourth Edition. For more information about the book, visit  NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/books/dap-fourth-edition .

Teaching Play Skills

Pamela Brillante

While many young children with autism spectrum disorder enjoy playing, they can have difficulty engaging in traditional play activities. They may engage in activities that do not look like ordinary play, including playing with only a few specific toys or playing in a specific, repetitive way.

Even though most children learn play skills naturally, sometimes families and teachers have to teach children how to play. Learning how to play will help develop many other skills young children need for the future, including

• social skills:  taking turns, sharing, and working cooperatively
• cognitive skills:  problem-solving skills, early academic skills
• communication skills:  responding to others, asking questions
• physical skills:  body awareness, fine and gross motor coordination

Several evidence-based therapeutic approaches to teaching young children with autism focus on teaching play skills, including

• The Play Project:  https://playproject.org
• The Greenspan Floortime approach: https://stanleygreenspan.com
• Integrated Play Group (IPG) Model: www.wolfberg.com

While many children with autism have professionals and therapists working with them, teachers and families should work collaboratively and provide multiple opportunities for children to practice new skills and engage in play at their own level. For example, focus on simple activities that promote engagement between the adult and the child as well as the child and their peers without disabilities, including playing with things such as bubbles, cause-and-effect toys, and interactive books. You can also use the child’s preferred toy in the play, like having the Spider-Man figure be the one popping the bubbles.

Pamela Brillante , EdD, has spent 30 years working as a special education teacher, administrator, consultant, and professor. In addition to her full-time faculty position in the Department of Special Education, Professional Counseling and Disability Studies at William Paterson University of New Jersey, Dr. Brillante continues to consult with school districts and present to teachers and families on the topic of high-quality, inclusive early childhood practices.  

Photographs: © Getty Images Copyright © 2022 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints online at  NAEYC.org/resources/permissions .

Alfieri, L., P.J. Brooks, N.J. Aldrich, & H.R. Tenenbaum. 2011. “Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?” Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (1): 1–18.  

Bassok, D., S. Latham, & A. Rorem. 2016. “Is Kindergarten the New First Grade?” AERA Open 2 (1): 1–31. doi.10.1177/2332858415616358. 

Bergen, D., ed. 1988. Play as a Medium for Learning and Development: A Handbook of Theory and Practice . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. 

Bonawitz, E.B., P. Shafto, H. Gweon, N.D. Goodman, E.S. Spelke, & L. Schulz. 2011. “The Double-Edged Sword of Pedagogy: Instruction Limits Spontaneous Exploration and Discovery.” Cognition 120 (3): 322–30. 

Cavanaugh, D.M., K.J. Clemence, M.M. Teale, A.C. Rule, & S.E. Montgomery. 2017. “Kindergarten Scores, Storytelling, Executive Function, and Motivation Improved Through Literacy-Rich Guided Play.” Journal of Early Childhood Education 45 (6): 1–13. 

Christakis, E. 2016. The Importance of Being Little: What Preschoolers Really Need from Grownups . New York: Penguin Books.  

Duncan, G. J., A. Claessens, A.C. Huston, L.S. Pagani, M. Engel, H. Sexton, C.J. Dowsett, K. Magnuson, P. Klebanov, L. Feinstein, J. Brooks-Gunn, K. Duckworth, & C. Japel. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43 (6): 1428–46. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 .  

Fisher, K.R., K. Hirsh-Pasek, N. Newcombe, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. “Taking Shape: Supporting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Geometric Knowledge Through Guided Play.” Child Development 84 (6): 1872–78. 

García-Alvarado, S., M.G. Arreguín, & J.A. Ruiz-Escalante. 2020. “Mexican-American Preschoolers as Co-Creators of Zones of Proximal Development During Retellings of Culturally Relevant Stories: A Participatory Study.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy : 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468798420930339 . 

Gray, P. 2013. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life . New York: Basic Books.  

Han, M., N. Moore, C. Vukelich, & M. Buell. 2010. “Does Play Make a Difference? How Play Intervention Affects the Vocabulary Learning of At-Risk Preschoolers.” American Journal of Play 3 (1): 82–105. 

Hannaway, J., & L. Hamilton. 2008. Accountability Policies: Implications for School and Classroom Practices . Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/411779.html . 

Hassinger-Das, B., K. Ridge, A. Parker, R.M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & D.K. Dickinson. 2016. “Building Vocabulary Knowledge in Preschoolers Through Shared Book Reading and Gameplay.” Mind, Brain, and Education 10 (2): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12103 . 

Hassinger-Das, B., T.S. Toub, J.M. Zosh, J. Michnick, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek. 2017. “More Than Just Fun: A Place for Games in Playful Learning.” Infancia y aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development 40 (2): 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1292684 . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & R.M. Golinkoff. 2008. “Why Play = Learning.” In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online], eds. R.E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R.D. Peters, topic ed. P.K. Smith, 1–6. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. www.child-encyclopedia.com/play/according-experts/why-play-learning . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., H. S. Hadani, E. Blinkoff, & R. M. Golinkoff. 2020. A new path to education reform: Playful learning promotes 21st-century skills in schools and beyond . The Brookings Institution: Big Ideas Policy Report. www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/a-new-path-to-education-reform-playful-learning-promotes-21st-century-skills-in-schools-and-beyond . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., J.M. Zosh, R.M. Golinkoff, J.H. Gray, M.B. Robb, & J. Kaufman. 2015. “Putting Education in ‘Educational’ Apps: Lessons from the Science of Learning.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16 (1): 3–34. 

Isen, A.M., K.A. Daubman, & G.P. Nowicki. 1987. “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1122–31. 

