Puzzle-based Inquiry (PBI)
Engaging Students through Reflection, Trade-offs, and Play
Keywords:
puzzle-based inquiry, active learning, gamification, Higher educationAbstract
Puzzle-based Inquiry (PBI) is an active learning method where students collaboratively assemble “puzzle pieces” such as research design elements into plausible configurations. Unlike traditional card-sorting tasks, PBI emphasizes reflection, negotiation, and weighing trade-offs over finding one correct solution. For instance, in a quantitative methods course, students may design a study under point-based resource limits, balancing rigor and feasibility. PBI is flexible, adaptable across disciplines, and fosters connections between theory, methodology, and practice. Its tangible, game-like format enhances engagement, recall, and curricular integration without relying on technology. However, it must align with course learning outcomes and is less effective without prior instruction. Best used as a supplement, PBI encourages deeper reflection and application once foundational knowledge is established.
References
Ananiadoui, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, 32(3), 347-364.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. ERIC.
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of educational technology & society, 18(3), 75-88.
Doolittle, P., Wojdak, K., & Walters, A. (2023). Defining active learning: A restricted systematic review. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 11.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Roediger Iii, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Schorn, J. M., & Knowlton, B. J. (2021). Interleaved practice benefits implicit sequence learning and transfer. Memory & cognition, 49(7), 1436-1452.
Smith, R., & Conway, E. (2025). Playing with Numbers: The Social and Behavioural Impacts of Using a Card Game to Teach Business Metrics. Behavioral Sciences, 15(6).
Spencer, D. (2009). Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.
Steiner, G. (2001). Transfer of Learning, Cognitive Psychology of. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 15845-15851). Pergamon. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01481-9
Tegzes, J. H., King, S., Blue, A., & Langlois, S. (2023). A Proposed Framework for Interprofessional Curriculum Integration. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 31, 100626. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2023.100626
Zeybek, N., & Saygı, E. (2024). Gamification in education: Why, where, when, and how?—A systematic review. Games and Culture, 19(2), 237-264.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Magnus Jørgensen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
