Problem Solving

Learning Objectives
By the end of this course, you will be able to:
• Describe problem solving strategies
• Explain the theoretical aspects of problem solving
• Describe the various theories related to problem solving
• Define algorithm and heuristic
Some problems
* It is the evening before an exam, the text book you need is unavailable in the library and the bookshop is
closed.
* You have upgraded your computer from Windows 2000 to Windows Vista and want to perform certain
operations as before.
* You wish to avoid stale-mate in chess
* You wish to become a better footballer
Factors to be considered
• It is the evening before anexam; the text book you need is unavailable in the library. There is not one
obvious solution
• You have upgraded your computer from Windows 2000 to Windows Vista and want to perform certain
operations as before. Learning (helpful and harmful)
• You wish to avoid stale-mate in chess. Expertise
• You wish to become a better footballer. Is it clear when the objective has been achieved?
Defining problem-solving activity
1) It is purposeful, goal directed action
2) It does not involve automatic processes, but relies on cognitive processes
3) It is only a ‘problem’ if the solution is not available immediately.
The behaviourist approach
Traditional approaches explain problem solving in terms of principles of associative learning derived from
the studies of classical and instrumental conditioning. According to some theorists an individual enters a
problem situation with an existing complex of stimulus response associations as a result of prior experience.
The problem is more likely to elicit some of these associations than others, with a clear implication that
problem difficulty will depend on the strength of the correct association relative to the strength of other
incorrect associations.

In the course of problem solving, the associative complex gets rearranged as some tendencies are weakened
through extinction (failure) and other strengthened through reinforcement (success). This viewpoint stresses
the transfer of prior learning to the problem situation and to the learning which takes place during problem
solving.
The Gestalt approach
Problem Solving Gestalt Psychology: A theory of mind that emerged from Germany in the early 20th
century Concerned with entities/experience as a whole rather than consisting of parts. It was proposed by a