Kearney, M.S., & P.B. Levine. (2016, Spring). Income, Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop Out of High School . Washington, DC: Brookings. www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/income-inequality-social-mobility-and-the-decision-to-drop-out-of-high-school . 

King, A. 1993. “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side.” College Teaching 41 (1): 30–35.  

Lillard, A.S. 2013. “Playful Learning and Montessori Education.” American Journal of Play 5 (2): 157–86. 

Meyer, M., J.M. Zosh, C. McLaren, M. Robb, R.M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & J. Radesky. 2021. “How Educational Are ‘Educational’ Apps for Young Children? App Store Content Analysis Using the Four Pillars of Learning Framework.” Journal of Children and Media . Published online February 23. 

Miller, E., & J. Almon. 2009. Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School . College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504839.pdf . 

Moedt, K., & R.M. Holmes. 2020. “The Effects of Purposeful Play After Shared Storybook Readings on Kindergarten Children’s Reading Comprehension, Creativity, and Language Skills and Abilities.” Early Child Development and Care 190 (6): 839–54. 

NAEYC. 2020. “Developmentally Appropriate Practice.” Position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC. www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap .  

Neuman, S.B., & K. Roskos. 1992. “Literacy Objects as Cultural Tools: Effects on Children’s Literacy Behaviors in Play.” Reading Research Quarterly 27 (3): 202–25.  

Nicolopoulou, A., K.S. Cortina, H. Ilgaz, C.B. Cates, & A.B. de Sá. 2015. “Using a Narrative- and Play-Based Activity to Promote Low-Income Preschoolers’ Oral Language, Emergent Literacy, and Social Competence.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31 (2): 147–62. 

Pagani, L.S., C. Fitzpatrick, I. Archambault, & M. Janosz. 2010. “School Readiness and Later Achievement: A French Canadian Replication and Extension.” Developmental Psychology 46 (5): 984–94.  

Pedulla, J.J., L.M. Abrams, G.F. Madaus, M.K. Russell, M.A. Ramos, & J. Miao. 2003. “Perceived Effect of State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from a National Survey of Teachers” (ED481836). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481836 . 

Ravitch, D. 2010. “Why Public Schools Need Democratic Governance.” Phi Delta Kappan 91 (6): 24–27. 

Resnick, M. 2007. “All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (by Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten.” In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition , 1–6. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 

Romano, E., L. Babchishin, L.S. Pagani, & D. Kohen. 2010. “School Readiness and Later Achievement: Replication and Extension Using a Nationwide Canadian Survey.” Developmental Psychology 46 (5): 995–1007.  

Salinas-González, I., M.G. Arreguín-Anderson, & I. Alanís. 2018. “Supporting Language: Culturally Rich Dramatic Play.” Teaching Young Children 11 (2): 4–6. 

Siegler, R.S., & G.B. Ramani. 2008. “Playing Linear Numerical Board Games Promotes Low-Income Children’s Numerical Development.” Developmental Science 11 (5): 655–61. 

Siegler, R.S., & G.B. Ramani. 2009. “Playing Linear Number Board Games—but Not Circular Ones—Improves Low-Income Preschoolers’ Numerical Understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (3): 545–60. 

Sim, Z., & F. Xu. 2015. “Toddlers Learn from Facilitated Play, Not Free Play.” In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , Berkeley, CA. https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/past-conferences . 

Singer, D.G., & J.L. Singer. 1990. The House of Make-Believe: Children’s Play and the Developing Imagination . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Smith, K. 1993. “Becoming the ‘Guide on the Side.’” Educational Leadership 51 (2): 35–37.  

Smith P.K., & A. Pellegrini. 2008. “Learning Through Play.” In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online], eds. R.E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R.D. Peters, 1–6. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pdf/expert/play/according-experts/learning-through-play . 

Souto-Manning, M. 2017. “Is Play a Privilege or a Right? And What’s Our Responsibility? On the Role of Play for Equity in Early Childhood Education.” Foreword. Early Child Development and Care 187 (5–6): 785–87. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2016.1266588 . 

Toub, T.S., B. Hassinger-Das, K.T. Nesbitt, H. Ilgaz, D.S. Weisberg, K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, A. Nicolopoulou, & D.K. Dickinson. 2018. “The Language of Play: Developing Preschool Vocabulary Through Play Following Shared Book-Reading.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45 (4): 1–17.  

Weisberg, D.S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. “Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy.” Mind, Brain, and Education 7 (2): 104–12. 

Weisberg, D.S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, & B.D. McCandliss. 2014. “Mise en place: Setting the Stage for Thought and Action.” Trends in Cognitive Science 18 (6): 276–78. 

Zosh, J.M., B. Hassinger-Das, T.S. Toub, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R. Golinkoff. 2016. “Playing with Mathematics: How Play Supports Learning and the Common Core State Standards.” Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College 7 (1): 45–49. https://doi.org/10.7916/jmetc.v7i1.787 . 

Zosh, J.M., K. Hirsh-Pasek, E.J. Hopkins, H. Jensen, C. Liu, D. Neale, S.L. Solis, & D. Whitebread. 2018. “Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124 . 

Jennifer M. Zosh, PhD, is professor of human development and family studies at Penn State Brandywine. Most recently, her work has focused on technology and its impact on children as well as playful learning as a powerful pedagogy. She publishes journal articles, book chapters, blogs, and white papers and focuses on the dissemination of developmental research.

Caroline Gaudreau, PhD, is a research professional at the TMW Center for Early Learning + Public Health at the University of Chicago. She received her PhD from the University of Delaware, where she studied how children learn to ask questions and interact with screen media. She is passionate about disseminating research and interventions to families across the country.

Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, PhD, conducts research on language development, the benefits of play, spatial learning, and the effects of media on children. A member of the National Academy of Education, she is a cofounder of Playful Learning Landscapes, Learning Science Exchange, and the Ultimate Playbook for Reimagining Education. Her last book, Becoming Brilliant: What Science Tells Us About Raising Successful Children (American Psychological Association, 2016), reached the New York Times bestseller list.

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, PhD, is the Lefkowitz Faculty Fellow in the Psychology and Neuroscience department at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  She is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Her research examines the development of early language and literacy, the role of play in learning, and learning and technology. [email protected]

Vol. 77, No. 2

Print this article

• Our Mission

Teaching Cooperative Play in Prekindergarten

Five activities early childhood educators can use to introduce the concept of teamwork to young kids.

The early childhood classroom is a great place to teach important social and emotional skills, like how to play with other children—which eventually becomes collaborating with others in work. What better way for teachers to start forging teamwork skills than with games and activities?

For early childhood educators, introducing the concept of teamwork can be both challenging and fun. Here are some prekindergarten teamwork activities teachers can use to help students learn how to work together. It’s important to remember that activities like these are all about the process—the most important thing is how children accomplish them.

5 Collaborative Activities for Prekindergarten

1. Follow the leader: This oldie but goodie gives children the opportunity to learn the importance of when to lead and when to follow. When doing this with your class, rotate the leader every few minutes so everyone experiences being a leader. Start by choosing a student to hop, skip, jump, etc., while everyone else follows his or her actions. Encourage leaders to make big gestures that others can easily imitate.

2. Relay races: Use relay races to encourage teamwork while also getting kids to be active. If you haven’t done relay races with your students before, you might want to have them practice first to learn the concept. Focus on having everyone finish rather than who wins.

Send children through a simple course and have them hand off a flag or simply tag the next member of their team. Keep this going until everyone has had a chance to do the course.

With this activity, all students can see themselves as teammates and positive contributors to a team. An important part of teamwork is encouragement—get everyone excited by having the students cheer for their teammates.

3. Parachute games: Parachutes offer many possibilities for teaching teamwork. For example, have children stand around the edges, holding the parachute with both hands. Put a plastic ball in the center and have them move back to stretch the parachute and launch the ball upward, and then catch it and launch it again. See if they can get a streak going by not letting the ball touch the ground.

This game teaches children to sync up their movements with the actions of others, so that all of them are catching and then launching together. The teacher can help children test different ideas to get a streak going so that every voice is heard.

4. Group maze: Get a large, shallow box or box lid and create a colorful 3D maze with foam or rubber strips. Have a group of children stand around the box, holding it by the edge. Place a toy car or a ball (use an age-appropriate object, for safety) at one end of the maze and have the children work to move it through the maze by raising, lowering, and tilting the box together.

You can also do this without a maze by instead having students roll the ball around the edge of the box and not letting it roll into the middle.

This activity is great for practicing conflict resolution skills. Observe how children identify the problem—moving the object—and see if they can work together to try different solutions until they find one that works. After observing for a few minutes, help facilitate different ideas and solutions by asking questions so they can see that in many instances there’s more than one right answer.

5. Collaborative art: Collaborative art is perfect when you need an indoor teamwork activity. Allow children to decide on a theme for a picture and give them a large piece of butcher paper and crayons or markers.

Split children up into groups to tackle various aspects of the picture. Allow for as much self-direction as possible, but step in if needed to assist with problem solving. Are they sharing ideas and designating tasks? If one student asks to draw with blue and another asks to use red in the same area, as the facilitator you might ask, “Well, what happens if we mix both colors together?” Talk it out if there are problems and validate all ideas, but again, the process is more important than the end result.

This helps teach children how to communicate and talk through what they’re going to do to complete a project. They’ll love seeing the artwork they create together—once the picture is finished, hang it up in your classroom.

Cooperative play teaches prekindergarten students teamwork and problem solving, two crucial skills they’re learning at this age. These activities are also ideal for reinforcing gross motor skills development, an important aspect of their physical development.

Beyond games and activities, you can reinforce teamwork in other ways in class—by talking about it and using encouraging statements when you see children working together in other ways, such as putting away toys and books. You can also incorporate books about teamwork at story time—students can see how their favorite characters use teamwork.

Finally, provide parents with ideas for how to practice teamwork and cooperation at home. The more children have opportunities to collaborate with others, the more they’ll begin to understand and practice these important social and emotional skills on their own.

Culver City

(310) 215 -3388

(323) 795-0200

(562) 291-2324

Stages of Play: Ways To Encourage Cooperative Play In Children

• By MontessoriAcademy
• May 18, 2023
• No Comments

Cooperative play holds a profound impact on a child’s development, nurturing essential skills that go beyond the realm of play itself. Let’s delve into the vital role of cooperative play and how it positively influences a child’s growth:

Building Social Skills

Through cooperative play, children learn to navigate social interactions, develop empathy, and understand the perspectives of others. They practice taking turns, sharing, and cooperating, building the foundation for healthy relationships throughout their lives.

Enhancing Communication

Collaborative play requires effective communication, encouraging children to express their thoughts, listen actively, and negotiate with their peers. Children refine their communication skills by engaging in discussions and understanding the power of words, fostering clarity and meaningful connections.

Problem-solving and Conflict Resolution

Cooperative play presents opportunities for children to encounter challenges, solve problems, and resolve conflicts within a supportive environment. They learn to brainstorm ideas, compromise, and find mutually beneficial solutions, developing crucial problem-solving and conflict-resolution skills .

