A Rationale for and the Development

of a Problem Solving Model of

Instruction in Science Education

EDWARD L. PIZZINI, DANIEL P. SHEPARDSON,

AND SANDRA K. ABELL
Science Education Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

A long standing goal of science education has been t o develop problem

solving skills of students (Stewart, 1982; Wavering, 1980; Champagne and
Klopfer, 1977; and Bybee, 1976). Bybee (1976) further indicated that
teaching students to apply science knowledge to problems should be a signif-
icant goal of science education. Chiappetta and Russell (1982) stated that
problem solving as a primary goal of science education is problematic, that
is, there is not a commonly accepted definition of problem solving. Problem
solving has been defined as a method of learning as well as an outcome of
learning. Regardless of the definition that one accepts, the research indicates
that the use of problem solving instructional models to teach science influ-
ences the problem solving ability of students.
Dewey (1 938) emphasized the necessity of education that applied science
t o problems that were relevant to students through problem solving instruc-
tional strategies. Gagne (1 965) noted the effectiveness of a problem solving
instructional approach at developing science concepts. Gagne (1 965) further
stated that science concepts learned through problem solving were meaning-
fully learned. Applying science concepts to problems supplies the concepts
with meaning, because it relates the science concept to the conceptual
schema of the student (Freundlich, 1978). Blum (1979) reported that col-
lege students exposed to a problem solving instructional model were more
successful at solving problems in science. Chiappetta and Russell (1 982)
found that eighth-grade students in Earth Science exposed t o a problem solv-
ing instructional approach showed greater gains in achievement than students
not exposed. Rickert (1 967) indicated that physical science students’ ability
to think critically improved when instruction provided opportunities t o
analyze and solve problems. Butts and Jones (1966) noted an increase in
sixth-graders’ use of problem solving skills as a result of training. Greeno
(1 978) observed that when instruction emphasizes a discovery-problem
solving approach, students achieve greater problem solving skill development

Science Education 73(5): 523-534 (1989)

0 1989 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0036-8 326/89/050523-12$04.00
524 PIZZINI, SHEPARDSON, AND ABELL

than when problem solutions are simply illustrated to the students. Stern-
berg (1 985) and Simon and Simon (1 978) stressed that students meaning-
fully learn problem solving skills through concrete experiences. Mayer
(1 975) noted that students given meaningful instruction showed greater
skills in problem identification and problem solving.
If a goal of science education is to develop problem solving skills of stu-
dents, instruction must be devoted to problem solving. Unfortunately, many
science students receive instruction where the only learning strategy is that
of rote memorization and recall (Smith and Good, 1984). They concluded
that rote memorization of information does not improve the problem solving
ability of students. Science teachers are frequently in a hurry to teach facts,
rather than develop students’ thinking (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985). This is
further evidenced by the findings that 95% of the science teachers use a text-
book 90% of the time (Stake & Easley, 1978). Newmann (1988) stated:
“The addiction to coverage fosters the delusion that human beings are able
to master everything that is worth knowing” [p. 3461. Even when a labora-
tory instructional strategy is used, it is often a means of verification of what
the student was taught during lecture (Blum, 1979), not to solve problems in
science. Brandwein (1 98 1) found that most science students do not conduct
one experiment where the solution is unknown throughout the academic
year. Such instructional approaches fail t o develop problem solving skills of
students, relate the importance of problem solving to science, and do not
enhance the development of higher-order thinking skills. Educators who do
believe in teaching problem solving find their biggest challenge to be how to
integrate problem solving into their instruction (Woods, 1977). What is prob-
lem solving, and how can science educators integrate problem solving into
their instruction?

What is Problem Solving?

A problem exists when there is an imbalance between the concepts inher-

ent in the problem situation and the conceptual schema of the individual.
Festinger (1 962) referred to this imbalance as “cognitive dissonance”, which
motivates the individual to solve the problem. Gagne (1965) stated that
problem solving requires the combining of prior knowledge into a new
higher-order that solves the problem. Novak (1 977) indicated that problem
solving requires a reorganization of information stored in memory to reach a
special goal-the solved problem-and that if the problem requires new in-
formation, it then requires a search process.
The success of applying knowledge to a problem is related to the degree
that existing knowledge in memory can be related to the problem in a mean-
ingful manner (Greeno, 1978). Meaningful acquisition is dependent on the
problem solver’s available and relevant concepts in memory, concepts that
can be linked to the problem (Novak, 1977). Norton and Butts (1979)
emphasized that the manner in which students solve problems is related t o
 PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 525