1
number of German psychologists in 1920’s and 30’s. They criticised previous experiments involving
arbitrary rules for problem solving (Thorndike’s hungry cats)
They drew a distinction between reproductive thinking, involving re-use of previous experience, and
productive thinking involving a novel restructuring of the problem
- Insight
Insight occurs during productive thinking when the problem is suddenly restructured and the solution
becomes clear.
- Functional fixedness
Functional fixedness is a Gestalt term referring to when learning or past experience impedes problem
solving.
Evident in the pendulum problem
Evident in the candle problem
Note: The notions of problem restructuring, insight and functional fixedness are extremely helpful in
discussion These notions can be hard to dissect. Gestalt concepts are often descriptive rather than
explanatory.
- Representational Change
Representational change theory is an attempt to incorporate some Gestalt ideas into a working theory
(Ohlsson, 1992)
It is based on the following assumptions:
• A problem is represented in a certain way in the person’s mind and this serves as a probe for information
from long-term memory
• The retrieval process spreads activation over ‘relevant’ long term memory items
• A block occurs if the way a problem is represented does not lead to a helpful memory search
• The way the problem is represented changes and the memory search is extended, making new information
available.
• Representational change can occur due to ‘elaboration’ (addition of new information) ‘constraint
relaxation’ (rules are reinterpreted) or ‘re-encoding’ (functional fixedness is removed)
• Insight occurs when a block is broken and retrieved knowledge results in solution
Gestalt Concept of ‘Insight’
The Gestalt theory of problem solving, described by Karl Duncker (1945) and Max Wertheimer(1959),
holds that problem solving occurs with a flash of insight. Richard Mayer(1995) noted that insight occurs
when a problem solver moves from a state of not knowing how to solve a problem to knowing how to
solve a problem. During insight, problem solvers devise away of representing the problem that enables
solution. Gestalt psychologists offered several ways of conceptualizing what happens during insight: insight
involves building a schema in which all the parts fit together, insight involves suddenly reorganizing the
visual information so it fits together to solve the problem, insight involves restating a problem given or
problem goal in a new way that makes the problem easier to solve, insight involves removing mental blocks,
and insight involves finding a problem analog (i.e., a similar problem that the problem solver already knows
how to solve). Gestalt theory informs educational programs aimed at teaching students how to represent
problems.
Gestalt psychologists saw problem solving as the closure of a problem, achieved by the representation of the
problem in an appropriate way. A problem is only a problem because it is incomplete; the solution makes it
complete, and finding the solution closes the incompleteness. Closure is accompanied by the flash of insight
or aha! experience.
Gestalt psychologists typically studied problem solving by using verbal protocols. They were more
interested in the process of problem solving than the solution and verbal protocols are away of studying the
2
process. They believed that solutions came from an insight into the problem and occurred when the
participants restructured the problem. Insights occur when the participants are suddenly aware of the answer
(the participants do not gradually work toward a solution; rather it appears in a flash).
Problem space theory
In 1972, Allen Newell and Herbert Simon published the book Human Problem Solving, in which they
outlined their problem space theory of problem solving. In this theory, people solve problems by searching
in a problem space. The problem space consists of the initial (current) state, the goal state, and all possible
states in between. The actions that people take in order to move from one state to another are known
as operators. Consider the eight puzzle. The problem space for the eight puzzle consists of the initial
arrangement of tiles, the desired arrangement of tiles (normally 1, 2, 3….8), and all the possible
arrangements that can be arrived at in between. However, problem spaces can be very large so the key issue
is how people navigate their way through the possibilities, given their limited working memory capacities.
In other words, how do they choose operators? For many problems we possess domain knowledge that helps
us decide what to do. But for novel problems Newell and Simon proposed that operator selection is guided
by cognitive short-cuts, known as heuristics. The simplest heuristic is repeat-state avoidance or backup
avoidance1, whereby individuals prefer not to take an action that would take them back to a previous
problem state. This is unhelpful when a person has taken an inappropriate action and actually needs to go
back a step or more.
Another heuristic is difference reduction, or hill-climbing, whereby people take the action that leads to the
biggest similarity between current state and goal state. See the following problem:
In the hobbits and orcs problem the task instructions are as follows:
Here is the problem statement:
Three hobbits and three orcs arrive at a riverbank, and they all want to cross to the other side. Fortunately,
there is a boat available, but, unfortunately, it can carry only two creatures at a time. What really makes the
situation complicated is that the orcs are vicious creatures. Whenever there are more orcs than hobbits on
one side of the river, the orcs will immediately attack the hobbits and eat them up. Consequently, you should
be certain that you never leave more orcs than hobbits on either riverbank. Although the orcs are vicious,
they can be trusted to bring the boat back. Your challenge is to move all six creatures across the river
without allowing the orcs to eat the hobbits
There are five possible moves that you can make while working on the problem.
Send one hobbit across the river.
Send one orc across the river.
Send two hobbits across the river.
Send two orcs across the river.
Send one hobbit and one orc across the river.
And, remember, at least one creature must bring the boat back.
Solution
Send 2 orcs across
1 orc
2 orcs
1 orc
2 hobbits
1 hobbit and 1 orc
2 hobbits
1 orc
[at this point, all hobbits are on the goal side and all orcs are on the start side]
3
2 orcs
1 orc
2 orcs
A more sophisticated heuristic is means-ends analysis. Like difference reduction, the means-ends analysis
heuristic looks for the action that will lead to the greatest reduction in difference between the current state
and goal state, but also specifies what to do if that action cannot be taken. Means-ends analysis can be
specified as follows:
1. Compare the current state with the goal state. If there is no difference between them, the problem is
solved.
2. If there is a difference between the current state and the goal state, set a goal to solve that difference.
If there is more than one difference, set a goal to solve the largest difference.
3. Select an operator that will solve the difference identified in Step 2.
4. If the operator can be applied, apply it. If it cannot, set a new goal to reach a state that would allow
the application of the operator.
5. Return to Step 1 with the new goal set in Step 4.
In 1957 Newell and Simon developed the General Problem Solver, a computer program that used means-
ends analysis to find solutions to a range of well-defined problems - problems that have clear paths (if not
easy ones) to a goal state. In their 1972 book on problem solving they reported the verbal protocols of
participants engaged in problem solving, which showed a close match between the steps that they took and
those taken by the General Problem Solver.
Acquiring operators
There are three ways in which operators can be acquired:
1. Trial-and-error. As noted above, this formed the basis of the behaviourist account of problem
solving.
2. Direct instruction.
3. Analogies. Analogies are examples from one domain (the source), whose elements can be used to aid
problem solving in another domain (the target). However, novices often struggle to spot analogies.

Problem-Solving Strategies
Trial and Error
A problem-solving strategy is a plan of action used to find a solution. Different strategies have different
action plans associated with them. For example, a well-known strategy is trial and error. The old adage, “If
at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” describes trial and error. In terms of your broken printer, you could
try checking the ink levels, and if that doesn’t work, you could check to make sure the paper tray isn’t
jammed. Or maybe the printer isn’t actually connected to your laptop. When using trial and error, you would
continue to try different solutions until you solved your problem. Although trial and error is not typically
one of the most time-efficient strategies, it is a commonly used one.
Agorithm
Another type of strategy is an algorithm. An algorithm is a problem-solving formula that provides you with
step-by-step instructions used to achieve a desired outcome (Kahneman, 2011). You can think of an
algorithm as a recipe with highly detailed instructions that produce the same result every time they are
performed. Algorithms are used frequently in our everyday lives, especially in computer science. When you
run a search on the Internet, search engines like Google use algorithms to decide which entries will appear
first in your list of results.. Can you identify other situations in which algorithms are used?
Heuristics
A heuristic is another type of problem solving strategy. While an algorithm must be followed exactly to
produce a correct result, a heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. A “rule of thumb” is an example

4
of a heuristic. Such a rule saves the person time and energy when making a decision, but despite its time-
saving characteristics, it is not always the best method for making a rational decision.
Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, but the impulse to use a heuristic occurs
when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):
• When one is faced with too much information
• When the time to make a decision is limited
• When the decision to be made is unimportant
• When there is access to very little information to use in making the decision
• When an appropriate heuristic happens to come to mind in the same moment

There are some examples of real-life heuristics that people use as a way to solve a problem or to learn
something:

• "Consistency heuristic" is a heuristic where a person responds to a situation in way that allows
them to remain consistent.
• "Educated guess" is a heuristic that allows a person to reach a conclusion without exhaustive
research. With an educated guess a person considers what they have observed in the past, and applies
that history to a situation where a more definite answer has not yet been decided.
• "Absurdity heuristic" is an approach to a situation that is very atypical and unlikely - in other
words, a situation that is absurd. This particular heuristic is applied when a claim or a belief seems
silly, or seems to defy common sense.
• "Common sense" is a heuristic that is applied to a problem based on an individual's observation of a
situation. It is a practical and prudent approach that is applied to a decision where the right and
wrong answers seems relatively clear cut.
• "Contagion heuristic" causes an individual to avoid something that is thought to be bad or
contaminated. For example, when eggs are recalled due to a salmonella outbreak, someone might
apply this simple solution and decide to avoid eggs altogether to prevent sickness.
• "Availability heuristic" allows a person to judge a situation on the basis of the examples of similar
situations that come to mind, allowing a person to extrapolate to the situation in which they find
themselves.
• "Working backward" allows a person to solve a problem by assuming that they have already
solved it, and working backward in their minds to see how such a solution might have been reached.
• "Familiarity heuristic" allows someone to approach an issue or problem based on the fact that the
situation is one with which the individual is familiar, and so one should act the same way they acted
in the same situation before.
• "Scarcity heuristic" is used when a particular object becomes rare or scarce. This approach
suggests that if something is scarce, then it is more desirable to obtain.
• "Rule of thumb" applies a broad approach to problem solving. It is a simple heuristic that allows an
individual to make an approximation without having to do exhaustive research.
• "Affect heuristic" is when you make a snap judgment based on a quick impression. This heuristic
views a situation quickly and decides without further research whether a thing is good or bad.
Naturally, this heuristic can be both helpful and hurtful when applied in the wrong situation.
• "Authority heuristic" occurs when someone believes the opinion of a person of authority on a
subject just because the individual is an authority figure. People apply this heuristic all the time in
matters such as science, politics, and education.
• The representative heuristic is the tendency for people to predict that a person or object belongs to
a category, not based on mathematical evidence (e.g., the base rate), but on how much the person or
object is perceived to be typical or “representative” of that category. Although the representative
heuristic can improve the speed and efficiency of some estimates, by drawing on historical and
categorical factors that shape perception, it is also a cognitive bias that can result in significant errors
of judgment.

5
Problem-Solving Techniques
It is not enough to describe a problem-solving process and to describe how individuals differ in their
approach to or use of it. It is also necessary to identify specific techniques of attending to individual
differences. Fortunately, a variety of problem-solving techniques have been identified to accommodate
individual preferences. Duemler and Mayer (1988) found that when students used exclusively either
reflection or inspiration during problem solving, they tended to be less successful than if they used a
moderate amount of both processes. This section offers some examples of both types of techniques; the next
section will demonstrate how to integrate them into the problem-solving process to accommodate individual
differences.
The following techniques focus more on logic and critical thinking, especially within the context of
applying the scientific approach:
a. Analysis--the identification of the components of a situation and consideration of the relationships among
the parts (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956);
b.. Backwards planning--a goal selection process where mid-range and short-term conditions necessary to
obtain the goal are identified (Case & Bereiter, 1984; Gagne, 1977; Skinner, 1954); this technique is related
to the more general technique of means-ends analysis described by Newell and Simon (1972);
c.. Categorizing/classifying--the process of identifying and selecting rules to group objects, events, ideas,
people, etc. (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980; Sternberg, 1988);
d.. Challenging assumptions--the direct confrontation of ideas, opinions, or attitudes that have previously
been taken for granted (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Brookfield, 1987);
e. Evaluating/judging--comparison to a standard and making a qualitative or quantitative judgment of value
or worth (Bloom et al., 1956);
f.. Inductive/deductive reasoning--the systematic and logical development of rules or concepts from specific
instances or the identification of cases based on a general principle or proposition using the generalization
and inference (e.g., Devine, 1981; Pelligrino, 1985; Sternberg, 1988);
g.. Thinking aloud--the process of verbalizing about a problem and its solution while a partner listens in
detail for errors in thinking or understanding (Whimby & Lochhead, 1982);
h.. Network analysis--a systems approach to project planning and mangement where relationships among
activities, events, resources, and timelines are developed and charted. Specific examples include Program
Evaluation and Review Technique and Critical Path Method (Awani, 1983; Handy & Hussain, 1969);
i.. Plus-Minus-Interesting (PMI)--considering the positive, negative, and interesting or thought-provoking
aspects of an idea or alternative using a balance sheet grid where plus and minus refer to criteria identified in
the second step of the problem-solving process (de Bono, 1976; Janis & Mann, 1977);
j.. Task analysis--the consideration of skills and knowledge required to learn or perform a specific task
(Gagne, 1977; Gardner, 1985).
The following problem-solving techniques focus more on creative, lateral, or divergent thinking (e.g.,
de Bono, 1983; Prince, 1970; Wonder & Donovan, 1984):
a.. Brainstorming--attempting to spontaneously generate as many ideas on a subject as possible; ideas are
not critiqued during the brainstorming process; participants are encouraged to form new ideas from ideas
already stated (Brookfield, 1987; Osborn, 1963);
b.. Imaging/visualization--producing mental pictures of the total problem or specific parts of the problem
(Lazarus, 1978; McKim, 1980; Wonder & Donovan, 1984);
c.. Incubation--putting aside the problem and doing something else to allow the mind to unconsciously
consider the problem (Frederiksen, 1984; Osborn, 1963);
d.. Outcome psychodrama--enacting a scenario of alternatives or solutions through role playing (Janis &
Mann, 1977);
e.. Outrageous provocation--making a statement that is known to be absolutely incorrect (e.g., the brain is
made of charcoal) and then considering it; used as a bridge to a new idea (Beinstock, 1984); also called
"insideouts" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);
f.. Overload--considering a large number of facts and details until the logic part of the brain becomes
overwhelmed and begins looking for patterns (Wonder & Donovan, 1984); can also be generated by
6
immersion in aesthetic experiences (Brookfield, 1987), sensitivity training (Lakin, 1972), or similar
experiences;
g.. Random word technique--selecting a word randomly from the dictionary and juxtaposing it with problem
statement, then brainstorming about possible relationships (Beinstock, 1984);
h.. Relaxation--systematically relaxing all muscles while repeating a personally meaningful focus word or
phrase (Benson, 1987); a specific example of the more general technique called "suspenders" by Wonder
and Donovan (1984);
i.. Synthesizing--combining parts or elements into a new and original pattern Bloom et al., 1956; Sternberg,
1988);
j.. Taking another's perspective--deliberately taking another person's point of view (de Bono, 1976; referred
to as "be someone else" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);
k.. Values clarification--using techniques such as role-playing, simulations, self-analysis exercises, and
structured controversy to gain a greater understanding of attitudes and beliefs that individuals hold important
(Fraenkel, 1977; Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Kirschenbaum, 1977).

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Describe behaviouristic approaches to problem solving
2. What is functional fixedness and how can overcoming it help you solve problems?
3. How does an algorithm save you time and energy when solving a problem?
4. Which type of bias do you recognize in your own decision making processes? How has this bias affected
how you’ve made decisions in the past and how can you use your awareness of it to improve your decisions
making skills in the future?
5. Describe Newell’s approach to problem solving.
7. What do you understand by the term problem space hypothesis?

Glossary
Algorithm problem-solving strategy characterized by a specific set of instructions

Anchoring bias faulty heuristic in which you fixate on a single aspect of a problem to find a solution

Availability heuristic faulty heuristic in which you make a decision based on information readily available
to you

Confirmation bias faulty heuristic in which you focus on information that confirms your beliefs

Functional fixedness inability to see an object as useful for any other use other than the one for which it
was intended

Heuristic mental shortcut that saves time when solving a problem

Mindsight bias belief that the event just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t

Mental set continually using an old solution to a problem without results

Problem-solving strategy method for solving problems

Representative bias faulty heuristic in which you stereotype someone or something without a valid basis
for your judgment

7
Trial and error problem-solving strategy in which multiple solutions are attempted until the correct one is
found

Working backwards heuristic in which you begin to solve a problem by focusing on the end result

References
*Awani, A. (1983). Project management techniques. New York: Petrocelli Books.
*Beinstock, E. (1984). Creative problem solving (Cassette Recording). Stamford, CT: Waldentapes.
*Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans
Green.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Brookfield, S. (1987). Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps
in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13, 141- 158.
de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking. London: Temple Smith.
Devine, T. (1981). Teaching study skills: A guide for teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention
program in cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Fraenkel, J. (1977). How to teach about values: An analytic approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of
Educational Research, 54, 363-407.
*Gagne, R. (1974). Essentials of learning from instruction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Gardner, M. (1985). Cognitive psychological approaches to instructional task analysis. In E. Gordon
(Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 12 pp. 157-195). Washington, D.C.: American Educational
Research Association.
*Handy, H., & Hussain, K. (1969). Network analysis for educational management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
*Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and
commitment. New York: The Free Press.
*Lakin, M. (1972). Interpersonal encounter: Theory and practice in sensitivity training. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
*Lazarus, A. (1978). In the mind's eye. New York: Rawson.
*McKim, R. (1980). Thinking visually: A strategy manual for problem solving. Belmont, CA: Lifetime
Learning.
Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nickerson, R., Perkins, D., & Smith, E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner.

8
Pelligrino, J. (1985). Inductive reasoning ability. In R. Sternberg (Ed.)., Human abilities: An information-
processing approach (pp. 195-226). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Rubenstein, M. (1986). Tools for thinking and problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: M. I. T. Press.
Skinner, B. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching . Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.
Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.
Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J. (1982). Problem solving and comprehension (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Franklin
Institute Press.
Wonder, J., & Donovan, P. (1984). Whole-brain thinking: Working from both sides of the brain to achieve
peak job performance. New York: Ballantine Books.