CREATING EFFECITIVE DESIGN USING PRINCIPLES OF PROBLEM SOLVING 1

Creating Effective Design Using Principles of Problem Solving

Yekaterina Prudchenko

Old Dominion University

Problem solving is a critical area of cognitive psychology. People encounter problems

and make choices every day. These problems include both simple decisions such lunch and

complex issues such as retirement. Within the context of education, problems can typically be

divided into two categories, those that have definite solutions and those that do not. Problems

with definite solutions require the student to learn a series of steps that leads to a solution while

problems with indefinite solutions require the student to think critically. Furthermore, problems

that rely on critical thinking strategies are the hardest to teach because the methods towards the

right answer are only rules of thumb or heuristics and do not guarantee a solution. In general,

problem solving is an important area of cognitive science and therefore a vital consideration for

instructional designers. Designers must understand the intricacies of how problems are

constructed and solved in order to create effective instruction that facilitates learning.

In order to devise a plan for a problem’s solution, problems must first be understood

within a specific category. Because problems within a specific knowledge domain vary with

structure, they can loosely be placed into two general categories (Jonassen, 1997). These

categories are well-structured or well-defined problems and ill-structured or ill-defined

problems. According to Bruning et al. (2005), well-defined problems typically have one right

solution and a “guaranteed method for finding it” (p. 162). Math problems that involve solving

the quadratic equation and factoring are good examples of well-structured problems. On the

other hand, ill-defined problems are those with more than one solution and no guaranteed

method for reaching it. Examples of these problems include solutions to global warming,

poverty, and the destruction of the ozone layer. Ill-defined problems require the student to

develop critical thinking skills and use prior knowledge to reach a solution. These are the hardest
CREATING EFFECITIVE DESIGN USING PRINCIPLES OF PROBLEM SOLVING 3

problems to teach students how to solve because they require multiple levels of analysis in order

to determine the best approach (Reed, 2002).

The types of problems that students are typically required to solve in k-12 and in college

fall into the well-defined category. Instructors present the student with a problem and teach them

how to reach the solution by following a sequence of steps. In fact, students are rarely presented

with the opportunity to solve ill-defined problems which require the use of entirely different

techniques, such as critical thinking (Schraw, Dunkle, & Bendixen, 1995). Furthermore, ill

structured problems even require an entirely different skill set, which includes argumentation and

metacognition (Hong, Jonassen, & McGee, 2003). As a result, even those decision makers who

have successfully mastered well-structured problem solving can often struggle to solve ill-

defined problems.

Cognitive science views problem solving as a five step sequence (Bruning et al., 2004).

The first and most challenging step of the entire process is identifying the problem. Once the

problem is identified, the decision maker must represent the problem. Representation can be

done either abstractly (in one’s head) or on paper (in a form of a graph, a drawing, etc.) The third

step is for the decision maker to come up with an appropriate strategy to solve the problem.

Strategies vary depending on the type of problem and therefore it is vital that the student chooses

the correct strategy that will result in the correct solution. Finally, the decision maker must

implement their strategy and evaluate the results.

Outside of properly identifying the problem, appropriate strategy selection is perhaps the

most difficult part of finding a solution to the problem. Furthermore, it is also a critical area of

research for instructional designers because it is such an integral part of effective learning.

Problem solving strategies can generally be divided into two broad categories. The first category
CREATING EFFECITIVE DESIGN USING PRINCIPLES OF PROBLEM SOLVING 4

is called algorithms or “rule-based” strategies (Bruning et al., 2004). Algorithms are typically

used to solve well-defined problems because they provide the decision maker with a series of

steps. If the steps are followed in the correct order, then the student will come up with the correct

solution. An example of an algorithm is the quadratic formula that is used to find the roots of a

quadratic equation. The second category is called heuristics or rules of thumb strategies. These

are typically used to guide decision makers when solving ill-defined problems. Because ill-

structured problems do not have strict right and wrong answers, heuristics can only point the

student in the direction of the correct solution.

Ill-structured problems are the ones that students have the hardest time solving.

