Introduction
Learning to solve problems is not a simple process. Children go through several stages and generally learn by example plus trial and error. Until the last hundred years or so school was a constant round of drill and practice, so problems solving was something learned largely at home. A number of prominent psychologists have contributed to our bank of knowledge on this subject. We know much more now because of their work, but there is still a great deal to learn.
Gestalt theory (Ehrenfels) treats things like systems, chunks of knowledge, or procedures that we follow after observing them in others and then practicing. “Gestalt psychologists suggest that the events in the brain bear a structural correspondence to psychological events; indeed, it has been shown that steady electric currents in the brain correspond to structured perceptual events.” (“Gestalt”) In this way, it parallels procedural learning as opposed to domain learning. It was a serious departure from the then-established theory of separated functions.
Main body
According to the Gestaltists, the process of some problem-solving requires the reorganizing or restructuring of the elements of the problem situation in such a way as to provide a solution. This is known as productive thinking or insight. Reproductive thinking, on the other hand, relies on the rote application of past solutions to a problem. Functional fixedness occurs when there is a solution to a problem, but the subject is fixed on a set use of one part of the solution, such as its common use. For example, asking someone to water plants and giving them a bottle with the bottom cut off, some people do not think to turn the bottle upside-down and cover the top with their thumb or carrying the plants to the water. This also involves a problem-solving set as the usual procedure of carrying the water to the plants will stop some people from solving the problem. Luchins (1942) devised the more commonly know water jug problem with two jugs holding 3 gallons and 5 gallons and the subjects were asked to measure 4 gallons.
The schema theory proposed by Bartlett (1932) was another early attempt to provide a plausible explanation for our ability to make sense of perceptual input. The schema theory proposes that all new perceptual input is analyzed by comparing it with items that are already in our memory store, such as shapes and sounds which are familiar from past experience. These items are referred to as ‘schemas’, and they include a huge variety of sensory patterns and concepts. (Groome, 1999, p. 6).
Newell and Simon (1972) initiated research that resulted in the information processing view of problem-solving. It involves creating a space that contains both the problem state and the goal state and then working out the procedure to get from one to the other. They postulated that most problems are resolved using heuristics or “rules of thumb”, which are transferred to the new problem. Any knowledge gained in one task can be transferred to similar tasks. For example, learning to ride a bicycle can help one learn to ride a motorcycle. Both procedures or rules of thumb and methods can be transferred. For example, if one knows how to get the area of a triangle, one can figure out how to get the area of a square and many other similar shapes. Sometimes all that is required is that an analogy has been made on a similar problem to induce problem-solving. That is, the person who is aware of the method used for solving a similar problem may be able to apply that knowledge to a new problem. Someone who has devised a funnel from a piece of paper might also make a cup from the paper to carry something. For larger problems, breaking it into subtasks is useful. Choosing appropriate sub-goals to achieve the main goal is important to successful problem-solving. Gilhooly (1996).
Anderson (1993) proposed that there were nodes of information that would be activated according to the level of activity and this would allow the person to solve the problem. It is the activation of nearby nodes which activate the information. This adaptive thought control is postulated for the ability to drive. As we escalate action required for making a change, such as a turn, the needed procedures are automatically supplied.
Conclusion
All of these theories moved the research forward to where it is now. Each of these people mentioned and many not mentioned have contributed to the research. Each bit of research has been added to the pool and many new hypotheses have been formulated as a result of earlier research. It is possible that we will never uncover all the functions of cognitive problem solving, as we seem to create new ones as the environment demands.
References
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gestalt. (2004). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. 2008. Web.
Gilhooly, K.J. (1996). Thinking: Directed, Undirected and Creative (3rd edn). London: Academic Press.
Groome, D. (1999). An Introduction to Cognitive Psychology: Processes and Disorders (H. Dewart, A. Esgate, K. Gurney, R. Kemp, & N. Towell, Ed.). London: Psychology Press. 2008. Web.
Luchins, A.S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 54, 6, Whole No. 248.
Maier, N.R.F. (1931). Reasoning in humans II: The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12,181-194.
Newell, A. and Simon, H.A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.