Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Technology Research and Development
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving1
David H. Jonassen
Problem solving is generally regarded as the0 Gagne believed that "the central point of edu-
cation is to teach people to think, to use their
most important cognitive activity in everyday
and professional contexts. Most people are rational powers, to become better problem solv-
ers" (1980, p. 85). Like Gagne, most psycholo-
required to and rewarded for solving problems.
However, learning to solve problems is too gists and educators regard problem solving as
the most important learning outcome for life.
seldom required informal educational settings,
in part, because our understanding of its Why? Virtually everyone, in their everyday and
processes is limited. Instructional-design professional lives, regularly solves problems.
research and theory has devoted too little Few, if any, people are rewarded in their profes-
attention to the study of problem-solving sional lives for memorizing information and
processes. In this article, I describe differences
completing examinations, yet examinations are
among problems in terms of their the primary arbiter of success in society. Unfor-
structuredness, domain specificity tunately, students are rarely, if ever, required to
(abstractness), and complexity. Then, I briefly
solve meaningful problems as part of their cur-
describe a variety of individual diferences ricula. The few problems that students do
(factors internal to the problem solver) that encounter are normally well-structured (story)
affect problem solving. Finally, I articulate aproblems, which are inconsistent with the
typology of problems, each type of which nature of the problems they will need to learn to
engages diferent cognitive, affective, and solve in their everyday lives ("How can I get so-
conative processes and therefore necessitatesand-so to pay attention to me?"), professional
different instructional support. The purpose lives
of ("What kind of marketing approach is
this paper is to propose a metatheory of appropriate for this new product line?"), or even
problem solving in order to initiate dialoguetheir school lives ("Should I spend the next two
and research rather than offering a definitivehours studying for my math exam or go outside
answer regarding its processes. and play ball with my friends?"). Therefore,
graduates are rarely, if ever, adequately pre-
pared to function in everyday and professional
contexts following education and training. The
discrepancy between what learners need (com-
plex, ill-structured problem-solving experience)
1 This paper represents an effort to introduce issuesand
and what formal education (schools and corpo-
concerns related to problem solving to the instructional
design community. I do not presume that the community is
rate training) provides represents a complex and
ignorant of problem solving or its literature, only thatill-structured
too problem that instructional design
little effort has been expended by the field in articulating
may be able to ameliorate.
design models for problem solving. There are many reasons
for that state of affairs.
Why are we so inept at engaging learners in
The curse of any introductory paper is the lack of depth in
problem solving? A major reason, I argue, is that
the treatment of these issues. To explicate each of the issues
weisdo not understand the breadth of problem-
raised in this paper would require a book (which
forthcoming), which makes it unpublishable in a journal.solving
My activities well enough to engage and
purpose here is to introduce these issues in order to stimulate
support learners in them. Problem solving has
discussion, research, and development of problem-solving
never
instruction that will help us to articulate better design been sufficiently acknowledged or articu-
models. lated in the instructional design literature. With
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
64 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
few rary
exceptions, it isconception
not even
textbooks on instructional
environments
credit, Smith environments
and Ragan (199
ter on 1994;
problem Land
solving, & H
howe
only general narios (Schank,
problem-solving
tions. Gagne, and even
Briggs, andprob
Wag
edged that problem-solving
1985; Barrows l
&
and suggest lem-solving
only a brief temo
the events of instructional
instruction st
in
treat concept-learning
simulations,
andmr
comes. The only
ing,instruction
to support
systematically addresses
outcomes, but
(despite not explicateto
referring the
it na
as
the innovative(Jonassen,
text by 2000
van Me
focused training the on
comp
Jonassen (1997
that are
required to solve pro
of problem-solv
ferent analysis processes that
guishing betwe
tional, hierarchical task decom
tured problems
insufficient, some researcher
design requirem
lyzing the range of problem
well-structured
seeJonassen, Tessmer, & H
tion-processing
descriptions for
of ill-structur
alternativ
Merrienboer treated all prob
assumptions wi
the most pervasive assumptio
cognition. Infor
design is that different learni
ceive of learn
sitate different conditions o
skills that can be applied across content
1980). So, instruction to supp
domains, while constructivism and situated cog-
ing learning outcomes should
nition argue for the domain specificity of any
used to support, for
performance and instance
therefore recommend embed-
or rule learning. However, i
ding instruction in some authentic context
nent models instructional of d
(Jonassen & Land, 2000). Assuming that differ-
Dick & Carey, Gagne & Briggs
ent kinds of problem solving in different con-
identifying and learning
texts and domains call on different skills, the
cepts, rules, and principles tha
Jonassen (1997) articulated instructional design
lem space enables learners
models for well-structured and ill-structured to
Unfortunately "mastering ea
problems. However, cognitive task analysis of
is not enough to promote no
hundreds of problems has proven that this
solving" (Mayer, 1998, p. 50).
dichotomy is inadequate to accommodate the
is to be regarded as a separate
range and complexity of problem-solving out-
intellectual outcome, this as
comes. Therefore, this article represents the next
lematic. An
underlying assum
step in explicating the dimensions of problem
is that problems are not the
solving in order to develop task-specific models
be supported in the same
for supporting the learning of problem solving. I
w
skills. Assuming that proble
begin by defining the nature and characteristics
more than the acquisition of
of problems and problem solving and conclude
specific models of problem-s
by positing a typology of problem-solving out-
need to be proposed and teste
comes. Although some believe this endeavor to
Another be unachievable
reason for (Kahney, 1993), articulating cat-
focusing
ing is that it egoriesat
is of problem
the solving center
is essential from an o
to instructional design
contemporary perspective, if we believe
learning th
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 65
thenecessitate
that different learning outcomes problem space. Thinking
differ- is internalized
ent forms of instruction. Subsequent papers
activity (Jonassen, will
2000b). Conscious meaning
making
more completely articulate the is engaged social,
cognitive, by activity, so there is a
affective, and historical dimensions
reciprocalof this typol-
regulatory feedback between knowl-
ogy of problems and recommend
edge andinstructional-
activity (Fishbein, Eckart, Lauver, van
design models for supporting learning
Leeuwen, of those
& Langemeyer, 1990). Problem solv-
problem-solving processes. ing requires manipulation of the problem space,
be it an internal mental representation or an
external physical representation.
What Is a Problem?
Over the past three decades, a number of
information-processing models of problem solv-
Just what is problem? There are only two critical
ing, such as the classic General Problem Solver
attributes of a problem. First, a problem is an
(Newell & Simon, 1972), have explained prob-
unknown entity in some situation (the difference
lem-solving processes. The General Problem
between a goal state and a current state). Those
Solver specifies two sets of thinking processes
situations vary from algorithmic math problems
associated with the problem-solving processes,
to vexing and complex social problems, such as
(a) understanding processes and (b) search pro-
violence in the schools. Second, finding or solv-
cesses. Another popular problem-solving
ing for the unknown must have some social, cul-
model, the IDEAL problem solver (Bransford &
tural, or intellectual value. That is, someone
Stein, 1984), describes problem solving as a uni-
believes that it is worth finding the unknown. If
form process of Identifying potential problems,
no one perceives an unknown or a need to deter-
Defining and representing the problem, Explor-
mine an unknown, there is no perceived prob-
ing possible strategies, Acting on those strate-
lem (whether the problem exists independent of
gies, and Looking back and evaluating the
any perception is an ontological issue that is
effects of those activities. Although the IDEAL
beyond the scope of this paper). Finding the
model assumes that these processes are applied
unknown is the process of problem solving.
differently to different problems, no explicit sug-
Problem solving is "any goal-directed
gestions are made for how to do this. Gick (1986)
sequence of cognitive operations" (Anderson,
synthesized these and other problem-solving
1980, p. 257). Those operations have two critical
models (Greeno, 1978) into a simplified model of
attributes. First, problem solving requires the
the problem-solving process, including the pro-
mental representation of the situation in the
cesses of constructing a problem representation,
world. That is, human problem solvers construct
searching for solutions, and implementing and
a mental representation (or mental model) of the
monitoring solutions. Although descriptively
problem, known as the problem space (Newell
useful, these problem-solving models tend to
& Simon, 1972). Although there is little agree-
treat all problems the same in an effort to articu-
ment on the meanings of mental models or prob-
late a generalizable problem-solving procedure.
lem spaces, internal mental models (as opposed
The culmination of information-processing con-
to social or team mental models) of problem
cepts was an attempt to articulate a uniform the-
spaces are multimodal representations consist-
ory of problem solving (Smith, 1991), albeit
ing of structural knowledge, procedural knowl-
unsuccessfully.
edge, reflective knowledge, images and
metaphors of the system, and executive or stra-Problem solving is not a uniform activity.
tegic knowledge (Jonassen & Henning, 1999). Problems are not equivalent, in content, form, or
process. Schema-theoretic conceptions of prob-
Although internal problem spaces may be exter-
nalized as formal models or representationslem solving opened the door for different prob-
lem types by arguing that problem-solving skill
using a variety of knowledge representation
is dependent on a schema for solving particular
tools (Jonassen, 2000c), it is the mental construc-
types of problems. If the learner possesses a
tion of the problem space that is the most critical
for problem solving. Second, problem solvingcomplete schema for any problem type, then
requires some activity-based manipulation ofconstructing the problem representation
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
66 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
Figure 1 17 Problem-solving
Motivation /perseverence
1986) and try out the activated solution. Experts Jonassen (1997) distinguished well-structured
are good problem solvers because they recog- from ill-structured problems and articulated dif-
nize different problem states that invoke certain ferences in cognitive processing engaged by
solutions (Sweller, 1988). If the type of problem each. Smith (1991) distinguished external fac-
is recognized, then little searching through the tors, including domain and complexity, from
problem space is required. Novices, who do not internal characteristics of the problem solver.