Fostering Empathy and Understanding

By engaging in cooperative play, children develop empathy , recognizing and respecting the feelings and perspectives of others. They learn to collaborate, support one another, and appreciate the value of teamwork, cultivating a sense of unity and understanding in their interactions.

Cooperative play is a powerful catalyst for holistic development, empowering children with social, emotional, and cognitive skills extending far beyond their play experiences. Embracing and encouraging cooperative play creates a solid foundation for children to thrive in their relationships, problem-solving abilities, and empathy toward others.

Fostering an Environment for Cooperative Play

Creating an environment that encourages and supports cooperative play is essential for facilitating meaningful social interactions and collaborative experiences among children. Let’s explore some key strategies to cultivate such an environment:

Setting up a Montessori-inspired play space

Designate a dedicated play area that is organized, inviting, and filled with age-appropriate materials and activities. Arrange the space in a way that promotes exploration, creativity, and cooperative play, allowing children to engage and interact with one another freely.

Providing age-appropriate materials and toys

Offer a diverse range of open-ended toys , games, and materials that align with the developmental stages and interests of the children. These materials should allow for open-ended play and stimulate imagination, problem-solving, and cooperative interactions.

Encouraging open-ended play and exploration

Emphasize the importance of unstructured play that encourages children to explore, create, and invent their own play scenarios. Provide opportunities for children to engage in imaginative play, building and constructing, and role-playing, fostering peer cooperation and collaboration.

Modeling positive behavior

Set a positive example by demonstrating respectful communication, turn-taking, sharing, and problem-solving. Be an active participant in play, offering guidance and support when needed and fostering an atmosphere of inclusivity and cooperation.

Guiding children in turn-taking and sharing

Teach children the value of taking turns and sharing resources through gentle guidance and reminders. Encourage them to communicate their needs and negotiate with their peers, promoting fairness and cooperation.

Supporting negotiation and compromise

Help children develop negotiation skills by encouraging them to express their thoughts and opinions, listen actively, and find compromises when conflicts arise. Teach them to understand different perspectives and work together to find solutions that satisfy everyone involved.

Engaging Activities to Foster Cooperative Play

Encouraging children to participate in activities that promote cooperative play enhances their social skills and fosters teamwork and collaboration. Let’s explore some captivating activities that inspire cooperative play among children:

Group games and activities

Engage children in group games that require teamwork and collaboration, such as relay races, treasure hunts, or cooperative sports. These activities encourage communication, coordination, and the ability to work together towards a common goal.

Collaborative art projects

Set up art stations where children can work together on a shared art project. Whether it’s a large mural, a collaborative sculpture, or a group painting, these activities encourage children to share ideas, take turns, and contribute to a collective masterpiece.

Pretend play and role-playing

Encourage children to engage in imaginative play scenarios that require collaboration and cooperation. Whether they’re acting out a pretend restaurant, building a fort, or creating a make-believe world, pretend play allows children to practice negotiation, problem-solving, and working as a team.

Building and construction activities

Provide building blocks, construction sets, or other building materials that encourage children to work together to create structures. Whether it’s building a tower, designing a bridge, or constructing a city, these activities require collaboration, planning, and problem-solving as children combine their ideas and skills.

Tailoring Activities for Diverse Ages and Stages of Play

Adapting activities to suit the varying ages and stages of children’s play is crucial for ensuring engagement and maximizing the benefits of cooperative play. Let’s explore some effective strategies for adapting activities based on different age groups and stages of play:

Tips for early childhood (0-3 years)

For infants and toddlers, focus on sensory-based activities that promote exploration and interaction with caregivers. Provide safe and age-appropriate toys that encourage parallel play and simple turn-takings, such as stacking blocks or rolling balls. Incorporate songs, rhymes, and interactive play to foster engagement and communication.

Tips for preschoolers (3-6 years)

Preschoolers thrive on imaginative play and benefit from activities that promote cooperation and role-playing. Encourage collaborative storytelling, pretend to play with themes or scenarios, and simple group games that involve taking turns, sharing, and following simple rules. Provide opportunities for creative expression through art, music, and movement, allowing children to work together on projects and performances.

Tips for elementary school children (6-12 years)

Older children enjoy more complex cooperative activities that challenge their problem-solving and teamwork skills. Engage them in group projects, such as building models, solving puzzles, or organizing themed events. Encourage group discussions, debates, and problem-solving challenges that require collaboration, critical thinking, and effective communication.

By adapting activities to suit children’s developmental abilities and interests in different age groups, we foster their engagement and ensure that the cooperative play experiences are meaningful and age-appropriate. This approach acknowledges children’s diverse needs and capabilities, allowing them to grow and thrive through play.

Fostering Lifelong Collaboration and Learning at Montessori Academy

Cooperative play is a crucial component of children’s development, as it nurtures vital social skills, enhances communication abilities, promotes problem-solving aptitude, and fosters empathy and understanding. At Montessori Academy , we understand the profound impact of cooperative play on shaping children’s future relationships, teamwork capabilities, and overall well-being. Creating an environment that actively encourages and supports cooperative play establishes a solid foundation for lifelong collaboration and learning.

Join us at Montessori Academy as we invite parents, caregivers, and educators to embrace the power of cooperative play. Together, we can empower children to thrive as compassionate, collaborative, and resilient individuals who understand the significance of cooperation in building a better world.  Get in touch with us to experience the Montessori approach firsthand and witness how we inspire lifelong learners who celebrate the joys of cooperative play.

• Cooperative Play

MontessoriAcademy

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2024— All rights Reserved. Website Design by SpringHive

Preschoolers’ Cooperative Problem-Solving During Play in Chinese and U.S. Classrooms

• February 2022
• Early Childhood Education Journal 51(2)

• Western Washington University

• University of Tennessee

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Kardelen Ön Hallumoğlu

• Ayşe Fulya Maner
• Early Child Educ J

• PHILOS T R SOC B

• Sabine Hunnius
• Jean Piaget

• Lev S Vygotsky
• Celia A. Brownell

• A. D. Pellegrini
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• DOI: 10.1007/s10643-022-01323-4
• Corpus ID: 246615804

Preschoolers’ Cooperative Problem-Solving During Play in Chinese and U.S. Classrooms

• Meilan Jin , M. Moran
• Published in Early Childhood Education… 5 February 2022
• Education, Psychology

One Citation

The effect of the montessori method integrated with collaborative learning on early mathematical reasoning skills, 37 references, chinese and us preschool teachers’ beliefs about children’s cooperative problem-solving during play, scaffolding preschool children’s problem solving: a comparison between chinese mothers and teachers across multiple tasks, preschoolers’ cooperative problem solving: integrating play and problem solving, influence of a playful, child-directed context on preschool children’s peer cooperation.

• Highly Influential

Cultural differences in Korean- and Anglo-American preschoolers' social interaction and play behaviors.

Cooperative problem‐solving and teaching in preschoolers, cooperative formats in pretend play among young children, two is better than one, but mine is better than ours: preschoolers' executive function during co-play., beyond parenting: coparenting and children's classroom adjustment, early childhood behavioral inhibition and social and school adjustment in chinese children: a 5-year longitudinal study., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

More From Forbes

The importance of collaboration around early childhood education.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Kendra Davenport is the President and CEO of Easterseals .

It’s difficult to go a day without hearing about how we live in divided times. While there may undoubtedly be things that divide Americans, many things also unite us. At the top of the list is a shared and genuine concern for the healthy development and education of our nation’s children.

The first five years of a child’s life are when their brain develops faster than at any other time. These years provide the foundation that shapes a child’s future health, development, learning and emotional well-being to ensure success in school and life. It’s also a time when early intervention services are crucial to help infants, toddlers and young children with developmental delays or other disabilities achieve cognitive, social, emotional, communicative and physical milestones.

Unfortunately, access to this type of intervention is not experienced evenly, and each year, more than 1 million children enter kindergarten with an undiagnosed developmental delay and are not ready to learn. The effects of this imbalance go far beyond any one student or individual. Leaders of all organizations—businesses and nonprofits—have an interest in ensuring that all children have access to meaningful early childhood education. The benefits to society realized by investing resources in high-quality birth-to-age-five programs are well-documented in research by University of Chicago professor James J. Heckman. The research proves a yield of up to 13% return on investment in early childhood programs, reducing the need for special education and remediation, better health outcomes, reduced need for social services, lower criminal justice costs, and increased self-sufficiency and productivity among children and families.

The U.S. economy loses as much as $35 billion annually because parents either reduce their working hours or leave the workforce entirely. Businesses lose an estimated $12.7 billion annually due to employee absenteeism caused by lack of childcare. This lack of childcare costs $57 billion annually "in lost earnings, productivity and revenue."

Real Madrid Vs. Real Betis Line Up: Two Changes From Ancelotti For Must Win

The top 10 richest people in the world (september 2024), despite dei backlash, inclusive office designs are gaining ground.

By expanding access to quality education and healthcare for children, we are helping expand opportunity and education for tomorrow’s leaders. A study last year by Georgetown University found that 72% of jobs in the U.S. will require a college degree by 2031. However, as Roy Bostock, vice chairman of Delta Airlines, has pointed out, to obtain a university education, one first needs to graduate from high school. The likelihood of graduating from high school increases fourfold if children read at grade level by third grade, and chances of reading at grade level double if children start school ready to learn. Their success all comes back to those critical first years.

Regions throughout the country suffer from rampant shortages of childcare options. Known as childcare deserts , many areas have too few licensed slots for the number of children who need care. More than half of America’s children live in such a desert, and this is particularly true for those from low- and middle-income, Hispanic and rural communities.

Parents are increasingly worried about the costs even when childcare options are available. "Since 1990, childcare costs have risen 214% ... Meanwhile, the average family income has increased by just 143% over the same period." According to Child Care Aware of America, "the annual price of child care exceeds the annual cost of in‑state tuition at a public four‑year university," and in all but six states childcare costs for two children exceed average mortgage prices. The combination of high costs and low levels of access has created a growing inequity in quality childcare across the U.S.

As a parent, I can attest to having experienced similar struggles around childcare more than a decade ago, and while my children are now grown, relatively little has changed in terms of the accessibility and affordability of childcare.

We can do more as nonprofit and community leaders to address barriers to education and healthcare. Solving issues such as the childcare conundrum demands creative solutions that often begin with public-private partnerships. Such alliances allow private and nonprofit organizations to share unique but symmetrical perspectives and form mutually beneficial unions.

For example, our organization has partnered with the Abbott Fund, with additional support from CareSource, to develop and implement the Project on Education and Community Health Equity (PEACHE). The initiative, which we are currently piloting in North Georgia, Southern California and the D.C., Maryland and Virginia regions, will improve the school readiness of children in underserved communities and improve relationships between healthcare and education service providers. By establishing the data-proven link between health and education needs, and the gaps that exist for low-income communities, we plan to scale this program nationally. This project helps ensure a child’s health and education needs are kindergarten-ready.

