Educational Strategies
Problem Solving Concepts and Theories
ABSTRACT
Many educators, especially those involved in professional curricula, are interested in problem solving and in how to support stu-
dents’ development into successful problem solvers. The following article serves as an overview of educational research on
problem solving. Several concepts are defined and the transition from one theory to another is discussed. Educational theories
describing problem solving in the context of behavioral, cognitive, and information-processing pedagogy are discussed. The
final section of the article describes prior findings regarding expert–novice differences in problem solving of various kinds.
Any problem has at least three components: givens, goal,
and operations. Givens are the facts or pieces of information
presented to describe the problem. Goal is the desired end
state of the problem. Operations are the actions to be per-
formed in reaching the desired goal.1
Problems are categorized as ill defined or well defined,
based on how problem and goal are represented. Problems
with complex representations and/or more than one solu-
tion are termed ill defined. Problems with discrete represen-
tations and finite goals are termed well defined. The
distinction between ill defined and well defined is a contin-
uum, based on the complexity of the problem and what is
required cognitively to solve it.
Problem-solving knowledge is, conceptually, of two kinds.
Declarative knowledge is knowing that something is the case.
It is knowledge of facts, theories, events, and objects. Proce-
dural knowledge is knowing how to do something. It includes
motor skills, cognitive skills, and cognitive strategies. Both
declarative and procedural knowledge are activated in
working memory as problem solving occurs. Psychologists
who distinguish between declarative and procedural
knowledge believe that the two forms of knowledge are
both distinct and interdependent. Declarative and proce-
dural knowledge interact in a variety of ways during prob-
lem solving.
A basic unit of declarative knowledge in the human infor-
mation-processing system is the proposition. This expresses
or proposes the relationships among concepts. For instance,
the phrase, “the man fixed the tire,” depicts a complete idea.
A proposition always contains two elements: a relation and
one or more arguments.2
There are three attributes that are commonly used to differ-
entiate expert from novice problem-solving characteristics.
These attributes are conceptual understanding; basic, auto-
mated skills; and domain-specific strategies. The following
paragraphs explain these attributes and how they are used
to distinguish expert from novice problem-solving charac-
teristics.
Conceptual understanding refers to both the actual informa-
tion in memory and the organization of that information in
memory. Conceptual understanding is closely related to
schema theory, in which information is considered to be
stored in memory as frameworks or structures that, once
instantiated, provide a lens through which to view new
information. Having a conceptual understanding of a
domain means that an individual can make meaning of
JVME 30(3) © 2002 AAVMC
Laura E. Hardin
domain-specific situations or problems, based on prior
knowledge of that domain.
Basic, automated skills in any domain are those that allow an
individual to perform necessary and routine operations
without much thought. These skills are overlearned to the
point that they become habitual and even unconscious,
enabling individuals to operate quickly and accurately
without taxing their short-term memories. Automaticity
allows individuals to focus their attention on the more com-
plex tasks associated with a specific domain and is a general
attribute associated with experts in a domain. Automaticity
supports the expert’s speed and skill of execution.
Unlike basic, automated skills, which occur unconsciously
and thus do not tax short-term memory, domain-specific
strategies remain under conscious control. They are the pro-
cesses and procedures in a domain that an individual, even
an expert, must consciously think about in order to solve a
problem. They are, in other words, the procedural knowl-
edge associated with a domain.
Expert–novice differences have been studied and described
within the context of these three attributes: Experts (1)
exhibit better conceptual understanding of their domain; (2)
use more automated skills and domain-specific strategies;
and (3) have a conceptual understanding that is declarative,
while basic skills and strategies are procedural.3
HISTORICAL PROGRESSION OF PROBLEM SOLVING
THEORIES
As theories of how learning occurred evolved, the under-
standing of the problem-solving process also evolved. The
following section will present the model of problem solving
associated with each concurrent learning theory. The domi-
nant learning theories discussed are within the conceptual
domains of behaviorism, cognitive psychology, and infor-
mation processing. Behaviorists view problem solving as a
process that develops through positive and negative rein-
forcement mechanisms. Cognitive psychologists view prob-
lem solving as a process that includes introspection,
observation, and the development of heuristics. The infor-
mation-processing view of problem solving is based on gen-
eral problem solving skills and artificial intelligence.
Behaviorist
Behaviorists’ understanding of learning was based on cause
and effect. In this conceptualization, a behavior was fol-
lowed by reinforcement. If the behavior was followed by
positive reinforcement, then the behavior was more likely to
227
be repeated; if there was negative reinforcement, the behav-
ior was less likely to be repeated.
Two problem-solving methodologies explain the problem-
solving process within the framework of behaviorist learn-
ing theory. One such method is trial and error. This involves
attacking the problem by various methods until a solution is
found. Young children solving a jigsaw puzzle exhibit this
type of problem-solving behavior. The children try fitting
different pieces into the same spot until eventually they find
the piece that fits.4
Another method consistent with behaviorist learning is
Hull’s response hierarchy.5 This method involves learned
responses that are applied to a situation in a hierarchical
manner. The hierarchy is based on the response for which
habit strength is strongest. Stimuli in a problem situation
may evoke several different responses, and responses will
be produced, one at a time, in order of strength, until either
the problem is solved or the organism exhausts its reper-
toire of responses.
In their emphasis on trial-and-error learning and habit
strength, behaviorists focused on the role that stimulus–
response interactions might play on problem solving.2
These early conceptions of learning and problem solving
described the observable characteristics of the process and
did not seek to elaborate on the cognitive mechanisms of the
subject.
Cognitive
As cognitive psychology progressed as a discipline, more
interest and effort was directed toward the mental processes
of learning and problem solving. An early cognitive
approach to problem solving was to identify the mental
stages through which problem solving proceeded. Two
noted cognitive psychologists, Wallas and Polya, developed
a four-stage model of problem solving. The four stages of
problem solving identified by Wallas were (1) prepara-
tion—defining the problem and gathering information rele-
vant to it; (2) incubation—thinking about the problem at a
subconscious level; (3) inspiration—having a sudden
insight into the solution of the problem; and (4) verifica-
tion—checking to be certain that the solution was correct.5
Similarly, Polya6 described the following four steps in the
problem-solving process: (1) understand the problem, (2)
devise a plan, (3) carry out the plan, and (4) look backward.
Cognitive Heuristics
Polya6 promoted the idea that the application of general
problem-solving strategies was key to problem-solving
expertise and intellectual performance. General problem-
solving strategies have also been called heuristics. The word
heuristics comes from the Greek, heuriskin, meaning “serving
to discover.” A commonly used synonym for heuristics is
rule of thumb. In problem-solving literature, the term implies
the general methods used in problem solving.
The heuristics Polya6 identifies in mathematical problem
solving are discussed within the framework of a four-stage
problem-solving model as discussed earlier. Some of the
heuristics applied within this plan include understanding
the unknown, understanding the nature of the goal state,
drawing a graph or diagram, thinking of structurally analo-
gous problems, simplifying the problem, and generalizing
228
the problem. These heuristic methods can be applied to a
problem in any content domain; thus they are considered to
be general problem-solving skills.
In addition to the problem-solving processes already dis-
cussed, other heuristics have been identified. People often
have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty, with
sketchy information about the situation, on the basis of sug-
gestive but inconclusive evidence. The reasoning processes
used to resolve the uncertainty are often called judgment
heuristics. One form of judgment heuristic is similarity
judgment, where an instance is evaluated based on prior
knowledge of a similar instance. A similar type of judgment
is representativeness, where an assumption is made based
on the belief that the characteristics of the individual are
representative of the group.
Another heuristic is the availability heuristic. In this case,
judgments are made based on which elements can most eas-
ily be retrieved from memory. Analogical reasoning is
another heuristic method, where judgment is made by
drawing similarities to events that have occurred previ-
ously. Still another judgment heuristic is the development
of a mental model (simulation) to predict the outcome of an
event.7 These heuristics are examples of general-purpose
thinking skills, which seem applicable to many domains.
The heuristics approach emphasizes finding a good repre-
sentation of the problem. While content-specific knowledge
is required to solve the problem, the belief that general
problem-solving skills were also valuable was supported by
studies in the domains of math and computer science.8
Information Processing
As elaboration on problem solving and expert–novice dif-
ferences continued, the information-processing theory of
learning emerged. This theory emphasizes the role of fac-
tors such as working memory capacity, organization of
long-term memory, and cognitive retrieval of relevant infor-
mation. The bulk of current research in problem solving
reflects inquiry into the nature of these cognitive processes.5
Newell’s early work in artificial intelligence1 (AI) sustained
the general problem solving theory. AI is the study and devel-
opment of computer programs to solve problems. An AI
program uses a finite set of functions to work from the prob-
lem state to the solution state. Many simple puzzles and
problems in logic were successfully completed with AI pro-
grams, supporting the idea that problem-solving success
was directly related to general problem-solving skill.
Newell and colleagues proposed a theory of human prob-
lem solving that emphasized the similarities between AI
and human problem solving. There are four underlying
principles of this theory: (1) A few gross characteristics of
the problem-solving process are invariant over the task and
the problem solver, (2) the characteristics of the problem are
sufficient to determine the problem space, (3) the structure
of the task environment determines the possible structure of
the problem space, and (4) the structure of the problem
space determines the possible programs (methods) that can
be used for problem solving.
