I’ll admit, I found the first article, by Jonassen, pretty heavy going with a lot of new vocabulary. Thank you, google 😊

As I slogged through the article I gained a greater appreciation for the author’s analysis of different problem types as well as his conclusions that: “Problem solving is not a uniform activity. Problems are not equivalent, in content, form, or process. (Jonassen, 2000)” and therefore require different strategies, skills, and approaches.

Jonassen believes that problems delivered to students are often too ‘neat’, and do not represent real-life (typically ‘ill-structured’) problems. Therefore, the problem-solving we teach and expect of students does not always set them up adequately for success.

For example, he concludes:

“Unfortunately, students are rarely, if ever, required to solve meaningful problems as part of their curricula.”(p.1)

and

“The discrepancy between what learners need (complex, ill-structured problem-solving experience) and what formal education (schools and corporate training) provides represents a complex and ill-structured problem that instructional design may be able to ameliorate.”(p.1)

He provides examples of a few problem-solving approaches (‘The General Problem Solver ‘ (Newel and Simon, 1972), and the ‘IDEAL’ problem solver (Bransford & Stein, 1984)) but critiques both models because each method “tends to treat all problems the same in an effort to articulate a generalizable problem-solving procedure”(p.3)

When I consider the ‘real-life’ problems of my students, particularly given the large percentage of at-risk clientele, I agree with the author that said problems don’t always fit into a box, and you need a multiplicity of strategies to navigate them. Sometimes I don’t even have all the strategies myself!

In Tables 1 and 2, the author describes a list of different types/levels of problems, ranging from more simple Logical Problems and Algorithms to more complex Dilemmas, where often no clear answers can be found. To purposely provide ill-structured (but carefully thought out!) problems that are geared to my 9-11 year students is a daunting task. Especially in light of the following comment:

“The real problem-solving activity involved with solving ill-structured problems is providing a problem with structure when there is none apparent (Simon, 1973).”

Therein lies the challenge. I guess what I’m learning is that a lot of thought and preparation needs to go into creating problem-solving activities and opportunities, although I’m struggling to connect to age-appropriate examples. I suppose that I often respond to problems (social, academic, practical, etc.) as they arise naturally/organically, and use them as ‘teachable moments’, often ‘on the fly’. Is this adequate? Jonassen suggests that we need to be very purposeful in preparing/designing/providing problems for students, to ensure that they are well-rounded problems that reflect real life.

I guess I feel that everyday realities provide significant opportunity for problem-solving. Something holding a weekly class meeting, or a daily class check-in, helps identify student concerns and problems, as well as opportunity an opportunity to discuss ways to respond to, and possibly solve troubling matters that arise in the students’ social, familial and academic experiences.

Again, I found this a tricky read, so feedback is very much appreciated!

Thanks,

Dan

References:

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.