Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 35, No.

1, August 2007 (Ó 2007)

DOI: 10.1007/s10643-007-0156-9

Mystery Boxes: Helping Children Improve their Reasoning

Audrey C. Rule1

This guest editorial describes ways teachers can use guessing games about an unknown item in
a ‘‘mystery box’’ to help children improve their abilities to listen to others, recall information,
ask purposeful questions, classify items by class, make inferences, synthesize information, and
draw conclusions. The author presents information from a qualitative analysis of 90 preservice
teachersÕ reflections on using mystery boxes with preschool through elementary students in
urban public school settings in central New York State. Children were enthusiastic about the
game, used a variety of strategies to generate questions, experienced difficulties in paying
attention, remembering and synthesizing information, and had difficulty focusing on more
than one characteristic at a time. Errors included repetition of questions and class inclusion/
exclusion errors. Modeling, thinking out loud, and giving hints helped children become suc-
cessful. Creating oneÕs own mystery box, exercises in identifying attributes and classifying
items, and practice in questioning techniques are among suggested follow-on activities.

KEY WORDS: thinking skills; reasoning; inference-making; questioning; classification.

IMPORTANCE OF THINKING SKILLS programs increase their emphasis on development of

While I was waiting for the movie to begin at a
theatre recently, I watched a slide show of adver-
tisements for local restaurants and services. One
slide sponsored by a childrenÕs advocacy group an-
nounced, ‘‘I spy something green,’’ and encouraged
parents to spend time playing simple thinking games
with their children. Thinking skills are important for
all of us to successfully maneuver through life and
make good decisions. In fact, a review of the research
on important competencies in the workplace (Moy,
1999) concluded that generic thinking skills such as
collecting, analyzing, and organizing information
are key skills for workplace success. The author of
that study recommended that vocational education
1
Curriculum and Instruction, State University of New York at
Oswego, 250-G Wilber Hall, Takamine St., Oswego, NY 13126,
USA.
2
Correspondence should be directed to Audrey C. Rule, Curricu-
lum and Instruction, State University of New York at Oswego,
Swetman Hall, Centennial St., Oswego, NY 13126, USA; e-mail:
arule@oswego.edu
underpinning process skills. Educators of young
children can lay a strong foundation for the devel-
opment of these important competencies.
MYSTERY BOXES
When I was a first grade teacher at an urban
school in Alabama, I noticed the difficulties my stu-
dents had in formulating questions and processing
information. Although our weekly show-and-tell
activities were helping children with verbal expres-
sion, it wasnÕt enough. So I decided that the ‘‘Star of
the Week,’’ in addition to other duties and privileges,
would bring a secret item to be put in a ‘‘mystery
box’’ for us to guess. The ‘‘mystery box,’’ was a
cracker box I had covered with colorful wrapping
paper and question marks. We sat in a circle on the
carpet and each student was allowed to ask one
question having a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer about the
mystery object to determine its identity. The star sat
next to me, holding the mystery box, and answered
the questions. I transcribed these ‘‘Twenty-Ques-
tions’’ sessions and added them to our weekly news-
letter sent home to parents. Students enjoyed reading