Knowing who to partner with demands research as well as planned and ongoing interaction. Devoting the time to get to know potential partner organizations is essential to understanding whether a company will make for a good match with your organization. Creating opportunities for staff and leadership to interact with counterparts at a potential partner organization builds internal consensus and can help determine whether the collaboration has the potential to become a partnership.

Through meaningful partnerships, private and nonprofit sectors can bring about meaningful change. After all, it is in everyone’s interest that tomorrow’s leaders are set up for success in school and life.

Forbes Nonprofit Council is an invitation-only organization for chief executives in successful nonprofit organizations. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

7 Tips for Building Kids’ Resilience 

• September 1, 2024
• Positive Parenting

We all want our kids to be unstoppable, but even superheroes have their kryptonite. That’s where resilience comes in—the superpower that helps them bounce back from setbacks and keep moving forward. Let’s dive into the top tips for building kids’ resilience! 

1. Embrace setbacks: Everyone faces challenges

It’s okay to feel a little blue when things don’t go as planned. Remind your child that everyone, even the most amazing superheroes, has their off days.

2. Encourage a growth mindset: Focus on effort, not just results

Instead of just praising their smarts, emphasize their hard work and determination. Let them know that challenges are opportunities to level up their skills.

3. Teach problem-solving: Think critically and creatively

Teach them the Jedi Mind Trick of problem-solving: ‘Use the Force… of logic and reason.’ Help them brainstorm solutions and choose the best path forward.

4. Lead by example: Demonstrate resilience through your actions

Share your own superhero stories of overcoming challenges. Let them see how you faced adversity with courage and determination.

5. Promote independence: Empower your child to take charge

Give them opportunities to make choices and solve problems on their own. Remember, they’re not puppies—no excessive barking or tail-wagging required.

6. Celebrate effort and progress: Every step counts

Even if they’re just one step closer to their personal goals, celebrate it. Every small victory is a step toward becoming their best selves.

7. Create a supportive environment: Be their rock 

Be your child’s personal cheerleader, but remember, they’re not a puppy. Offer support and encouragement, but let them know they can handle it.

By following these tips, you can help your child develop the resilience they need to face life’s challenges with confidence and courage. Remember, they’re not just kids—they’re superheroes in training!

More about Lingokids 

The Lingokids universe provides original, award-winning, interactive content for kids, transforming how kids can learn. Lingokids creates games, songs, podcasts, videos, and activities that blend educational subjects with modern life skills to spark curiosity, imagination, and success in school—and beyond!

Interested in learning more about how Lingokids helps families raise amazing kids? Download the app and check out more content on our YouTube channels !

Enjoy these articles too!

6 Educational + Festive Activities to Entertain Kids over the Holiday Break

The holiday break is just around the corner! Looking for ideas for educational and festive activities

Don’t Miss Our ABC Challenge!

“ABC! It’s easy as 123!” For your next fun activity as a family why not accept

Families that play together stay together!

  As families, there are plenty of games we can play to spend quality time together.

Never miss any Lingonews!

• For Business
• Resources for Parents
• EU's Horizon
• Proven Results
• Help Center
• Terms of service
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Redeem your Oxford Code

We are social

Lingokids Store

Preschool Children's Collaborative Problem-Solving Interactions: The Role of Gender, Pair Type, and Task

• Published: June 2003
• Volume 48 , pages 505–517, ( 2003 )

Cite this article

• Heather A. Holmes-Lonergan 1  

1318 Accesses

31 Citations

Explore all metrics

The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences in problem-solving and conflict-resolution skills in preschool children. Children between 4 and 5 years of age completed 3 problem-solving tasks with either a same-sex or a different-sex peer. Children's verbal and nonverbal interactions were analyzed. Girls used mitigation more often than did boys. Mixed-sex dyads engaged in controlling verbal interactions more often than same-sex dyads. There were relationships between verbal and nonverbal behaviors and task success; these relationships also differed across pair types. The results of the study demonstrate that the gender differences in types of verbal interactions previously observed in preschool children's free play are also present in their problem-solving interactions and that children are able to alter the types of behaviors they use depending upon both partner gender and the type of task involved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Preschoolers’ Cooperative Problem-Solving During Play in Chinese and U.S. Classrooms

Does Less Optimal Nonverbal Communication with Peers Predict the Development of Depression in Adolescent Boys and Girls?

How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Ashley, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Cooperative problem-solving and teaching in preschoolers. Social Development, 7, 143-163.

Google Scholar  

Ausch, L. (1994). Gender comparisons of young children's social interaction in cooperative play activity. Sex Roles, 31, 225-239.

Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 87-96.

Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In P. B. Baltes & V. M. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds:Life-span perspectives on the social foundations of cognition (pp. 133-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Azmitia, M., & Perlmutter, M. (1989). Social influences on children's cognition: State of the art and future directions. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 22, pp. 89-144). New York: Academic Press.

Barbieri, M. S., & Light, P. H. (1992). Interaction, gender, and performance on a computer-based problem solving task. Learning and Instruction, 2, 199-213.

Bearison, D. J., Magzamen, S., & Filardo, E. (1986). Socio-cognitive conflict and cognitive growth in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32, 51-72.

Brownell, C. A., & Carriger, M. S. (1991). Collaborations among toddler peers: Individual contributions to social contexts. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 365-383). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cannella, G. S. (1992). Gender composition and conflict in dyadic sociocognitive interaction: Effects on spatial learning in young children. Journal of Experimental Education, 6, 29-41.

Cannella, G. S. (1993). Learning through social interaction: Shared cognitive experience, negotiation strategies, and joint concept construction for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 427-444.

Cannella, G. S., Viruru, R., & Amin, S. (1995). Sociocognitive growth and the young child: Comparisons with spatial and literacy content. Child Study Journal, 25, 213-231.

Carli, L. L., & Bukatko, D. (2000). Gender, communication, and social influence: A developmental perspective. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 295-331). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Charlesworth, W. R., & Dzur, C. (1987). Gender comparisons of preschoolers' behavior and resource utilization in group problem solving. Child Development, 58, 191-200.

d'Estrėe T. P., & Babbitt, E. F. (1998). Women and the art of peacemaking: Data from Israeli-Palestinian interactive problem-solving workshops. Political Psychology, 19, 185-209.

Duran, R. T., & Gauvain, M. (1993). The role of age versus expertise in peer collaboration during joint planning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 227-242.

Eisenberg, A. R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4, 149-170.

Ellis, S., Schneiders, B., & Smith, H. D. (1991, June). Children's collaborative problem solving: Effects of expertise in the context of relationships or can friends be considered "experts?" Paper presented at the annual symposium of the Jean Piaget Society, Philadelphia.

Fishman, P. M. (1983). Interaction: The work women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, gender, and society (pp. 89-101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Goncu, A., & Kessel, F. (1988). Preschoolers' collaborative construction in planning and maintaining imaginative play. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 11, 327-344.

Goodwin, M. H. (1988). Cooperation and competition across girls' play activities. In A. D. Todd & S. Fisher (Eds.), Gender and discourse: The power of talk (pp. 55-92). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hartup, W. W., French, D. C., Laursen, B., Johnston, M. K., & Ogawa, J. R. (1993). Conflict and friendship relations in middle childhood: Behavior in a closed-field situation. Child Development, 64, 445-454.

Hughes, M., Brackenridge, A., Bibby, A., & Greenough, P. (1988). Girls, boys, and turtles: Gender effects in young children learning with Logo. In C. Hoyles (Ed.), Girls and computers (pp. 31-39). London: Institute of Education.

Jacklin, C. N., & Maccoby, E. E. (1978). Social behavior at thirty-three months in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads. Child Development, 49, 557-569.

Keashly, L. (1994). Gender and conflict: What does psychological research tell us? In A. Taylor & J. B. Miller (Eds.), Conflict and gender (pp. 167-190). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Killen, M., & Naigles, L. (1995). Preschool children pay attention to their addressees: Effects of gender composition on peer disputes. Discourse Processes, 19, 329-346.

Kruger, A., Yebra, M., & Willis, M. (1995, March). Task type affects styles of peer interaction. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.

Kyratzis, A. (1992). Gender differences in the use of persuasive justification in children's pretend play. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, & B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 326-337). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.

Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and involvement in children's discourse: Age, gender, and partner effects. Child Development, 62, 797-811.

Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In C. Leaper (Ed.), New directions for child development (pp. 67-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Littleton, K., Light, P., Joiner, R., Messer, D., & Barnes, P. (1992). Pairing and gender effects on children's computer-based learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 7, 311-324.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.

Madhok, J. J. (1992). The effect of gender composition on group interaction. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, & B. Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 371-385). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.

Miller, P. M., Danaher, D. L., & Forbes, D. (1986). Sex-related strategies for coping with interpersonal conflict in children aged five and seven. Developmental Psychology, 22, 543-548.

Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.

Mulac, A., Baradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communications Research, 27, 121-152.

Muller, A. A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Preschool children's problem-solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 173-186.

Perlmutter, M., Behrend, S. D., Kuo, F., & Muller, A. (1989). Social influences on children's problem solving. Developmental Psychology, 25, 744-754.

Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 639-646.

Pozzi, S., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1993). Learning and interaction in groups with computers: When do ability and gender matter? Social Development, 2, 22-241.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ruble, T. L., & Schneer, J. A. (1994). Gender differences in conflict-handling styles: Less than meets the eye? In A. Taylor & J. B. Miller (Eds.), Conflict and gender (pp. 167-190). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Serbin, L. A., Sprafkin, C., Elman, M., & Doyle, A. (1982). The early development of sex-differentiated patterns of influence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 14, 351-363.

Sheldon, A. (1990). Pickle fights: Gendered talk in preschool disputes. Discourse Processes, 13, 5-31.

Tomasello, M., Kruger, A., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 495-552.

Underwood, G., Jindal, N., & Underwood, J. (1994). Gender differences and effects of co-operation in a computer-based task. Educational Research, 36, 63-74.

Underwood, G., McCaffrey, M., & Underwood, J. (1990). Gender differences in a cooperative computer-based task. Educational Research, 32, 44-49.

Verba, M. (1994). The beginnings of collaboration in peer interaction. Human Development, 37, 125-139.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Metropolitan State College of Denver, Campus Box 54, P.O. Box 173362, Denver, Colorado, 80217-3362

Heather A. Holmes-Lonergan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather A. Holmes-Lonergan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Holmes-Lonergan, H.A. Preschool Children's Collaborative Problem-Solving Interactions: The Role of Gender, Pair Type, and Task. Sex Roles 48 , 505–517 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023523228455

Download citation

Issue Date : June 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023523228455

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• gender differences
• collaboration
• problem solving
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• how it works
• School Leaders
• Camps and Clubs
• Teach with Minecraft
• Lesson Library
• Build Challenges
• AI & Cyber
• Computer Science
• Get Trained
• MY CLASSROOM
• My Resources

WELCOME STUDENTS BACK TO SCHOOL WITH MINECRAFT!

As students return to school, educators will be looking for an exciting way to kick off the year and get to know their new classrooms. Build Challenges are a great way for classmates to introduce themselves to one another and brush up on rules for good digital citizenship in the fun and creative environment of Minecraft Education.

Minecraft Challenges Inspire Learning

Minecraft Build Challenges offer a great way to engage students in creative projects, problem solving and to celebrating your community. Our wide variety of Challenges present an opportunity for educators to use Minecraft to inspire students with real-world problems, local issues, and core school subjects.

Minecraft Education build challenges start by posing a challenge prompt to students and inviting them to design solutions: For example, build a futuristic car, design a sustainable version of your school or a new park for your town, architect an energy-efficient home, or recreate a scene from history or local landmark.

Challenges don’t have to be competitive; they can be an exciting way to bring your community together to solve a problem and celebrate the ideas and creativity of the students. Adding a layer of competition can be motivating, so this is an option if schools want to conduct a judging process to evaluate submissions and select winners.

New Challenges Released Each Month

For August we launched Museum of Scale where students can explore the grand halls of a Minecraft Museum and learn about scale and ratio. Within this world you will be challenged to complete scaled up and scaled down versions of Minecraft builds. After some practice, students will build their own creation and share with a partner to create a scale model.

Upcoming for September

Look out for Mushroom Mission : following the great storm, the people of the mushroom forest need your help to fix their damaged village. As you learn the story of the Mushroom Forest you will be challenged to help the villagers there rebuild three structures in their town. Help the mushroom people by building a new bridge, repairing their homes, and creating a brand-new mushroom house!

Educator Resources

Engage your students with our two new guides: the Minecraft Education Build Challenge JumpStart kit created to help educators easily implement existing Build Challenges or take your journey a step further with our Custom Build Challenge Toolkit , which will walk through how to create your own challenge, layer elements of competition, and learn how to assess student learning outcomes through your program!

Follow Minecraft Education on LinkedIn ,   X (Twitter) , and Facebook and join the Minecraft Educator Community to learn more about what’s coming throughout the year.

Previous Article

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

10 Brain Games/ Cognition/ Memory Games

Subject: Maths for early years

Age range: 5-7

Resource type: Game/puzzle/quiz

Last updated

1 September 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This pack contains 10 activities to develop memory, attention, problems solving and working memory. They also encourage the development of left and right brain thinking.

The activities are:

Shape and Colour Brain Game Match The Dice Match The Double Dice Colour Path Toy Pairs Rainbow Drops Shape Sudoku Odd Socks Build Me Counting Cubes Connect The Dots

These involve colours, patterns, sequencing, matching, Montessori style, number, interactive, shape recognition, sharing, turn taking and fine motor skills. Every activity is bright, colourful and engaging to encourage learning whilst having fun.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

For security reasons, we do not recommend using the “Keep me logged in” option on public devices.

This posting is locked only for district employees, in order to apply, you need to provide a password and click "Submit".

Are you sure?

For security reasons, we do not recommend using the “Keep me logged in” option on public devices. Click Continue to move forward with stay logged in.

Reset your password

Is this your email @ ?

Enter email address to retrieve your username and/or reset your password.

Verify Your Email Address

Email verification link sent.

An Email Verification link was sent to the email address . The verification link will expire in 48 hours. Please click on the link in the email you received to continue and complete the verification process.

If you do not see the email in your inbox after approximately 10-15 minutes, check your SPAM/Junk email folder(s) , thank you.

PARAPROFESSIONAL General Ed (TK 5.5hrs) - Jack Franscioni Elementary - 2024/2025 School Year (POS#1061) at Soledad Unified School District

Application Deadline

9/5/2024 5:00 PM Pacific

Date Posted

Number of openings, add'l salary info, length of work year, employment type, work location, requirements / qualifications.

MATERIALS QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Basic English skills (speaking, reading and writing). Mathematical computations and problem solving skills, as certified by passing scores on exam issued by the designated agency. Knowledge of child growth and development is also required. Bilingual instructional aides must posses basic Spanish skills (speaking, reading and writing) as certified by a passing score on a district mandated exam. Ability to: Provide successful reinforcement activities for pupils to increase academic abilities and basic skills development. Maintain a positive attitude toward the learning needs and behavior of children. Actively participate in planned parent and student involvement activities. Follow lesson plans, as developed by the classroom teacher. Be positive and active in professional growth and district adopted staff development plans. Establish and maintain cooperative and effective working relationships with pupils, staff and parents. Give fair, firm and consistent supervision of pupils, in accordance with the adopted district discipline policy. Bilingual instructional aides must be able to translate in bilingual and bicultural seEDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE High School diploma or equivalent and must meet any one of the following requirements: (1) complete 48 semester units through an accredited college or university, verified by official transcripts; (2) obtain an associates degree from an accredited college/university or higher, verified by official transcripts; (3) demonstrate knowledge of, and ability to assist in instructing reading, writing, and math, as certified by passing score on exam issued by the designated agency. Licenses and Certifications: *Possession of an appropriate valid California Driver's License with evidence of insurability *First Aid Certification within six(6) months of employment *CPR Certification within six(6) months of employment

TB Test Clearance and Official Transcripts required upon hire

• Certification (AA Degree or 48 college units or Paraeducator Assessment Test (may provide upon hire))
• Letter of Introduction
• Letter(s) of Recommendation (3)
• Proof of HS Graduation (High School Diploma/GED (may provide upon hire))
• TB Screening Result (May provide upon hire)

Comments and Other Information

Links related to this job.

• Soledad Visitors' Center
• Pinnacles National Park (West Entrance - Soledad)
• Soledad Unified School District
• City of Soledad
• View Other Job Desc. / Ess. Elem.

CalPERS Links

• CalPERS Retirement Benefits

Session Expiring Warning

For your safety and protection, your session is about to expire. If you wish to continue your session, please click OK .