Activity 6.1: Problem Solving

Activity 6.1: Problem Solving

In this week's PowerPoint, Key Constructs in IP Approach, the three constructs are memory, problem solving, and metacognition. John Anderson states “Problem-solving is the key process in learning" (slide 18). Problem solving is analogous to learning, in that when we reach or obtain learning goals (schema) or solve problems, they become routine or familiar. Any future routine or familiar goals (schema) or problem solving experiences are assimilated into our knowledge structure, whereas, any novel, unfamiliar, or nonroutine learning or problem solving experiences, will be accommodated, thus becoming familiar or routine. This process brings about the “relatively permanent change in behavior or the capacity to behave required for learning" (slide 21). These changes are a result of individuals' practice with problem solving, experiences, and interactions with their environment. I feel that problem solving involves active learning, but that we can learn without problem-solving, passively constructing knowledge, using our senses: touching, observing, listening, tasting, and smelling. Much of our learning occurs without awareness, often automatic, without problem solving.

Pretz, Naples & Sternberg (2003) state that there are two classes of problems, “well-defined” and “ill-defined” (p. 4), which are similar to the PowerPoint types of thinking, routine and nonroutine. This chapter is about the “early stages of problem solving: problem recognition, problem definition, and problem representation” (p. 3). The important problem that I recently dealt with was this past summer when my mother and I took a road trip, by car, to Portland, OR, and Seattle, WA, to visit family. The problem was somewhat well-defined, in that I knew the different types of issues or variable that needed to be addressed that would influence my “problem solving performance” (p. 9). Since I had taken many road trips throughout the USA and other countries, my knowledge cognitive processing skills were strong. I was the “problem solver” yet I had to take into consideration Mom’s and my “individual differences in ability and dispositions” (p. 9) in defining the goals and developing the strategies, which therefore created an ill-defined problem as well.  I defined that problem by outlining some parameters, such as how much time we had, what route we would take, how many miles we would drive each day, and where and when we would sleep and eat. I had to address social context as well, since our plan and strategy involved many family and friends throughout the trip. We had to decide whom and when to visit which involved coordinating schedules. I had recognized the problem, defined the problem, so the next step was to organize the problem mentally in some sort of representation, which has “four parts: a description of the initial  state of the problem, a description of the goal state, a set of allowable operators, and a set of constraints” (p. 6). 

I remember waking in the middle of the night, visualizing the entire route in my mind, so I wrote my ideas or representations in my notebook. I used Google Maps to move my mental representations to more concrete visuals in order to plot out the itinerary applying the goal of driving an average of five hundred miles per day. We originally planned to return home through Canada, but then had to redefine the goal and strategy, when Mom wondered if we were going through Wyoming where her friend Keith lives. I had booked hotels from Iowa to Oregon for the first four nights, but while in Cheyenne, WY, after calling Mom’s friend Marion in Boise, ID, who would not be home on our way out west. In order to see her two friends, we would have to revise our strategy and head north to Sheridan, WY, where her friend Keith would welcome us for a visit that evening. In the hotel room the next morning, after discussing the changes with Mom, I canceled two hotels from the previous planned western route and booked two new hotels for the revised northern route. Social context affected the strategy, since we had already planned dates to go to Portland before Seattle, so after crossing the Rockies through Montana, we headed south from Washington, to Oregon, then two days later back north to Seattle. After our 5-day visit with my brother in Seattle, we headed south, again, to visit Marion in Boise. Since we had originally planned to visit my friend Bill in Rochester, MN, after crossing the Rockies through Idaho and Montana, we headed back northeast to Rochester. Therefore, we ended up driving a figure eight route across the Midwest and Northwest instead of the clean loop I had originally planned. 

We redefined our original goal several times, which then led to revising our strategies, which led to new representations, which were never discrete or sequential stages, but were as fluid and flexible as the problem-solvers were willing to be. Because we had three weeks available to travel, we could be flexible and enjoy our trip together, even though we added at least an extra five hundred miles to our trip. My mother did not drive a single mile, napped in the car much of the time, and had no illnesses or injuries. We both were able to see family and old friends and spend lots of quality time together. 

We are so adept at “recognizing that a problem exists, defining the scope and goals of the problem, and representing information about that problem in a way that helps establish a viable path to solution” (p. 26), that we are already in the early stages of problem solving next summer's mother and daughter adventure.