JVME 30(3) © 2002 AAVMC
HISTORICAL PROGRESSION OF EXPERT–NOVICE
PROBLEM-SOLVING THEORIES
General problem solving knowledge was determined to be
an incomplete explanation of how problem solving
occurred. A close look at the expert–novice research reveals
that the expert does need domain knowledge, basic auto-
mated skills, and domain-specific expertise to exhibit the
characteristics of expert problem solving. Several studies
reveal that expertise relies on both domain-specific knowl-
edge and problem-solving skill. The following examples,
from various domains, illustrate the body of research that
has been conducted to reach this conclusion.
Chunking
A key area of expert–novice research has been the study of
chess players. The game of chess is thought to require sub-
stantial skill and cognitive ability for successful play. Cogni-
tive researchers began studying expert and novice chess
players to develop understanding of the underlying cogni-
tive processes. Research by De Groot, as cited by Chase and
Simon,9 indicated that master chess players are better at
reconstructing chess positions due to chunking information
within a relational structure.
Chase and Simon9 conducted further research to discover
and evaluate the structures, or chunks, that are perceived by
the chess player. Three chess players (a master, a Class A
player, and a beginner) conducted memory tasks on posi-
tions derived from 20 published chess games. Participants
were asked to view a game board layout, then reproduce,
from memory, the layout on another board. Results of this
study indicated that the information extracted from a posi-
tion, briefly exposed to the viewer, varies with playing
strength (the more expert player derives more information).
The data also suggested that experienced players are able to
encode the positions into larger chunks (than novices). The
number of chunks in short-term memory appeared consis-
tent across levels of playing expertise, thereby strengthen-
ing the belief that content-specific relationships are chunked
in a cognitively accessible framework.
Contrary to original speculation, studies describing the cog-
nitive processes of experts and novices have indicated that
experts (chess players) do not consider plays farther ahead
than the novice; rather, experts choose among vastly supe-
rior (complex) moves. The expert is able to chunk relevant
information, while novices envision single pieces of infor-
mation.10
Researchers began to look beyond chess into other knowl-
edge-rich domains. Studies have described the problem-
solving process in physics, mathematics, computer pro-
gramming, and medical diagnosis. Language skills, such as
reading and writing, and the question how students used
these skills to acquire more knowledge were also studied
intensively.10, 11
Schema Theory
Differences between expert and novice teachers have also
been studied. Research has shown that teachers, like experts
in other fields, possess well-elaborated schemas that pro-
vided a framework for meaningful interpretation of infor-
mation. Expert teachers also had an understanding of what
to expect in the classroom and set up procedures and rules
JVME 30(3) © 2002 AAVMC
for student behavior. A study comparing expert and novice
teachers also revealed that expert teachers thought about
learning from the perspective of the student and performed
a cognitive analysis of each learning task, which they
adapted to students’ needs during teaching. Novice teach-
ers used specific objectives to form lesson plans and did not
adapt to student needs during teaching. 12
Barba and Rubba’s13 research with 30 expert (in-service) and
30 novice (preservice) earth- and space-science teachers was
conducted to study the cognitive differences between
experts and novices.
Data from audio-taped interviews revealed that expert
teachers were more accurate, verbalized more declarative
knowledge (facts and concepts), used fewer steps, and gen-
erated more subroutines than their novice counterparts.
Experts generated more alternative solution paths and
moved less between procedural (rules and strategies) and
declarative knowledge than did the novices.
As the authors noted, these findings support Norman and
Gagne’s theories of cognitive learning—specifically, that
knowledge is hierarchically arranged in schemata. Accord-
ing to this theory, facts unite to form concepts, concepts join
to form rules, and rules join to form problem-solving struc-
tures. These findings also support Norman’s (1982) theory
that expert performance in procedural knowledge is charac-
terized by smoothness, automaticity, and decreased mental
effort, as compared to that of the novice.14
Experience and Training
A study by Schoenfeld and Herrmann15 showed that
domain-specific content is relevant to successful problem
solving. Nineteen college students participated in this
study, which evaluated the differences between experts and
novices in mathematical problem perception. Experts deter-
mined the deep- and surface-structure properties of each
problem prior to initiation of the study. All students were
asked to sort the 32 math problems, based on which, if any,
were mathematically similar (each of the similar problems
would be solved in the same way). After completion of the
first sort, subjects either participated in a course in mathe-
matical problem-solving strategies that stressed a system-
atic, organized approach to solving problems or took a
structured computer programming course that taught a
structural, hierarchical, and orderly way to solve non-math-
ematical problems using the computer.
Upon completion of the course, subjects sorted an equiva-
lent set of mathematical problems. Those completing the
mathematical problem-solving course were more accurate
in identifying the appropriate deep and surface structures
of the problems than they had been prior to the course,
whereas those completing the programming course were
not. This study showed that training within the problem
domain affects problem solving more than training outside
that domain.
Metacognition
Bruer summarizes the research on domain-specific problem
solving as follows: “Expertise, these studies suggest, relies
on highly organized, domain-specific knowledge that can
arise only after extensive experience and practice in the
domain”10
229
Studies in domain-specific problem-solving expertise also
introduce the underlying principle of metacognition. Meta-
cognition is the ability to think about thinking, the self-
awareness of problem solving, and the ability to monitor
and control one’s mental processing. According to Bruer,
Bransford’s self-study of physics revealed several aspects of
metacognition, which ultimately constitute an awareness
and control of learning that can cross content domains.10
The ability to solve problems successfully depends on a
number of factors related to the human information-pro-
cessing (IP) system. This higher order learning theory elabo-
rates the cognitive processes of problem solving. There are
six attributes that define expert–novice differences in prob-
lem-solving skill within the IP framework, regardless of
content domain. Through years of study of the cognitive
processes applied during problem solving, six characteris-
tics of expert performance have become widely accepted:
Experts perceive large, meaningful patterns in their domain.
The ability to see meaningful patterns reflects organization
of the knowledge base. An expert has the knowledge
required to solve a problem, and this knowledge is assess-
able in a way that does not tax working memory.
Experts are faster and more accurate than novices at solving
problems within their domain. There are two likely reasons
for this phenomenon: Experts have developed the basic,
automated skills applicable to the problem, and they have
an organized database from which to retrieve the solution.
• Experts have superior short- and long-term memory,
again based on superior memory organization, rather
than volume.
• Experts see and represent data at a more conceptual
(principled) level than novices.
• Experts spend more time analyzing and evaluating a
problem quantitatively before beginning to solve the
problem.
• Experts have strong self-monitoring skills. They are
more aware when they make errors, why they fail to
comprehend, and when they need to check their
solutions.4
The preceding review of research in general problem-solv-
ing methods and domain-specific problem-solving charac-
teristics has concluded with a summary of the
characteristics of expert problem-solving. The discussion of
both general and content-specific problem-solving
attributes leads to the conclusion that both content knowl-
edge and general problem-solving skill are necessary for
expert problem solving to occur. Content-specific knowl-
edge allows the expert to perceive information in a way that
maximizes memory and information is conceptualized
more on the level of principles. Superior problem analysis
230
and evaluation and strong self-monitoring skills can be rec-
ognized as general problem-solving expertise.
REFERENCES
1. Newell A, Simon H. Human Problem Solving. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972.
2. Gagné ED, Yekovich CW, Yekovich FR. The Cognitive Psy-
chology of School Learning. New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
3. Miller K. Differences between expert and novice writers.
Unpublished, 1996.
4. Chi MH, Glaser R, Farr MJ. The Nature of Expertise. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
5. Ormrod JE. Human Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1987.
6. Polya G. Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954.
7. Glass AL, Holyoak KJ. Reasoning and decision making. In
Cognition. New York, NY: Newberry Awards Records, Inc,
1996:333–363.
8. Nickerson RS, Perkins DN, Smith EE. The Teaching of
Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1985.
9. Chase WG, Simon HA. Perception in chess. Cognit Psychol
4:55–81, 1973.
10. Bruer JT. The mind’s journey from novice to expert. Am
Educator Summer:6–46, 1993 p15.
11. Perkins DN, Salomon G. Are cognitive skills context.
Educ Res Jan–Feb:16–25, 1989.
12. Westerman DA. Expert and novice teacher decision
making. J Teach Educ 42:292–305, 1991.
13. Barba RH, Rubba PA. A comparison of preservice and
in-service earth and space science teachers’ general mental
abilities, content knowledge, and problem-solving skills. J
Res Sci Teach, 29:1021–1035, 1992.
14. Norman GR, Learning and Memory. San Francisco, CA:
W.H. Freemen, 1992.
15. Schoenfeld AH, Herrmann DJ. Problem perception and
knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical
problem solvers. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 8:484–494,
1982.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Laura E. Hardin, DVM, MS, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of
Veterinary Basic Sciences, Mississippi State University , College
of Veterinary Medicine. E-mail: SMTP:lhardin@cvm.msstate.edu
JVME 30(3) © 2002 AAVMC