Instruction must be designed in such a way that it tackles these types of problems early on so that

decision makers can build prior knowledge and develop critical thinking skills. In order to

facilitate effective learning, heuristics must be understood in greater depth. In particular,

heuristics can be divided into two categories. The simplest category is that of trial and error. The

trial and error method is really no method at all. The student who uses trial and error must guess

and try to solve the problem in variety of ways until he comes up with a solution. As a result, it is

considered the “least efficient of all the methods” (Bruning et al, 2004). The other general type

of heuristic is means-ends. Means-ends require the decision maker to take a serious of steps prior

to reaching a decision. This type of problem solving strategy requires the student to first form a

particular position, break the problem down into smaller steps, and evaluate the success of each

step prior to moving on to the next one. This method is much more advanced and analytical than

trial and error. It is not surprising, therefore, that expert problem solvers tend to use means-ends

analysis in their approach to finding solutions while novices tend to rely on trial and error.
CREATING EFFECITIVE DESIGN USING PRINCIPLES OF PROBLEM SOLVING 5

An important consideration of heuristics is the fact that they can only be used as a guide

and that a correct solution is by no means a guarantee. After conducting research on heuristics,

Herbert Simon introduced the concept of bounded rationality or the rational choice that problem

solver makes. Bounded rationality takes into account the decision maker’s cognitive limitations

such as prior knowledge and computational capacity (Simon, 1997). The decision makers are

then categorized into two sections. Those that optimize tend to choose the best possible way to

reach a solution while those that “satisfice” tend to accept choices or judgments that are merely

“good enough.”

Heuristics require decision makers to make judgments using a limited amount of

information. For example, an individual who wants to assess the distance between two objects

will use the heuristic that states that objects that are closer to the observer appear sharper than

those that are further away. This is a legitimate heuristic that will lead the decision maker to the

correct solution in most cases. However, given certain circumstances it can also lead the decision

maker astray. In other words, heuristics can sometimes result in “severe and systemic errors”

(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Two common errors to the above example include overestimation

and underestimation. Overestimation of distance may result from poor visibility while

underestimation may result from better than average visibility. In order to succeed at facilitating

effective learning, these types of errors should be expected and accounted for by designers who

build heuristics for instructional purposes.

Problem solving strategies are a critical area of cognitive science for instructional

designers. Design should take into account strategies that are used by experts in a field and

incorporate them into effective teaching materials. For example, it is known that experts within a

domain spend more time defining and representing problems prior to developing a strategy for a
CREATING EFFECITIVE DESIGN USING PRINCIPLES OF PROBLEM SOLVING 6

solution (Swanson, O’Connor, & Cooney, 1990). This type of preparation allows experts to

explore a variety of approaches to solving a problem. Furthermore, learning is also improved

when students are “given ownership of the problem solving process as well as ownership of the

problem itself” (Saverly et al. 1996). Ownership of the problem solving process allows students

to challenge their thinking and to learn to approach problems in a variety of ways. As a result,

designers who understand the cognition of problem solving will be more equipped to create

instruction that allows for awareness of the problem solving process and facilitates critical

thinking skills that allow students to develop their own problems in the future.

In conclusion, while problem solving is one of the most basic human faculties it is an

often misunderstood area of cognitive science. The two most important aspects of problem

solving are identifying problems and developing solving strategies. Instruction should be

designed in such a way that it results in understanding on a deeper level and builds prior

knowledge. Furthermore, designers should develop and mimic expert strategies such as the

ability to identify problems, evaluate solutions, develop heuristics and understand one’s

limitations. These strategies are essential to the framework of problem solving and to the

building of effective instruction.

References

Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J., Norby, M.N. & Ronning, R.R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and

instruction, 4th Edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hong, N.S., Jonassen, D.H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured

problem solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

40 (1), 6-33.

Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured

problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology: Research

and Development 45 (1), 65-95.

Jonassen, D.H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: an instructional design guide. Retrieved

from

http://books.google.com/books?

id=g0ffeIYunUwC&dq=problem+solving+instructional+design&printsec=frontcover&so

urce=in&hl=en&ei=UJmZS4G5LIiMNsfm0Ho&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu

m=11&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=problem%20solving%20instructional

%20design&f=false

Reed, D. (2003). The use of ill-defined problems for developing problem-solving and empirical

skills in CS1. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(1), 121-133.

Savery, J. T. & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its

constructivist framework. In Wilson, B. G., Constructivist learning environments: case

studies in instructional design (pp. 135-146). Educational Technology Publications, Inc.:

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

 Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. & Bendixen, L. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined

problem solving., Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523-538.

Simon, H.A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: empirically grounded economic reason.

Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?

id=9CiwU28z6WQC&dq=herbert+simon+heuristics&printsec=frontcover&source=in&h

l=en&ei=O2qWS9ivDo7usgP59b3CAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12

&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Swanson, H.L., O’Connor, J.E., & Cooney, J.B. (1990). An information processing analysis of

expert and novice teachers’ problem solving. American Educational Research Journal,

27, 533-556.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.

Science, New Series. 185, 1124-1131.