possess well-developed problem schemas, are There is increasing agreement that problems
not able to recognize problem types, so they vary in substance, structure, and process. In this
must rely on general problem solving strategies, section, I briefly describe the ways in which
such as the information processing approaches, problems vary. Problems vary in terms of their
which provide weak strategies for problem solu- structuredness, complexity, and abstractness
tions (Mayer, 1992). (domain specificity). Although there is similar-
In this paper, I attempt to articulate the attri- ity among these three factors, they are neither
butes of problems that make them different as independent nor equivalent. There is sufficient
independence among the factors to warrant sep-
well as some of the attributes of problem solvers
arate consideration.
that discriminate their abilities and dispositions
to solve problems. As depicted in Figure 1, I
believe that the ability to solve problems is a
Structuredness
function of the nature of the problem, the way
that the problem is represented to the solver,
and a host of individual differences that mediate Jonassen (1997) distinguished well-structured
the process. Each of these factors will be from ill-structured problems and recommended
addressed in turn, although an elaborate discus- different design models for each, because each
sion of these factors is beyond the scope of a sin- kind of problem calls on different skills. The
gle paper. most commonly encountered problems, espe-
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 67
* Require the application of a limited number Researchers have long assumed that learning
of regular and well-structured rules and prin- to solve well-structured problems transfers pos-
ciples that are organized in predictive and itively to learning to solve ill-structured prob-
prescriptive ways. lems. Although information processing theories
believed that "in general, the processes used to
* Have knowable, comprehensible solutions
solve ill-structured problems are the same as
where the relationship between decision
those used to solve well structured problems"
choices and all problem states is known or
(Simon, 1978, p. 287), more recent research in sit-
probabilistic (Wood, 1983).
uated and everyday problem solving makes
Ill-structured problems, on the other hand, clear distinctions between thinking required to
are the kinds of problems that are encountered solve well-structured problems and everyday
more often in everyday and professional prac- problems. Dunkle, Schraw, and Bendixen (1995)
tice, so they are typically emergent. Because they concluded that performance in solving well-
are not constrained by the content domains defined problems is independent of perfor-
being studied in classrooms, their solutions are mance on ill-defined tasks, with ill-defined
not predictable or convergent. ill-structured problems engaging a different set of epistemic
problems may also require the integration of beliefs. Hong, Jonassen, and McGee (in press)
several content domains. For example, solutions found that solving ill-structured problems in a
to problems such as pollution may require the simulation called on different skills than solving
application of concepts and principles from well-structured problems, including metacogni-
math, science, political science, and psychology. tion and argumentation. Jonassen and Kwon (in
Ill-structured problems appear ill-structured press) showed that communication patterns in
because they: teams differed when solving well-structured
* Possess problem elements that are unknown and ill-structured problems. Clearly more
or not known with any degree of confidence research is needed to expand these findings, yet
(Wood, 1983). it seems reasonable to predict that well-struc-
tured and ill-structured problem solving engage
* Possess multiple solutions, solution paths, or different intellectual skills.
no solutions at all (Kitchner, 1983).
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
68 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
the domain-and-context-specific.
availability of informatiThat is, problem-
richness solving activities
(factors more are situated, embedded,
related and
therefore dependent on the nature of the context
complexity is more concerne
or domain. This is because solving problems
how and clearly, how reliabl
within a domain relies on cognitive operations
represented implicitly or exp
that are specific to that domain (Mayer, 1992;
lem. The most complex prob
Smith, 1991; Sternberg & Frensch, 1991). These
that is, those in which the tas
are often referred to as strong methods, as
its factors change over time.
opposed to domain-general strategies (weak
Problem difficulty is Lempert,
methods). For example, Lehman, a func
and
complexity. Nisbett (1988)
For concluded that different forms
example, proof
been found to be a function of relational com- reasoning are learned in different graduate dis-
plexity (English, 1998). The idea of problemciplines. Graduate students in the probabilistic
complexity seems to be intuitively recognizablesciences of psychology and medicine perform
by even untrained learners (Suedfield, de Vries,better on statistical, methodological, and condi-
Bluck, & Wallbaum, 1996). Problem complexitytional reasoning problems than do students in
necessarily affects learners' abilities to solvelaw and chemistry, who do not learn such forms
problems. For example, problem complexity hasof reasoning. The cognitive operations are
significant effects on search problems (Halgrenlearned through the development of pragmatic
& Cooke, 1993). reasoning schemas rather than exercises in for-
mal logic. Graduates in different domains
Why do we assume that complex problems
develop reasoning skills through solving situ-
are more difficult to solve than simple prob-
ated, ill-structured problems that require forms
lems? The primary reason is that complex prob-
of logic that are domain-specific.
lems involve more cognitive operations than
Ill-structured problems tend to be more situ-
simpler ones (Kluwe, 1995). Therefore, working
ated, but well-structured problems tend to rely
memory requirements increase at least propor-
more on general problem-solving skills, such as
tionally. Accommodating multiple factors dur-
means-ends analysis. However, well-structured
ing problem structuring and solution generation
problems, in the form of story problems, can be
places a heavy burden on working memory. The
quite situated while ill-structured problems, in
more complex a problem, the more difficult it
the form of dilemmas, can be fairly abstract.
will be for the problem solver to actively process
the components of the problem.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 69
ety, to
criticized for communicating and stress
their alsoclients
affect problem
in solving, as
inexplicable code. In addition
they to making
do most prob-
performance, in a curvilinear rela-
lems harder to represent totionship (i.e., the
novices, U-shapedsym-
these arousal curve). Space
does not allow consideration of thoseof
bol systems also insure the domain-specificity here.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
70 ETR&D, Vol. 48. No. 4
McCurdy, & Ballinger, 1984) because of their press) found that the application of metacogni-
ability to attend to salient cues. Learners with tive skills is more important to solving ill-struc-
higher cognitive flexibility and cognitive com- tured problems than well-structured problems,
almost no research on the role of metacognition
plexity should be better problem solvers than
in solving ill-structured problems exists. There is
cognitive simplistic learners because they con-
sider more alternatives (Stewin & Anderson, no doubt that metacognition and self-regulation
relationship between cognitive controls and nents of all types of problems, although it is
problem solving needs to be better examined, it likely that the specific requisite skills will vary
with problem type.
is reasonable to predict that learners who think
in ways that are more analytical should be better
problem solvers.
Epistemological Beliefs
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 71
However,
lying beliefs about knowledge and cognitive
how processes are necessary but
it devel-
ops. That is, learners' epistemic beliefs
insufficient about
requirements forthe
solving problems,
nature of problem solving also affect
especially complexthe ways
and ill-structured ones. They
that they naturally tend torequire
approach problems.
significant affective and conative ele-
A number of epistemological theories
ments have
as well (Jonassen been 1996).
& Tessmer,
related to a broad range of learning outcomes
Affective elements, such as attitudes and
(Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).
beliefs about the problems, problem domain,
The best-known theory of epistemic beliefs
and the learner's abilities to solve the problem,
was developed by William Perry (1970). He dis-
significantly affect a problem solver's abilities. If
tinguished nine separate stages of intellectual
problem solvers are predisposed to certain prob-
development clustered into three periods. In the
lem
first period, dualist learners solutions because
believe thatofknowl-
personal beliefs, then
edge is right or wrong, that they will be lessand
teachers effective because they overrely
profes-
on that solution.
sors have the right knowledge, and that the role
of students is to assimilate what the teacher
Conative (motivational and volitional) ele-
knows. Their absolutist beliefs stress facts and
ments, such as engaging intentionally, exerting
truth. In the second period, multiplicity repre-
effort, persisting on task, and making choices,
sents the acceptance of different perspectives
also affect the effort that learners will make in
and skepticism about expertise in general.
Multiplists rely on methods and processes trying
to to solve a problem. Knowing how to solve
establish truth. In the third period, contextual problems, believing that you know how to solve
problems, and exerting the effort to do so are
relativistic, evaluative thinkers accept the role of
judgment and wisdom in accommodating
often dissonant. Students think harder and pro-
cess material more deeply when they are inter-
uncertainty, and that experts may provide better
answers. However, ideas must be evaluated for
ested and believe that they are able to solve the
their merits and the cultural and intellectual per-
problem (i.e., have high self-efficacy), according
spectives from which they derive. to Mayer's (1998) effort-based learning princi-
More complex and ill-structured problemsple. Problem solving requires a number of affec-
require higher levels of epistemic belief, which
tive dispositions, especially self-confidence, and
most students have not yet developed. Unfortu- beliefs and biases about the knowledge domain.
nately, as a result of the preponderance of algo-For example, Perkins, Hancock, Hobbs, Martin,
rithmic teaching approaches in mathematics, for and Simmons (1986) found that some students,
instance, there is "a belief by students that math-
when faced with a computer programming
ematical problems are solved by applying proce-
problem, would disengage immediately, believ-
dures that a person may or may not know"
ing that it was too difficult, while others would
(Greeno, 1991, p. 83). There is a right and wrong
keep trying to find a solution. If problem solvers
way to do things. Solving more complex and ill-
structured problems depends on multiplicitous do not believe in their ability to solve problems,
and contextual relativistic thinking. Althoughthey will most likely not exert sufficient cogni-
tive effort and therefore not succeed. Their self-
no research has connected epistemic beliefs and
confidence of ability will predict the level of
problem solving, the relationship is obvious and
needs to be examined, especially in ill-struc-
mindful effort and perseverance that they will
tured problem solving. apply to solving the problem. Greeno (1991)
claimed that most students believe that if math
Affective and Conative problems have not been solved in a few minutes,
the problem is probably unsolvable and there is
no point in continuing to try, despite the fact that
Mayer (1992) claimed that the essential charac-
skilled mathematicians often work for hours on
teristics of problem solving are directed cogni-
tive processing. Clearly, problem solving a problem. Task persistence and effort are strong
requires cognitive and metacognitive processes.
predictors of problem-solving success.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72 ETR&D, Vol. 48. No. 4
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 73
lemswith
each category, problems vary to formally identical
regard to problems (Hayes &
abstractness and complexity.Simon,
The1977; Reed, Ernst,
specific & Banerji, 1974).
learn-
ing outcome for each of theseLogical
problem types
problems can beis
decidedly more
described in the next row, followed
complex than these.by the
However, few if any logical
inputs to the problem-solving process.
problems The in
are embedded next
any authentic con-
row describes criteria for judging the
text, making success
them of
necessarily more abstract and
problem solutions. Well-structured problems
therefore less transferable. Logical problems
focus on correct, efficient solutions, while
have been the the
focus of ill-
considerable laboratory-
structured problems focusbased
more on decision
psychological research. However, the use-
articulation and argumentation. Problems
fulness of vary
that research to instructional design is
from logic problems and algorithms
limited by thewith exact validity.
lack of ecological
solutions to dilemmas with no verifiably correct
solution. The role of problem context is listed
Algorithmic
next. The role of context becomes Problemsimpor-
vitally
tant in defining ill-structured problems, while
One of the mostthe
well-structured problems de-emphasize commonroleproblem types
encountered in
of context. Finally, Table 1 describes the schools is the algorithm. Most
common in mathematics
structuredness and abstractness (described ear- courses, students are
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
74 ETR&D. Vol. 48, No. 4
Table 1 A description of p
Rule- Decision
Table continues
oriented knowledge structures and the lack or of conceptual understanding of the underlying
absence of conceptual understanding of the processes. This is a common complaint about
objects of the algorithm and the procedures learning statistics, where professors focus on the
engaged. Content that is learned only as a proce- algorithms and miss the purpose of studying the
dure can rarely be transferred because of a lack statistical analysis. Learners who are adept at
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 75
Table 1 II Continued.
selected
finite faults & finite faults & ill-structured ill-structured ill-structured finite
outcomes outcomes strategies; outcomes,
well-structured multiple
tactics reasoning
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
76 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
Logical Problems
Tower of Hanoi; Cannabals & Mi
only three jugs; Rubic's Cube; dra
paper; divide triangular cake in
Algorithms
Factor quadratic equation; convert Farenheit to Celsius temperatures; bisect any given angle
Story Problems
How long for car A to overtake car B traveling at different speeds; apply Boyle's law to problem statement;
calculate reagents needed to form a specific precipitate in a chemical reaction; most back-of-the-chapter
textbook problems
Rule-Using Problem
Search an online catalog for best resources; expand recipes for 10 guests; how many flight hours are required
to pay off a 777; prove angles of isosoles triangle are equal; calculating material needed for addition; change
case to subjunctive
Decision-Making Problems
Should I move in order to take another job; which school should my daughter attend; which benefits package
should I select; which strategy is appropriate for a chess board configuration; how am I going to pay this bill;
what's the best way to get to the interstate during rush hour; how long should my story be
Troubleshooting Problems
Troubleshoot inoperative modem; why won't car start; determine chemicals present in qualitative analysis;
determine why newspaper article is poorly written; identify communication breakdowns in a committee;
determine why local economy is inflationary despite national trends; isolate cause of inadequate elasticity in
polymer process; why are trusses showing premature stressing; why is milk production down on dairy farm
Diagnosis-Solution Problems
Virtually any kind of medical diagnosis and treatment; how should I study for the final exam; identifying
and treating turfgrass problems on a golf course; develop individual plan of instruction for special education
students
Strategic Performance
Flying an airplane; driving a car in different conditions; managing investment portfolio; how can I avoid
interacting with person X; moving to next level in Pokemon game; teaching in live class; arguing points of
law before court
Design Problems
Design instructional intervention given situation; write a short story; compose a fugue; design a bridge; make
a paper airplane; design a dog house; design a vehicle that flies; developing curriculum for school; plan
marketing campaign for new Internet company; develop investment strategy for money market fund
Dilemmas
Should abortions be banned; resolve Kosovo crisis; negotiate peace between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda;
redistribute wealth through tax policies; develop bipartisan bill for U.S. Congress that will pass with 2/3
majority
Note: Conditions (parameters, constraints, restraints) and performance standards not included. These necessarily affect the
structuredness, complexity, and abstractness of problems and so will affect categorization of the problems.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 77
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
78 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 79
Strategic performance involves real-time, com- Case-analysis problems, ironically, emerge from
plex and integrated activity structures, where instruction, not from reality. The case method of
the performers use a number of tactics to meet a instruction emerged at Harvard Law School
more complex and ill-structured strategy while nearly 130 years ago (Williams, 1992). Analyz-
maintaining situational awareness. In order to ing cases, preparing briefs, and defending judg-
ments are all authentic activities for law
achieve the strategic objective, such as flying an
airplane in a combat mission or quarterbacking students. In business and many other profes-
a professional football offense, the performer sional contexts, such as internal relations (Voss
applies a set of complex tactics that are designed Wolfe, Lawrence, & Engle, 1991) and manageria
to meet strategic objectives. Strategy formation problem solving (Wagner, 1991), analyzing
represents a situated case or design problem complex, situated case problems defines th
(described next). Meeting that strategy through nature of work. Business problems, including
tactical maneuvers is a strategic performance. production planning, are common case prob
The difficulty arises from the real-time decision lems. For example, case problems such as plan
making and improvisation, and the cognitive ning production levels require balancing human
demands of maintaining situational awareness, resources, technologies, inventory, and sale
which place significant demands on attention, (Jonassen, Privish, Christy, & Stavrulaki, 1999
pattern recognition, and working memory Classical situated case problems also exist in
(Durso & Gronlund, 1999). Skills that are impor- international relations, such as "given low crop
tant to air traffic controllers, for instance, include productivity in the Soviet Union, how would th
the ability to prioritize, to plan, to execute, to solver go about improving crop productivity if
think ahead, to concentrate, and to deal with he or she served as Director of the Ministry of
dynamic visual movements, as well as good sit- Agriculture in the Soviet Union" (Voss and Post
uational awareness, short term memory, deci- 1988, p. 273). International relations problems
siveness, and perceptual speed and accuracy involve decision making and solution genera-
(Heil, 1999). The multifaceted nature of strategic tion and testing in a political context.
performances makes them especially difficult, In these ill-structured problems, goals are
however, these cognitive demands are situation- vaguely defined; no constraints may be stated
ally specific. Arguing a case in court, for little is known about how to solve the problem
instance, would demand a different set of cogni- there is no consensual agreement on what con
tive skills from those needed for air traffic con- stitutes a good solution; and information avai
trolling. able to the problem solver is prodigious bu
Typically, a finite number of tactical activities incomplete, inaccurate, or ambiguous (Voss et
have been designed to accomplish the strategy, al., 1991). Therefore, "the whole process of cop
however, the mark of an expert strategic per- ing with a complex problem can be seen as
former is the ability to improvise or construct process of intention regulation" (Dorner &
new tactics on the spot to meet the strategy. The Wearing, 1995). To complicate the process
quarterback who calls an audible at the line of "there are no formal procedures or guidelines t
scrimmage is selecting a new tactic to meet the govern case analysis or evaluation of problem
offensive strategy. In battlefield situations, supe- solutions," and what skilled performers need t
rior officers identify a strategy and may negoti- know in order to solve these complex case prob
ate tactical concerns with the performer, lems is often tacit (Wagner, 1991, p. 179).
however, both realize that tactics may have to be Case-analysis problems generally engage
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
80 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
Why are design problems so ill-structured? able to most people, and there are compromises
Goel and Pirolli (1989) articulated the character-implicit in every solution.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 81
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
82 ETR&D, Vol. 48, No. 4
needs to be explicitly taught. Articulating a set Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-based
learning: An approach to medical education. New York:
of strategies to support problem space construc-
Springer.
tion is the focus of future research.
Bransford, J., & Stein, B.S. (1984). The IDEAL problem
solver: A guidefor improving thinking, learning, and cre-
ativity. New York: W.H. Freeman. Bryson, M., Berei-
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS ter, C., Scardamalia, M., & Joram, E. (1991). Going
beyond the problem as given: Problem solving in
Currently, research is ongoing to validate this expert and novice writers. In R.J. Sternberg & P.A.
problem typology and articulate cognitive, Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles
and mechanisms (pp. 61-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
affective, and conative processes required to Erlbaum Associates.
solve each type of problem. Those processes will Davidson, J.E., & Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Smart problem
constitute the content of the next paper in this solving: How metacognition helps. In D.J. Hacker, J.
series. If instructional technologists are able to Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in
articulate each problem type, its representation, educational theory and practice (pp. 47-68). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
and the kinds of cognitive and affective pro-
Davis, J.K., & Haueisen, W.C. (1976). Field indepen-
cesses that are required to solve each kind of dence and hypothesis testing. Perceptual and Motor
problem, then we should be able also to project Skills, 43, 763-769.
the kinds of individual differences that are likelyDorner, D., & Wearing, A.J. (1995). Complex problem
to interact with those processes, as well as mod- solving: Toward a theory. In P.A. Frensch & J. Funke
(Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspec-
els and methods of instructional design, to sup-
tive (pp. 65-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
port learning of each type of problem. Those Associates.
models will constitute the third paper in the Dunkle, M.E., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L.D. (1995,
series. Although many instructional methods April). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-
between models are likely to overlap, each class defined problem solving. Paper presented at the annual
should suggest a different combination and meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA.
sequence of instructional transactions. These dif-Durso, F.T., & Gronlund, S.D. (1999). Situation aware-
ferent instructional models can be used to
ness. In F.T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cogni-
design problem-solving instruction andtion
to (pp. 283-314). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
assess the effectiveness of different instructional
English, L.D. (1998). Children's reasoning in solving
components for learning to solve problems relational
and problems of deduction. Thinking & Reason-
ing, 4(3), 249-281.
to transfer those skills to new problems. Fishbein, D.D., Eckart, T., Lauver, E., van Leeuwen, R.,
& Langemeyer, D. (1990). Learners' questions and
It is important to note that the typology pre-
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 83
Hofer, B.K.,
Gagn6, R.M. (1980). The conditions of& learning.
Pintrich, P.R. (1997).
New The development
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge
Gagn6, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager,and knowing
W.W.and their relation
(1992). Prin- to learning. Review of
Educational
ciples of instructional design (4th Ed.). NewResearch, 67(1), 88-140.
York: Har-
court, Brace, & Jovanovich. Hong, N.S., Jonassen, D.H., & McGee, S. (in press).
Predictors
Gagne, R.M., & Merrill, M.D. (1990). of well-structured goals
Integrative and ill-structured
for instructional design. Educational
problem solvingTechnology
in an astronomy simulation. Journal
Research & Development, 38(1), 23-30 1990.
of Research in Science Teaching.
Jeffries,
Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem-solving R., Turner, A.A.,Educa-
strategies. Polson, P.G., & Atwood, M.E.
(1981). The processes involved in designing soft-
tional Psychologist, 21(1&2), 99-120.
ware. Analogical
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). In J.R. Anderson (Ed.),
problemCognitive skills and their
acquisition
solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355. (pp. 255-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction
Johnson,
and analogical transfer. Cognitive S.D. (1988). Cognitive
Psychology, 15, 1- analysis of expert and
38. novice troubleshooting performance. Performance
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of Improvement Quarterly, 1(3), 38-54.
generic design within information processing the- Johnson, S.D., & Satchwell, S.E. (1993). The effect of
ory: The design problem space. AI Magazine, 10(1), functional flow diagrams on apprentice aircraft
19-36. mechanics' technical system understanding. Perfor-
Gordon, S.E., & Gill, R.T. (1989). Theformation and use of mance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 73-91.
knowledge structures in problem solving domains. Tech. Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design model for
Report AFOSR-88-0063. Washington, DC: Bolling well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving
AFB. learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research
Gourgey, A.F. (1998). Metacognition and basic skills and Development 45(1), 65-95.
instruction. Instructional Science, 26, 81-96. Jonassen, D.H. (2000a). Integrating problem solving
Greeno, J. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. into instructional design. In R.A. Reiser & J.
In W. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional
processes (pp. 239-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-
Erlbaum Associates. tice-Hall.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
84 ETR&D. Vol. 48, No. 4
Jonassen, D.H.,
Masui, & Kwon,
C., & DeCorte, H.I.
E. (1999). Enhancing learning (in
tion patterns in computer-medi
and problem solving skills: Orienting and self-judg-
group problem ing, two solving.
powerful and trainable learningEducskills.
Research and Development.
Learning and Instruction, 9, 517-542.
Jonassen, D.H, &
Mayer, Land,
R.E. (1992). S.L
Thinking, problem solving, (Eds
cognition
foundations of (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.
learning environ
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mayer, R.E. (1998). Cognitive. Metacognitive, and
Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., Stavurlaki, E. motivational aspects of problem solving. Instruc-
(1999). Learning to solve problems on the Web: tional Science, 26, 49-63.
Aggregate planning in a business managementMayer, R.E., & Wittrock, M.C. (1996) Problem-solving
course. Distance Education: An International Journal, transfer. In D.C. Berlinert & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Hand-
20(1), 49-63. book of educational psychology (pp. 47-62). New York:
Jonassen, D.H., & Tessmer, M. (1996/1997). An out- Macmillan.
comes-based taxonomy for instructional systemsMcCloskey, M., Caramaza, A., & Basili, A. (1985). Cog-
design, evaluation, and research. Training Research nitive mechanisms in number processing and calcu-
Journal, 2, 11-46. lation: Evidence from dyscalculia. Brain and
Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. (1999). Cognition, 4, 171-196.
Handbook of task analysis procedures. Mahwah, NJ:Meacham, J.A., Emont, N.C. (1989). The interpersonal
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. basis of everyday problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott
Kahney, H. (1993). Problem solving: Current issues. (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applica-
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. tions (pp. 7-23). New York: Praeger.
Mullen, J.D., & Roth, B.M. (1991). Decision making: Its
Kerstholt, J.H., & Raaijmakers, J.G.W. (1997). Decision
making in dynamic task environments. In R. Ran- logic and practice. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
yard, W.R. Cozier, & Ola Swenson (Eds.), Decision Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving.
making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 205- Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
217). London: Routledge. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cam-
Kitchner, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cogni-Perkins, D.N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F., &
tive processing. Human Development, 26, 222-232. Simmons, R. (1986). Conditions of learning in novice
Kluwe, R.H. (1995). Single case studies and models of programmers. Journal of Educational Computing
complex problem solving In P.A. Frensch & J. Funke Research, 2(1), 37-56.
(Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspec-
Perry, W.G. (1970). The forms of intellectual and ethical
tive (pp. 269-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum development in the college years: A scheme. San Fran-
Associates. cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Land, S.M., & Hannafin, M.J. (1996). A conceptual
Pokorny, R.A., Hall, E.P., Gallaway, M.A., & Dibble, E.
framework for the development of theories-in-(1996). Analyzing components of work samples to
action with open-ended learning environments. evaluate performance. Military Psychology, 8(3), 161-
Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3),177.
37-53. Reed, S.K., Ernsyt, G.W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role
Lehman, D., Lempert, R., & Nisbett, R.E. (1988). The of analogy in transfer between similar problem
effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436-450.
discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. Reigeluth, C.M. (1983). Instructional design theories and
Educational Psychologist, 43, 431-42. models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lester, F.K. (1994). Musings about mathematical prob- Reitman, W.R. (1965). Cognition and thought. New
lem-solving research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research York: Wiley.
in Mathematics Education, 25, 660-675. Robertson, W.C. (1990). Detection of cognitive struc-
Lucangelli, D., Tressoldi, P.E., & Cendron, M. (1998). ture with protocol data: Predicting performance on
Cognitive and metacognitive abilities involved in physics transfer problems. Cognitive Science, 14, 253-
the solution of mathematical word problems: Vali- 280.
dation of a comprehensive model. Contemporary Ronning, McCurdy, & Ballinger (1984, January). Indi-
Educational Psychology, 23, 257-275. vidual differences: A third component in problem-
MacKay, E., & O'Neill, P. (1992). What creaes the solving instruction. Journal of Research in Science
dilemma in ethical dilemmas? Examples from psy- Teaching, 21(1), 71-82.
chological practice. Ethics & Behavior, 2(4), 227-244. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1989). Rocky roads to
Maloney, T.J. (1981). The relation between field-inde- transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phe-
pendence and rule-transfer (Doctoral dissertation, nomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24,113-142.
University of Toledo), Dissertation Abstracts Interna- Schacter, J., Chung, G.K.W.K., & Dorr, A. (1998).
tional, 442, 2575. Children's Internet searching on complex problems:
Marshall, S.P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cam- Performance and process analyses. Journal of the
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. American Society for Information Science, 49, 840-849.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TOWARD A DESIGN THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING 85
problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181-201. Voss, J.F., Wolfe, C.R., Lawrence, J.A, & Engle, J.A
Simon, D.P. (1978). Information processing theory of (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis
human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of problem solving in international relations. In R.J.
of learning and cognitive process. Hillsdale, NJ: Law- Sternberg & P.A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem
rence Erlbaum Associates.
solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 119-158).
Singley, M.K., & Anderson, J.R. (1989). The transfer of Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Wagner, R.K. (1991). Managerial problem solving. In
Press.
R.J. Sternberg & P.A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem
Smith, M.U. (1991). A view from biology. In M.U. solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 159-184).
Smith (ed.), Toward a ungied theory of problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Williams, S. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into
Smith, P.L, & Ragan, T.J. (1999). Instructional design
2nd ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. context: Examples for legal and medical education.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(4), 367-427.
Sternberg, R.J., & Frensch, P.A. (Eds.).( 1991). Complex
problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale,Wood, P.K. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. structures: Implications for cognitive development.
Stewin, L., & Anderson, C. (1974). Cognitive complex- Human Development, 26, 249-265.
ity as a determinant of information processing.Woods, D.R., Hrymak, A.N., Marshall, R.R., Wood,
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 20(3), 233-243.P.E., Crowe, Hoffman, T.W., Wright, J.D., Taylor,
Suedfeld, P., de Vries, B., Bluck, S., Wallbaum, B.C. P.A., Woodhouse, K.A., & Bouchard, C.G.K. (1997).
(1996). Intuitive perceptions of decision-making Developing problem-solving skills: the McMaster
strategy: Naive assessors' concepts of integrative problem solving program. Journal of Engineering
complexity. International Journal of Psychology, 31(5), Education, 86(2), 75-92.
This content downloaded from 200.130.19.216 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:45:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms