Advertisement

Introduction: Problem Solving in High-Stakes Learning Environments

  • Chwee Beng Lee
  • José Hanham
  • Jimmie Leppink
Chapter

Abstract

The authors of this book have a background in research in the educational sciences and instructional design. As part of our work as educational specialists, we have increasingly been asked to provide advice and contribute to the instructional design aspects of research in the high-stakes domains covered in this book: security (Chap.  4), emergency medicine (Chap.  5), aviation (Chap.  6), mental health (Chap.  7) and engineering (Chap.  8). Our exposure to these domains has led to a growing appreciation, among ourselves, of the immense utility value that theories of instruction, some of which have been borne out of research in school settings, can have in informing how specialists in these domains are trained to solve problems. Although problem solving is part of our everyday lives, there are problem-solving contexts which can be considered high stakes. From our perspective, high-stakes domains are those in which the decisions made by individuals or groups have significant consequences for the preservation of human lives, as well as broader social, legal, ethical, economic and environmental consequences. If we take the domains of interest in this book, we can see that the preservation of human life lies at the core of what individuals in these domains are meant to fulfil. The central goal of security personnel is to protect human lives (Chap.  4). The emergency medical practitioner seeks to save lives (Chap.  5). Pilots have a duty of care to operate aircraft in a way that does not endanger the lives of their passengers (Chap.  6). During a behavioural emergency, the underlying aim of a mental clinician is to prevent the client from harming self or others (Chap.  7). Engineers must adhere to ethical and professional standards to ensure that their manipulations of technologies do not compromise human lives (Chap.  8).

References

  1. Bohle Carbonell, K., Stalmeijer, R. E., Könings, K., Segers, M., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). How experts deal with novel situations: A review of adaptive expertise. Educational Research Review, 12, 14–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Branch, R., & Merrill, D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 8–16). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Ericsson, K. A. (2017). Expertise and individual differences: The search for the structure and acquisition of experts’ superior performance. WIREs Cognitive Science, 8, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in one brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A. M. (2015). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review, 2015, 831.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kleespies, P. M. (2017). Integrative perspectives on behavioral emergencies and crises. In P. M. Kleespies (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral emergencies and crises (pp. 8–20). Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Klein, G. (2009). Streetlights and shadows: Searching for the keys to adaptive decision making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., & Diaz Granados, D. (2010). Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. Journal of Management, 36, 941–973.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schriver, A. T., Morrow, D. G., Wickens, C. D., & Talleur, D. A. (2008). Expertise differences in attentional strategies related to pilot decision making. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 864–878.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X374974 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Spengler, P. M., & Pilipis, L. A. (2015). A comprehensive meta-reanalysis of the robustness of the experience-accuracy effect in clinical judgment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 360–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tracey, J. G., Wampold, B. E., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Expertise in psychotherapy: An elusive goal? American Psychologist, 69, 218–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. (2014). Naturalistic decision making (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chwee Beng Lee
    • 1
  • José Hanham
    • 1
  • Jimmie Leppink
    • 2
  1. 1.Western Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia
  2. 2.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations