Solution-Finder — How Many Ways Can We Fix It?

A simple, repeatable way to meet everyday problems — a torn drawing, two kids and one swing, blocks that won’t balance — with thinking instead of a meltdown or a handed-over fix. The routine: name the problem, brainstorm “how many DIFFERENT ways could we fix it?”, think about what would happen with each, pick one, try it, and see if it worked. The win at age 5 is generating several options and noticing a consequence — not finding the perfect answer.

  1. Name the problem out loud. “The problem is: you both want the red cup.” Calm, neutral, no blame. (If anyone’s upset, soothe first — problem-solving needs a calm brain.)
  2. Collect ideas — all of them. “How many ways could we solve this?” Count them on fingers like treasures. Write down the silly ideas too; don’t judge yet.
  3. Play “what would happen if…?” For a couple of ideas: “If we both grab it, what happens?” This is consequence thinking — the heart of the skill.
  4. Pick one to try. Let the child choose where it’s safe to — ownership matters more than picking the “best.”
  5. Try it and check. “Did it work?” If yes, celebrate the thinking. If not: “What else was on our list?” Back to the ideas — a failed attempt is just the next clue.
  6. Name it when it’s over. “You found three ways and picked one — that’s problem-solving!” Naming the process helps it stick.

Variation: rehearse with a stuffed animal’s pretend problem (“Teddy can’t reach his bottle — how many ways…?”); catch problems out in the world (“the door’s stuck — ideas?”); over time, let the child pose the problem.

Requirements

  • Space: None — it runs wherever the problem happens
  • Surface: Not applicable
  • Materials: None; optionally fingers to count ideas, or a stuffed animal for pretend problems
  • Participants: 1 adult + 1 child, or two children with an adult guiding
  • Supervision: Active facilitation — the adult guides the steps but does NOT supply the solution

Rationale & Objective

This routine operationalizes Interpersonal Cognitive Problem Solving (ICPS), whose core claim is that two thinking skills — generating alternative solutions and consequential thinking (what happens next) — drive children’s adjustment more than any specific answer (Spivack & Shure, 1974, Social Adjustment of Young Children, Jossey-Bass). In Shure & Spivack’s prevention work with 4- and 5-year-olds, training these skills reduced impulsive and inhibited behavior with effects lasting at least a year (Shure & Spivack, 1982, “Interpersonal problem-solving in young children,” American Journal of Community Psychology, 10[3], 341–356). Mapping out a goal and its obstacles is the “means-ends” skill measured by the MEPS (Platt & Spivack, 1975, Hahnemann). Meta-analyses confirm the link between social problem-solving skills and adjustment and that preschool programs reliably raise the thinking skills — though gains in thinking outrun changes in actual behavior (Denham & Almeida, 1987, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 391–409; Barnes, Wang & O’Brien, 2018, “A meta-analytic review of social problem-solving interventions in preschool settings,” Infant and Child Development, 27[5]). HighScope’s six-step conflict-resolution sequence applies the same constructivist logic, with adults eliciting children’s ideas rather than imposing answers. Honest framing — the evidence base is structured curricula delivered over weeks, so a single home game is far weaker; at age 5 generating options outpaces evaluating them, and transfer from a calm rehearsal to a real heated moment is the documented weak point — which is why naming feelings and calming come first.

Progress Indicators

  • Early: with the adult narrating, names the problem (“the tower fell”) and offers ONE solution, often by acting rather than saying it; may just want the adult to fix it
  • Developing: offers one solution unprompted and a second when asked “what’s another way?”; names one immediate consequence if prompted (“then it’d break”); reflects afterward as a simple did-it-work yes/no
  • Proficient: spontaneously generates 2–3 different solutions to a concrete problem, predicts a likely consequence for at least one without prompting, picks one to try, and afterward says whether it worked and offers a next idea if it didn’t
  • Advanced: generates several genuinely distinct solutions, compares two on their consequences (“taking turns is better because then nobody cries”), considers the other person’s view, picks one with a reason, and re-runs the loop with a new idea when the first fails — sometimes starting the process unprompted another day

Safety Notes

  • The risks here are emotional, not physical — never run the routine mid-meltdown; soothe and let the child calm first, because a dysregulated brain can’t problem-solve and pushing “how many ways?” then feels punitive
  • Avoid an interrogation or quiz tone (rapid-fire “and what else? and what else?”) and avoid moralizing or steering to the “right” answer — the goal is to teach HOW to think, not WHAT to think
  • Don’t impose the adult’s solution; the developmental payoff is the child’s own idea, so elicit and accept their options (even imperfect ones, where the consequence is safe to discover)
  • Don’t force participation or make it a performance; if the child disengages, drop it and try another time

Hints

  • Playfulness: give it a recurring name — a “How-Many-Ways Machine” — and count ideas on fingers like collecting treasures (“Ooh, that’s THREE ways! Can we find a fourth?”)
  • Sustain interest: rotate the kind of problem (a practical object problem one day, a social one the next, a stuffed animal’s pretend problem another), keep each round to a couple of minutes, and let the child sometimes pose the problem
  • Common mistake: jumping to judge or veto ideas (“no, that won’t work”) — at age 5 that shuts generation down; collect ALL ideas first, then gently ask “what might happen if we tried that one?”
  • Limited space: needs nothing and no equipment — it runs entirely on talk about whatever real problem just happened; a present, concrete problem works far better than a hypothetical one
  • Cross-domain: links to social-emotional skills (turn-taking, perspective-taking, naming feelings as the calm-down step), language (if/then and sequencing talk), creativity (divergent idea-generation), and frustration tolerance (a setback becomes a puzzle)
  • Progression: adult models thinking aloud and offers two ways → child contributes one idea → child offers two or more → child predicts a consequence (“what would happen if…?”) → child compares options, picks one with a reason, reflects on whether it worked, and eventually starts the loop independently

Sources

  • Spivack, G. & Shure, M. B. (1974). Social Adjustment of Young Children: A Cognitive Approach to Solving Real-Life Problems. Jossey-Bass
  • Shure, M. B. & Spivack, G. (1982). “Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cognitive approach to prevention.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(3), 341–356
  • Platt, J. J. & Spivack, G. (1975). Manual for the Means-Ends Problem-Solving Procedure (MEPS). Hahnemann Community Mental Health/Mental Retardation Center
  • Denham, S. A. & Almeida, M. C. (1987). “Children’s social problem-solving skills, behavioral adjustment, and interventions: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(4), 391–409
  • Barnes, T. N., Wang, F. & O’Brien, K. M. (2018). “A meta-analytic review of social problem-solving interventions in preschool settings.” Infant and Child Development, 27(5), e2095
  • Shure, M. B. — I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) program (Research Press); listed in the CASEL program guide
  • Head Start ELOF — Approaches to Learning: Goal P-ATL 7 (uses reasoning and planning ahead to solve problems)
  • Teaching Strategies GOLD — Objective 3b (solves social problems) and Objective 11c (solves problems)
  • CDC/AAP “Learn the Signs. Act Early.” — by 5 years: follows rules or takes turns when playing games
  • CASEL — Responsible Decision-Making competency
  • HighScope — six-step problem-solving and conflict-resolution sequence
  • Piaget — Preoperational Stage (generation outpaces evaluation at age 5)