their existing knowledge. Thus, problems are formulated by concepts em-

bedded within the conceptual schema of the student (Freundlich, 1978).
The understanding of problems then, is facilitated by the integration of the
problem solver’s existing knowledge with the problem (Greeno, 1978).
Therefore, problem solving is dependent on the information represented in
memory and how the information is retrieved and applied to problem
situations.
While problems are diverse, all problems have three basic components:
given information, operations to be used to solve the problem, and a goal
or description of the solved problem. In addition, there is a series of “states
of knowledge’’ that the problem solver passes through while solving the
problem (Glass et al., 1979). The states of knowledge that the problem
solver passes through are : the initial knowledge state, current knowledge
state and the goal state. The initial knowledge state consists of the informa-
tion known about the problem. The current knowledge state is the outcome
of the application of the operator. The goal state consists of the solved
problem. Greeno (1978) indicated that in order for meaningful learning to
occur concerning the relationship between operators and goal state (solved
problem), the problem solver needs to be aware of the goals satisfied by the
operator-like outcomes of applying the operator to the initial knowledge
state or current knowledge state.
Among the methods for solving problems there are several common steps:
(1) accepting and understanding the problem, (2) planning a solution, (3)
implementing the plan, and (4) testing/checking the results that lead to a
solution. Through this process the problem solver creates a problem space,
which is a mental representation of the problem that includes a description
of objects, the initial problem situation, the necessary operator(s) to solve
the problem, and an idea of the goal or final state-the solved problem
(Newel1 and Simon, 1972).
The problem solver’s ability to transform a problem into a problem space
requires a process for identifying concepts in the problem that are related
t o the problem solver’s existing knowledge (Greeno, 1978). In other words,
understanding the problem constructs the problem space and determines
the problem solving procedure used t o explore and solve the problem (Simon,
1978). The problem can be represented in more than one problem space,
depending on how the problem solver defines or re-defines the problem
(Glass et al., 1979).
To solve problems a repertoire of thinking skills are needed, which may be
acquired through experiences in science courses (Butts, 1984). According to
Presseisen (1 985) thmking skills essential for problem solving are: assembling
of facts, determining if additional information is necessary, inferring or
suggesting alternative solutions and testing them, reducing to simpler levels
of explanation, eliminating discrepancies, and checking solutions for gener-
alization. Sternberg (1985) classified thinking skills for problem solving into
three groups: metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-
acquisition components. Metacomponents are used to plan, monitor and
526 PIZZINI, SHEPARDSON, AND ABELL

evaluate. Metacomponents include recognizing a problem, defining the prob-

lem, deciding on a problem solving procedure, allocating time and resources,
monitoring the solution to the problem, utilizing feedback regarding the
solved problem, and forming a mental representation. Performance compo-
nents are used to execute the metacomponents and provide feedback, and
vary by discipline. Typical performance components include inductive
reasoning, deductive reasoning, spatial visualization, and reading. Knowledge-
acquisition processes are used to learn concepts or procedures. Selective
encoding, selective combination and selective comparison are typical knowl-
edge-acquisition skills. Selective encoding involves screening information,
whereas selective combination involves assembling and organizing relevant
information, and selective comparison involves relating existing knowledge
t o new information.

Teaching Problem Solving in the Science Classroom

Freundlich ( 1 978) indicated that students need t o experience meaningful
problems, that is, problems which have been formulated in the students’
conceptual schema. Thus, the problem needs t o be identified and defined by
the student. Zoller ( 1987) differentiated problem solving instruction from
exercise solving instruction, defining exercise solving instruction as that
which requires students to solve problems by merely applying a known pro-
cedure to obtain the teacher known, correct solution. Problem solving in-
struction, on the other hand, can be defined as a strategy for finding the best
answer for an unknown (Woods, 1977). Gagne (1965) described problem
solving instruction as an instructional strategy where students construct their
own solution to a problem, not when a problem solution is stated by the
teacher. The problems students solve should not contain “guaranteed” solu-
tions, but require the application of science concepts (Freundlich, 1978).
Selection of a problem solving model of instruction is one of the critical
choices a teacher must make. Three such models are: Pames (1967) and
Osborn’s (1963) Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process, Bransford and
Stein’s (1984) Identify, Define, Explore, Act, and Look (IDEAL) model and
the Search, Solve, Create, and Share (SSCS) model created by Edward
Pizzini (1987), and Pizzini et al. (1988), being refined through a NSF grant
coordinated by Sandra Abell, Gary Ketterling, and Dan Shepardson at the
Science Education Center, The University of Iowa. The CPS process is a hier-
archical model where each step is an outgrowth of the preceding step. The
CPS steps are : fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding,
and acceptance-finding. The IDEAL model is a five step hierarchlcal model
which involves: identifying the problem, defining and representing the prob-
lem, exploring alternative strategies, acting on the strategies, and looking back
and evaluating the effects. The SSCS model is a four step cyclical model
allowing for re-entry into the various states of the model during the problem
solving process (Figure 1). The SSCS model synthesizes the other problem
solving models into fewer steps; thereby, simplifying the process for use with
 PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 527

