Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes

  • David H. Jonassen
Development

Abstract

Although problem solving is regarded by most educators as among the most important learning outcomes, few instructional design prescriptions are available for designing problem-solving instruction and engaging learners. This paper distinguishes between well-structured problems and ill-structured problems. Well-structured problems are constrained problems with convergent solutions that engage the application of a limited number of rules and principles within well-defined parameters. Ill-structured problems possess multiple solutions, solution paths, fewer parameters which are less manipulable, and contain uncertainty about which concepts, rules, and principles are necessary for the solution or how they are organized and which solution is best. For both types of problems, this paper presents models for how learners solve them and models for designing instruction to support problem-solving skill development. The model for solving well-structured problems is based on information processing theories of learning, while the model for solving ill-structured problems relies on an emerging theory of ill-structured problem solving and on constructivist and situated cognition approaches to learning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J.R., Farrell, R. & Sauers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP.Cognitive Science, 8, 87–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlin, P.K. (1989). The problem of the problem. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 229–237). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook 1; The cognitive domain. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Bodker, S. (1991). Activity theory as a challenge to systems design. In H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.),Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J. (1994). Who ya gonna call? Thoughts about teaching problem solving. In P. Hallinger, K. Lithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.),Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership. New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J., & Stein, B.S. (1984).The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity.New York:W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  7. Charney, D., Reder, L., & Kusbit, G.W. (1990). Goal setting and procedure selection in acquiring computer skills: A comparison of tutorials, problem solving, and learner exploration.Cognition & Instruction, 7(4) 323–342.Google Scholar
  8. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M.T.H. & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),Human abilities: An information processing approach. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M.T.H. & Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Churchman, C.W. (1971).The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Cognition Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 77–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation of mathematical problem-solving transfer.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Covington, M.C., Crutchfield, R.S., Daves, L.B., & Olton, R.M. (1974).The productive thinking program: A course in learning to think. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.Google Scholar
  15. de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good an poor novice problem solvers in physics.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 279–288.Google Scholar
  16. deBono, E. (1974).CoRT thinking materials. London: Direct Educational Services.Google Scholar
  17. Dunkle, M.E., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L.D. (1995, April).Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst, G.W., & Newell, A. (1969).GPS: A case study in generality and problem solving. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gagné, R.M. (1966).The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  20. Gagné, R.M. (1977).The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Gagné, R.M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992).Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  23. Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies.Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gordon, S.E., & Gill, R.T.. (1989). The formation and use of knowledge structures in problem solving domains. Tech. Report AFOSR-88-0063. Washington, DC: Bolling AFB.Google Scholar
  26. Greeno, J. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In W. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 239–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, J.R. (1981)The compleat problem solver. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jacobson, M.J. (1990).Knowledge acquisition, cognitive flexibility, and the instructional applications of hypertext: A comparison of contrasting designs for computer-enhanced learning environments. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois).Google Scholar
  29. Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Scaffolding diagnostic reasoning in case-based learning environments.Journal of Computing in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  30. Jonassen, D.H., Ambruso, D.R., & Olesen, J. (1992). Designing a hypertext on transfusion medicine using cognitive flexibility theory.Journal of Educational Hypermedia and Multimedia, 1(3), 309–322.Google Scholar
  31. Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M.A. (1993).Structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Jonassen, D.H., Doricott, D., & Engels, R. (1995).Comparing the effectiveness of worked examples and trial-and-error learning methods in an engineering microworld. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  33. Jonassen, D.H., Mann, E., & Ambruso, D.J. (1996). Causal modeling for structuring case-based learning environments.Intelligent Tutoring Media, 6(3/4), 103–112.Google Scholar
  34. Jonassen, D.H., & Tessmer, M. (1996). An outcomes-based taxonomy for the design, evaluation, and research of instructional systems.Training Research Journal.Google Scholar
  35. Kosonen, P., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Effects of teaching statistical laws on reasoning about everyday problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kitchner, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing.Human Development, 26, 222–232.Google Scholar
  37. Kitchner, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89–116.Google Scholar
  38. Kluwe, R.H., & Friedrichsen, G. (1985), Mechanisms of control and regulation and problem solving. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.),Action control (pp. 203–217). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B.A Nardi (Ed.),Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lave, J. (1988).Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. LeBlanc, S.E., & Fogler, H.S. (1995).Strategies for creative problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Leont'ev, A.N. (1978).Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  43. Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding.Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
  44. McCombs, B.L. (1986). The instructional systems development model: A review of those factors critical to its implementation.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34, 67–81.Google Scholar
  45. Meacham, J.A., & Emont, N.C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 7–23). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  46. Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Nardi, B.A. (1996).Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In R.S. Nickerson (Ed.),Attention and performance: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Attention and Performance, VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Polson. P., & Jeffries, R. (1985). Instruction in problem solving skills: An analysis of four approaches. In J.W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1, pp. 417–455). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Polya, M. (1957).How to solve it (2nd Ed.). New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  52. Reed, S. K. (1992).Cognition: Theory and applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  53. Reitman, W. (1965).Cognition and thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Robertson, W.C. (1990). Detection of cognitive structure with protocol data: Predicting performance on physics transfer problems.Cognitive Science, 14, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rubinstein, M. (1975).Patterns of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Scandura, J.M. (1964). An analysis of exposition and discovery modes of problem solving instruction.Journal of Experimental Education, 33(2), 149–159.Google Scholar
  57. Schank, R., & Cleary, C. (1995).Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Schön, D.A. (1990). The design process. In V.A. Howard (Ed.),Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard's philosophy of education center (pp. 110–141). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Simon, H.A. (1976). Identifying basic abilities underlying intelligent performance on complex tasks. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  60. Simon, D.P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  61. Simon, D.P., & Simon, H.A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. Siegler (Ed.),Children's thinking: What develops. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Sinnott, J.D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1993).Instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  64. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  65. Spiro, R.J., Vispoel, W., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B.C. Britton (Ed.),Executive control processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  66. Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988).Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Tech Report No. 441. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  67. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985) The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra.Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Voss, J.F. (1988). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem solving model.International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 607–622.Google Scholar
  71. Voss, J.F., & Post, T.A. (1989). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  72. Voss, J.F., Wolfe, C.R., Lawrence, J.A., & Engle, R.A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),Complex problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  73. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples.Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wickelgren, W.A., (1973).How to solve problems: Elements of a theory of problems and problem solving. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  75. Wood, P.K. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structures: Implications for cognitive development.Human Development, 26, 249–265.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • David H. Jonassen
    • 1
  1. 1.the Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations