Content area
Full Text
Problem solving is generally regarded as the most important cognitive activity in everyday and professional contexts. Most people are required to and rewarded for solving problems. However, learning to solve problems is too seldom required in formal educational settings, in part, because our understanding of its processes is limited. Instructional-design research and theory has devoted too little attention to the study of problem-solving processes. In this article, I describe differences among problems in terms of their structuredness, domain specificity (abstractness), and complexity. Then, I briefly describe a variety of individual differences (factors internal to the problem solver) that affect problem solving. Finally, I articulate a typology of problems, each type of which engages different cognitive, affective, and conative processes and therefore necessitates different instructional support. The purpose of this paper is to propose a metatheory of problem solving in order to initiate dialogue and research rather than offering a definitive answer regarding its processes.
Gagne believed that "the central point of education is to teach people to think, to use their rational powers, to become better problem solvers" (1980, p. 85). Like Gagne, most psychologists and educators regard problem solving as the most important learning outcome for life. Why? Virtually everyone, in their everyday and professional lives, regularly solves problems. Few, if any, people are rewarded in their professional lives for memorizing information and completing examinations, yet examinations are the primary arbiter of success in society. Unfortunately, students are rarely, if ever, required to solve meaningful problems as part of their curricula. The few problems that students do encounter are normally well-structured (story) problems, which are inconsistent with the nature of the problems they will need to learn to solve in their everyday lives ("How can I get soand-so to pay attention to me?"), professional lives ("What kind of marketing approach is appropriate for this new product line?"), or even their school lives ("Should I spend the next two hours studying for my math exam or go outside and play ball with my friends?"). Therefore, graduates are rarely, if ever, adequately prepared to function in everyday and professional contexts following education and training. The discrepancy between what learners need (complex, ill-structured problem-solving experience) and what formal education (schools and corporate training) provides represents a...