SEARCH

SHARE A SOLVE
Skill

CREATE
Figure 1. The S S C S Problem Solving Cycle.

upper elementary and middle school students (Figure 2). Additionally, the
SSCS model provides students with a creative manner of communicating
their results, a void in other problem solving models of instruction. Although
the S S C S model is not a pre-packaged curriculum, it can easily be incorpo-
rated into science instruction, providing a successful and creative way for
students to learn science concepts and problem solving skills in science.
In any problem solving model of instruction the first order of learning is
the recognition of a problem, the determination of information needed to
solve the problem and where to obtain the information (Presseisen, 1985).
Johnson et al. (1 980) stressed the importance of how students search for an
idea (concepts within the problem) that will assist them in understanding
the problem. Glatthorn and Baron (1 985) emphasized the importance of the
search process, as well as setting goals, searching for possibilities, and evaluat-
ing evidence. Zoller (1 987) suggested that the students’ question-asking
ability is an essential aspect of problem solving. Students need to ask ques-
tions of the teacher, other students, themselves, as well as the literature.
Through the above processes, students derive meaning from the problem
(Anderson & Smith, 1981; Winne & Mark, 1977). We have found that stu-
dent ownership of the problem is one of the most essential variables resulting
528 PIZZINI, SHEPARDSON, AND ABELL
EpOBLeM SOLYING M O W
(SSCS) (IDEAL)

km the pmblan.
WhU? Who? W .-l W h a ? Bow?

?Am FINDING

PROBLEM FINDING

IDEA FINDING

SOLUTION FMDING Ttae plan - rhmt Lit?

lmpluarrt tb. plan

ACCEPTANCE FINDING

CREATE

SHARE

r
Figure 2. The SSCS Model as Related to the IDEAL and CPS Models.

in successful problem solving. Providing students with the opportunity to

select and pursue problems of concern and interest t o them increases their
motivation, persistence, and intensity t o learn. As the learning environment
s h f t s from a teacher-centered t o a student-centered classroom, the roles of
the teacher change.
The teacher functions as a facilitator in a problem solving model of
 PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 529

SEARCH

SOLVE
CREATE

SHARE

Problem Solver’s
Existing Concepts
in Schema

Concepts Inherent
in the Problem

A Def ined , Intermediate Solved

I Problem
State
State
I
Problem
State
I
- -1 I
Figure 3. The Cognitive Process of Problem Solving as Related to the SSCS Model.

instruction, assisting students in developing strategies to effectively obtain

and process information. Osborne and Freyberg (1985) pointed out that
teachers assist students by identifying logical errors in student thinking, such
as inconsistencies or unjustifiable inferences; challenging students to consider
other possibilities; showing students when they have over- or under-general-
ized based on false assumptions; and assisting students in linking experience
to their existing ideas in memory, to generate meaning. Costa et al. (1985)
identified six teacher behaviors essential to a problem solving model of in-
struction: (1) pose problems or assist students in identifying problems; (2)
establish a nonjudgmental environment; (3) hold students responsible for
designing and testing their ideas/solutions, and determining what data are
necessary; (4) facilitate students’ acquisition of information and data; ( 5 )
assist students in their problem solving strategies; and (6) refrain from influ-
encing student ideas, judging, or stating explanations or solutions.

The SSCS Model: Relating Research to Instruction

The SSCS model was developed on the premise that students meaningfully
learn problem solving skills and science concepts through concrete experi-
ences in solving problems in science, as evidenced by the literature. The
model also incorporates the cognitive research on problem solving (Figure 3).
The SSCS model requires students to utilize various problem solving thinlung
skills identified by Stemberg (1 985) and Presseisen (1985) (Table I). Teacher
behaviors associated with the SSCS model integrate those identified by Costa
530 PIZZINI, SHEPARDSON, AND ABELL

TABLE I
Problem Solving Thinking Skills Within the SSCS Model
(based on Sternberg, 1985, and Presseisen, 1985)

SEARCH SOLVE CREATE SHARE

K A C Selective Encoding %=tire Encoding %.stir. Combinwtmn G l c t i v e Cambination