13
1082-3301/07/0800-0013/0 Ó 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
14
what everyone had said. Because these records of
mystery object guesses were in studentsÕ own words,
they formed age-appropriate authentic reading
material related to our class activities. Such content-
based reading materials have been proven effective
throughout a wide range of instructional contexts
(Grabe & Stoller, 1997).
Children found this game exciting but difficult in
the beginning. It took a while for them to think of
broad categories for questions (e.g. place where item
is found, color, shape of item, purpose of item). They
also had initial difficulty in formulating a question so
that it would receive a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response. I
modeled possible queries and helped them rephrase
their questions. For example, if a student asked,
‘‘What color is it?’’ I suggested they choose a likely
color and ask, ‘‘Is it blue?’’
I was somewhat dismayed at the logic errors
children made in trying to determine the mystery
objects at first. An example transcript of questions
and answers follows. It is interesting that a child
wondered if the item might be pink after learning that
it was red. Perhaps the child wasnÕt listening or was
thinking that it was red and pink, but usually, I
would interject the word ‘‘partly’’ if the item showed
several colors. Notice that one child asks if the object
is a car, although it has been established that the
object does not have wheels. Also note that after
children determined the item was a person or figure, a
child persisted in asking if it had feet. Perhaps the
student wasnÕt paying attention or just wanted to ask
a question that would receive an affirmative response.
Is it blue? No.
Is it red? Yes.
Is it pink? No.
Is it something with wheels? No.
Is it a car? No.
Is it a puppet? No.
Does it have wings? No.
Can you eat it? No.
Is it a rag? No.
Can you play with it? Yes.
Is it a block? No.
Does it have hair? Yes, painted on.
Is it people or a person or figure? Yes.
Does it have feet? Yes.
Is it a man? Yes.
Is it Santa Claus? Yes, it is a red bendable toy Santa Claus.
Eventually, after many weeks of practice, my
first graders became quite proficient at formulating
general questions and narrowing the scope to deter-
mine the mystery object. By the end of January,
children had dramatically reduced their errors in
Rule
logic. They werenÕt always able to identify the mys-
tery object, but they asked questions that incorpo-
rated previously learned information and made
intelligent guesses.
PRESERVICE TEACHERS USE MYSTERY
BOXES WITH CHILDREN
In my current position as an education professor
teaching science methods for childhood education
majors, I had the opportunity to revive my mystery
box as a model for preservice teachers to use during
their practicum field experiences. I was looking for an
activity my college education majors could easily
implement at their school placements with preschool,
kindergarten, and elementary students that would
practice the science process skills of inference-making
and logical reasoning. I sought a motivating project
that would involve my students in making an inex-
pensive curriculum material they could keep for their
future classrooms–something interesting they could
personalize, but a project flexible enough to be used
with several grade-levels of students from pre-K to
elementary. I also wanted the activity to be effective
whether used with one child, a small group, or an
entire class, as I could not be sure of how many
students my preservice teachers might be able to
involve in an activity. Finally, the project had to
provide the opportunity for preservice teachers to
analyze student thinking and reflect on the experi-
ence. I decided that making mystery boxes would
satisfy all these requirements.
My college students were excited to create their
mystery boxes. Many covered shoe, cracker, or cereal
boxes with interesting fabric and added flashy trims
or jeweled words to decorate these hiding places.
I asked them to gather at least five items from their
choice of several different categories to prepare for
the activity. Students gathered toys, household items
(e.g., clothespin, bar of soap, fork, picture frame),
articles of clothing (e.g. scarf, bib), tools (e.g., hole-
punch) artificial food (e.g., plastic apple, ice cream
cone ornament), school supplies (e.g., marker, scis-
sors) personal items (e.g., keys, jewelry, ID-card), and
recycled items (e.g. soda bottle, yogurt cup).
My preservice teachers were required to tran-
scribe two question-and-answer sessions with the
children from practicum placements at urban schools
with diverse populations of students in central New
York State and to analyze these young learnersÕ
thinking. Then they wrote one-page essays discussing
the experience, analyzing childrenÕs reasoning, and
Mystery Boxes: Helping Children Improve their Reasoning
providing suggestions for follow-on activities to help
students improve their thinking processes. With their
permission, I compiled the insights of my ninety
college students on a spreadsheet, extracting two to
four statements from each essay. I qualitatively ana-
lyzed these ideas to determine major outcomes of the
activity. I used a grounded theory approach and the
inductive ‘‘constant comparison’’ method (Creswell,
2005, p. 406) to uncover the categories of insights and
outcomes in using this activity with children. This
approach provided six categories, which I will eluci-
date in the following sections: general observations,
strategies children use, difficulties children have,
errors they make, ways to help children and sugges-
tions for follow-on activities.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF CHILDREN
PLAYING THE MYSTERY OBJECT GAME
Younger children (preschool, kindergarten, first-
graders) found the game very challenging at first, but
soon caught on and wanted to play it again and
again. Many kindergarten children had played ‘‘IÕm
thinking of’’ before or rhyming ‘‘I Spy’’ while waiting
for buses and so were familiar with the idea of
guessing an object. Many preservice teachers
observed that children improved remarkably at the
second round of the game, learning the types of
questions to ask by observing others. Because the
mystery boxes were colorful and the question-asking
game was an intriguing change from typical activities
in the classroom, students seemed to thoroughly
enjoy playing.
STRATEGIES CHILDREN USE TO ASK QUES-
TIONS AND DETERMINE MYSTERY OBJECTS
Some children tried to immediately guess what
was in the box without determining any of its char-
acteristics. They named specific objects that seemed
to just pop into their heads as random choices. This
strategy was in general not found to be useful, but
occasionally resulted in a ‘‘lucky’’ correct guess.
Other children thought of items that might pos-
sibly be in the box and used these ideas to generate
questions. Sometimes the items (such as toothbrushes
or toys) were from their personal lives. Often, chil-
dren looked around the room for objects small
enough to fit in the box, then asked questions based
on characteristics of these objects. Some preservice
teachers keyed into this idea and made the game
easier for students by choosing items from the room
for them to guess. Other college students reflected
15
that this strategy of students was not very effective
because their mystery objects could not be found in a
classroom. However, the general categories generated
by this approach were often helpful in discerning
characteristics of the mystery object.
Another strategy used especially by younger
learners was to play off a previous question. If a
question about color had just been asked, then a
student continued in this line of questioning.
Children were most successful at determining the
identity of the mystery object when general questions
about a variety of characteristics were asked and
children synthesized previous information to formu-
late questions and guesses. Preservice teachers often
noted that once a couple of characteristics were
determined, the questioning improved markedly.
They also noticed that some students were able to use
a ‘‘no’’ response to eliminate a class of objects and
make better progress.
DIFFICULTIES
As noted above, younger children had some
difficulty understanding the game at first, but those
with experience with other guessing games caught on
more quickly. In two instances, children misunder-
stood and began by guessing what type of box was
covered with fabric rather than the object the box
contained. A few children did not know what a
‘‘question’’ was but understood once several exam-
ples were given.
Although the suspense of determining the mys-
tery object held the attention of many students, oth-
ers had difficulty attending to the questions of others.
Some children, who appeared to be listening, forgot
information. Younger childrenÕs memories function
somewhat differently than those of older elementary
children, with younger students focusing on verbatim
information (specific surface forms and properties)
rather than relational and semantic information or
the ‘‘gist’’ of the experience (Courage & Howe, 2004).
This means that although younger children may
remember what was said, they may not be interpret-
ing and applying it to possible objects or question
choices. The teacher can help by thinking out loud
and modeling the interpretation of information for
them.
Frustration and disappointment at ‘‘no’’
responses was a hindrance for a few who seemed to
think the entire point of the game was to receive
‘‘yes’’ responses. The teacher can help these children
by reminding them that a ‘‘no’’ response provides
16
important information by eliminating a group of
possible choices. Many young children did not
understand that listening to other childrenÕs questions
was important, while others seemed unable to syn-
thesize information. Reviewing what was known
about the object every few questions assisted students
with poor recall or listening skills. Verbalizing ideas
about the implications of different bits of information
helped children put ideas together. Talking about the
process (Short, Schroeder, Kauffman, & Kaser, 2004)
of gleaning information from questions and fitting it
together is crucial in supporting childrenÕs thinking.
Younger children seemed to focus on one char-
acteristic at a time to the exclusion of others. This is a
developmental characteristic of children in the pre-
operational stage (‘‘Jean Piaget,’’ 2001; Miller &
Church, 2003); For example, once a question about
color was asked, all questions focused on this aspect,
even after the specific color of the object had been
determined. Although several characteristics of the
object might be known, children guessed objects
having only one of these characteristics. Additionally,
some children persisted in asking questions that
related to a previous mystery object, apparently not
realizing the current mystery object was something
different.
ERRORS
Children exhibited a variety of errors as they
attempted to uncover the mystery objects. A common
error was asking a question already asked because of
inattention or a lapse in memory. Younger children
often suggested items that were too large for the box
(for example, a winter coat, a microwave oven, a
giant). However, when the preservice teacher asked if
the item could fit in the box, most children realized
their mistakes.
By far, the most common errors related to
class inclusion. For example, after the item had
been established as some sort of toy animal, a
student erroneously asked if it might be a ball.
Similarly, a student asked if the object could run
after learning the object could not move. Another
student asked if the item might be an orange
(fruit) after the previous student learned its color
was not orange.
Preservice teachers also reported other types of
errors. For instance, one child thought the mystery
object the preservice teacher brought might be
something that belonged to him and another thought
it might be something his mother had used. A child
Rule
thought the box might contain snow, which could not
remain frozen in the warm classroom. When learning
that the shape was not that of a circle, one child
assumed it must be square.
Most of these errors were evidence of faulty
inference-making. ‘‘...[I]nferences are mental con-
nections between something that we already believe
is true and something that we believe connects to
it in some way’’ (Chiasson, 2005, p. 215). Infer-
ences are based on observations, but use mental
processing to go beyond the information to clas-
sify, explain, generalize, or predict. ‘‘The ability to
make good inferences at appropriate stages during
an inquiry is synonymous with the ability to rea-
son well’’ (Chiasson, 2005, p. 215). Inferences
depend upon consideration of characteristics and
qualities, analysis of information to find relation-
ships, and representation of the results. How can
we help children to improve their ability to make
solid inferences?
WAYS TO HELP CHILDREN
Preservice teachers observed that modeling
possible questions, summarizing information,
and thinking out loud helped students. Modeling
question-asking and praising children who asked
questions was shown in an early study with Mexican-
American second graders from disadvantaged
backgrounds (Zimmerman & Pike, 1972) to be more
effective than praise alone. When the teacher talks
about how he/she thinks about the problem, students
have a mental model for different ways to approach
the problem (Fredericks, 1992).
When children became frustrated with the game,
preservice teachers found giving hints and clues
revived spirits. Several mentioned that they allowed
students to gently shake the box or blindly touch the
object to obtain information about the size, shape,
weight, and composition of the item. Those working
with preschoolers often began by announcing the
general category of the item, such as toy animal, food
item, or object related to artwork, to simplify the
game.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-ON ACTIVITIES
Suggestions for follow-on activities to help stu-
dents improve their reasoning focused on five aspects:
motivating children through ownership, building on
other knowledge, assisting children in considering
different properties of objects, helping children
formulate questions, and facilitating childrenÕs
Mystery Boxes: Helping Children Improve their Reasoning
understanding of classification and class inclusion/
exclusion.
Having children decorate their own mystery
boxes and bring in items from home can motivate
children. A child who assumes the teacherÕs role in
responding to questions has a different perspective
and may gain important insights as he/she considers
the questions posed by classmates. Ownership of a
mystery box may prompt a child to initiate informal
practice in asking questions and making inferences
during free time games with peers or relatives. One
preservice teacher suggested that after children
worked in small groups with their own mystery object
boxes, items from those sets could be used in the
teacherÕs mystery box for the entire class. Prior
practice and a known set of choices may boost stu-
dent success.
Teachers can combine mystery objects with
other more familiar classroom activities to help
children build their thinking skills. When studying a
particular plant or animal, a plastic model or
specimen could be put in the box and the teacher
could direct students to ask questions using science
vocabulary they have learned. An example of this is
the question, ‘‘Is it an herbivore?’’ asked by a sec-
ond grader during this investigation. Mystery items
related to a unit of study might be used to help
children review concepts.
Micklo (1995) suggested five key experiences for
helping children to develop their logical thinking and
classification skills: describing the attributes of things;
telling how things are alike and different; finding
characteristics an item does not possess; considering
more than one attribute at a time; and distinguishing
between ‘‘some’’ and ‘‘all.’’ These concepts might be
practiced with attribute blocks and also applied to
sets of toys or other objects.
The preservice teachers I worked with suggested
that children might practice identifying various
properties of real objects or items in photographs cut
from magazines to hone their skills. As questions
about a mystery object are asked, the teacher might
list known properties on the board. After a mystery
object has been determined, additional properties can
be added as children consider other questions they
might have asked. Alternatively, a child might tell
single characteristics of his/her mystery object while
others guess.
Questioning skills can be enhanced by helping
children understand the difference between general
and specific questions and how starting with broad
questions and progressing to narrower categories,
17
the process of deductive reasoning, can help
determine an unknown. Children might practice
asking questions about a known item in the
classroom. Additionally, the teacher can record
question sets for different mystery objects and later
ask children to examine the questions asked and
determine those that were most effective or any
that were illogical.
Finally, assisting students in understanding
class inclusion and exclusion principles, the source
of the most errors in childrenÕs logic during the
mystery box activities, is important. Practice in
grouping and categorizing items provides a strong
foundation. Students might search and cut from
magazines items that fit given categories such as
‘‘animals,’’ ‘‘things found inside a home,’’ things
that make noise,’’ and ‘‘things found in the
kitchen.’’ Alternatively, they may be provided with
a large set of items and be asked to define cate-
gories for grouping. After items have been
grouped, the teacher might suggest that he/she is
thinking about a food item and ask if it could be
the wagon (grouped with ‘‘things with wheels’’) or
another item from different group. Having children
explain why not will help them extract class
exclusion principles.
How can you use a mystery box activity in your
classroom? You might have children bring in secret
objects for guessing. Your students could decorate
their own mystery boxes, taking them home to play
the game with family members. Perhaps you will have
a ‘‘Mystery Object of the Week’’ related to a thematic
unit, the current season, a special event or an
upcoming holiday. I wish you the best in your
explorations.
REFERENCES
Chiasson, P. (2005). PeirceÕs design for thinking: An embedded
philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory,
37(2), 207–226.
Courage, M. K., & Howe, M. L. (2004). Advances in early memory
development research: Insights about the dark side of the
moon. Developmental Review, 24, 6–32.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting,
and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Fredericks, A. D. (1992). Helping your child grow in thinking.
Teaching PreK-8, 23(3), 29.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction:
Research foundations. In M. A. Snow, & D. M. Brinton
(Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating
language and content. (pp. 5–21). New York: Longman.
Jean Piaget: Champion of childrenÕs ideas (2001). Early Childhood
Today, 15(5), 43.
18
Micklo, S. J. (1995). Developing young childrenÕs classification and
logical thinking skills. Childhood Education, 72(1), 24–28.
Miller, S. A., & Church, E. B. (2003). Helping children develop
logic and reasoning skills. Early Childhood Today, 17(4), 32.
Moy, J. (1999). The impact of generic competencies on workplace
performance. Review of research. National Centre for Voca-
tional Education Research, Leabrook, South Australia. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No). ED 433 422.
Rule
Short, K. G., Schroeder, J., Kauffman, G., & Kaser, S. (2004).
Thoughts from the editors. Language Arts, 81(4), 271.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pike, E. O. (1972). Effects of modeling and
reinforcement on the acquisition and generalization of ques-
tion-asking behavior. Child Development, 43, 892–907.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.