El c 0 Se1.cttre Compui.on 6d.ctwc CompvLan
0 Q M Seiectwc Combination Sdsctivr Combination
wu P
L 1 0
E S N
D 1E
G ? N
E I ?
0 s
N

et al. (1985) and Osborne and Freyberg (1985) (Table 11). A description of
each phase of the SSCS model follows.
The Search phase of the SSCS model involves brainstorming and other
idea generating techniques that facilitate the identification and development
of researchable questions or problems in science. Demonstrations, magazine
and newspaper articles, field trips, and science textbooks can lead students
to the identification of researchable questions. In addition t o identifying
and developing questions and problems during the Search phase, students
identify criteria for problem selection and state the question or problem in
a researchable format. The Search phase assists students in relating the
science concepts inherent in the problem t o the relevant, existing science
concepts embedded in their schema. This initiates the development of the
problem space or mental representation of the problem. The problem then
is identified and defined by the student, based on his/her existing conceptual
schemata.
 PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 531

TABLE 11
Teacher Behaviors Associated With The SSCS Model
(based on Costa et d., 1985 and Osborne & Freyberg,
1985)
SEARCH SOLVE CRJLATE 6EARE

Por or .U"t Pou or u t t

8tud.ntr in student. in
tdtntifying id.ntifyin'
problem pmblw

Cb.LI.nm rtudult.
to c o 6 d . r otbrr
poribilitir

Nonjud-trl Nonju-trl
environment .n*imnmmt

P u i l i t l t . stu-
dent.' .cquLition
d inIDrm8t*oa
uld data

The Solve phase focuses on the specific problem refined by the Search and
requires students to generate and implement their plans for finding a solu-
tion. During the Solve phase, the student reorganizes the concepts derived
from the Search phase into a new "higher-order" that identifies the method
for solving the problem and the desired solution, completing the develop-
ment of the problem space. It is during the Solve phase that students apply
the operator(s) to the problem, which either solves the problem or creates
an intermediate state, which either requires the student to re-enter the
Search phase or continue to implement their plan (apply additional opera-
tors). The application of science concepts in the Solve phase provides meaning
532 PIZZINI, SHEPARDSON, AND ABELL

to the concepts as the student experiences the relationship between the con-
cepts inherent in the problem, the concepts of the solved problem, and the
concepts applied t o the problem, which are all linked to the students’ con-
ceptual schema.
The Create phase requires students to create a product that relates to the
problem/solution, compare the data to the problem, draw generalizations,
and if necessary modify. Students employ skills such as reducing data to
simpler levels of explanation or eliminating discrepancies. The Create phase
enables students to evaluate their own thinking processes. The outcome of
the Create phase is the development of an innovative product, which com-
municates the results of the Search and/or Solve phase to others. Self evalua-
tion (thinking about your thinking) is the dominant activity throughout the
Create phase. The basis of the Share phase is to involve students in commun-
icating their problem solutions or question answers. The product created
becomes the focus of the Share phase. The Share phase goes beyond simply
communicating to students and others. Students articulate thinking through
their communication and interaction, receive and process feedback, reflect
on and evaluate solutions and answers, and generate potential Search ques-
tions. The generation of new potential Search questions occurs when an
accepted solution creates a new problem, or when faulty reasoning or errors
in the problem solving plan are discovered through external evaluation of
the shared product. This enables the problem solver t o identify problem
solving skills which are in need of refinement, as well as initiate new Search
questions.

Conclusion

Past research supports the goal of science education to develop problem

solving skills of students through an instructional model that emphasizes the
creative processes of science. The literature supports the premise that stu-
dent thinking skills are nutured through experiences in problem solving. The
SSCS model was developed based on the findings of problem solving research
which indicate that students learn both science concepts and problem solving
slulls best when instruction involves solving problems in science. The SSCS
model is further supported by the research of cognitive psychologists on how
individuals solve problems. The SSCS model is a vehicle that can be used
effectively with students t o accomplish a long standing goal in science educa-
tion, that is, to develop problem solving skills. Preliminary analysis of the
SSCS model indicates that teacher behaviors are positively changed, student
attitudes toward science improved, and student problem solving, thinking,
and questioning skills enhanced. Expanding one’s repertoire of teaching
models to include a problem solving model is essential in meeting stated
goals of science education.
 PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL 533

References
Anderson, C., & Smith, E. (1981). Patterns in the use of elementary school science pro-
gram materials: An observational study. National Association for Research in Science
TeachingAbstracts. Columbus, OH: ERIC.
Blum, R. V. (1979). Tribbles, truth and teaching: An approach to instruction in the
scientific method. In J. Lochhead and J. Clement (Eds.) CognitiveProcess Instruction:
Research on Teaching Thinking Skills. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press.
Brandwein, P. F. (1981). Memorandum: On Renewing Schooling and Education. New
York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984). The IDEAL Problem Solver: A Guide to Improv-
ing Thinking. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Butts, D. (1981). A summary of research in science education, 1979. Science Education,
65, 337-465.
Butts, D., & Jones, H. (1966). Inquiry training and problem solving in elementary school
children. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 4, 21-27.
Bybee, R. W. (1976). Transformationin Elementary Science Education. An essay written
for the National Science Teachers Association Bicentennial Competition on the His-
tory of Science Education, Mimeograph.
Champagne, A. B., & Klopfer, L. F. (1977). A sixty-year perspective on three issues in
science education: I whose ideas are dominant? I1 representation of women 111 reflec-
tive thinking and problem solving. Science Education, 61, 43 1-452.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Russell, J. M. (1982). The relationship among logical thinking, prob-
lem solving instruction, and knowledge and application on earth science subject mat-
ter. Science Education, 66, 85-93.
Costa, A. L., Hanson, R., Silver, H. F., & Strong, R. W. (1985). Other mediative strate-
gies. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), DevelopingMinds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking
(pp. 166-1 70). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier.
Festinger, L. (1 962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207 93-102.
Freundlich, Y. (1978). The ‘problem’ in inquiry. The Science Teacher, 45, 19-22.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The Conditions of Learning. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Glass, A., Holyoak, K., & Santa, J . (1979). Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley
Publishing Co.
Glatthorn, A. A., & Baron, J. (1985). The good thinker. In A. L. Costa (Ed.) Developing
Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (pp. 49-53). Alexandria, VA: Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Greeno, J. G. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In W. K. Estes (Ed.) Handbook
of Learning and Cognitive Process, Vol. K (pp. 239-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, P. E., Ahlgren, A., Blout, J. P., & Petit, N. J. (1981). Scientific reasoning: Gar-
den paths and blind alleys. Research in Science Education: New Questions, New Direc-
tions. (pp. 87-1 14).
Mayer, R. E. (1975). Information processing variables in learning to solve problems. Re-
view ofEducationa1Research, 45, 525-541.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
534 PIZZINI, SHEPARDSON, AND ABELL

Newmann, F. M. (1988). Can depth replace coverage in the high school curriculum? Phi
Delta Kappan, 69, 345-348.
Norton, R., & Butts, D. (1973). A Developmental Study in Assessing Children’s Ability to
Solve Problems in Science. National Association for Research in Science Teaching
Abstracts. Columbus, OH: ERIC.
Novak, J. D. (1977). A Theoiy of Education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Osborn, A. F. (1 963). Applied Imagination. New York, NY: Scribners.
Osborn, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s
Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative Behavior Guidebook. New York, NY: Scribners.
Pizzini, E. (1987). Project STEPS: Science Textbook Extensions through Problem Solv-
ing. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.,No. 86523 12.
Pizzini, E., Abell, S. & Shepardson, D. (1988). Rethinking thmking in the Science class-
room. The Science Teacher, 55, 22-25.
Presseisen, B. Z. (1985). Thinking skills: Meanings and models. In A. L. Costa (Ed.)
Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking, (pp. 34-48). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rickert, R. (1967). Developing critical thinking. Science Education, 51, 24-27.
Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K.
Estes (Ed.) Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, Vol. I.: (pp. 271-295)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems.
In R. S. Siegler (Ed.) Chilcren’s Thinking: What Develops? Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, M., & Good, R. (1984). Problem solving and classical genetics: Successful versus
unsuccessful performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 895-9 12.
Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case Studies in Science Education. Urbana, IL:
Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois.
Sternberg, R. J. (1 985). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. In
F. R. Link (Ed.) Essays on the Intellect. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Stewart, J. (1982). Two aspects of meaningful problem solving in science. Science Educa-
tion, 66, 731-741.
Wavering, J. J. (1980). What are the basics of science education? What is important to
know, how to use knowledge or how to obtain answers? Science and Mathematics, 80,
6 33-6 36.
Winne, P., & Mark, P. (1977). Reconceptualizing research on teaching. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 69, 668-678.
Woods, D. R. (1 977). On teaching problem solving part 11: The challenges. Chemical Engi-
neering Education, 11, 140-144.
Zoller, U. (1987). The fostering of question-asking capability: A meaningful aspect of
problem-solving in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64, 5 10-5 12.

Accepted for publication 28 March 1989