the problem solving process in science

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biology library

Course: biology library   >   unit 1, the scientific method.

• Controlled experiments
• The scientific method and experimental design

Introduction

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis , or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Scientific method example: Failure to toast

1. make an observation..

• Observation: the toaster won't toast.

2. Ask a question.

• Question: Why won't my toaster toast?

3. Propose a hypothesis.

• Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.

4. Make predictions.

• Prediction: If I plug the toaster into a different outlet, then it will toast the bread.

5. Test the predictions.

• Test of prediction: Plug the toaster into a different outlet and try again.
• If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
• If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.

Logical possibility

Practical possibility, building a body of evidence, 6. iterate..

• Iteration time!
• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

The Process of Problem Solving

• Editor's Choice
• Experimental Psychology
• Problem Solving

In a 2013 article published in the Journal of Cognitive Psychology , Ngar Yin Louis Lee (Chinese University of Hong Kong) and APS William James Fellow Philip N. Johnson-Laird (Princeton University) examined the ways people develop strategies to solve related problems. In a series of three experiments, the researchers asked participants to solve series of matchstick problems.

In matchstick problems, participants are presented with an array of joined squares. Each square in the array is comprised of separate pieces. Participants are asked to remove a certain number of pieces from the array while still maintaining a specific number of intact squares. Matchstick problems are considered to be fairly sophisticated, as there is generally more than one solution, several different tactics can be used to complete the task, and the types of tactics that are appropriate can change depending on the configuration of the array.

Louis Lee and Johnson-Laird began by examining what influences the tactics people use when they are first confronted with the matchstick problem. They found that initial problem-solving tactics were constrained by perceptual features of the array, with participants solving symmetrical problems and problems with salient solutions faster. Participants frequently used tactics that involved symmetry and salience even when other solutions that did not involve these features existed.

To examine how problem solving develops over time, the researchers had participants solve a series of matchstick problems while verbalizing their problem-solving thought process. The findings from this second experiment showed that people tend to go through two different stages when solving a series of problems.

People begin their problem-solving process in a generative manner during which they explore various tactics — some successful and some not. Then they use their experience to narrow down their choices of tactics, focusing on those that are the most successful. The point at which people begin to rely on this newfound tactical knowledge to create their strategic moves indicates a shift into a more evaluative stage of problem solving.

In the third and last experiment, participants completed a set of matchstick problems that could be solved using similar tactics and then solved several problems that required the use of novel tactics.  The researchers found that participants often had trouble leaving their set of successful tactics behind and shifting to new strategies.

From the three studies, the researchers concluded that when people tackle a problem, their initial moves may be constrained by perceptual components of the problem. As they try out different tactics, they hone in and settle on the ones that are most efficient; however, this deduced knowledge can in turn come to constrain players’ generation of moves — something that can make it difficult to switch to new tactics when required.

These findings help expand our understanding of the role of reasoning and deduction in problem solving and of the processes involved in the shift from less to more effective problem-solving strategies.

Reference Louis Lee, N. Y., Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). Strategic changes in problem solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 , 165–173. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2012.719021

good work for other researcher

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Careers Up Close: Joel Anderson on Gender and Sexual Prejudices, the Freedoms of Academic Research, and the Importance of Collaboration

Joel Anderson, a senior research fellow at both Australian Catholic University and La Trobe University, researches group processes, with a specific interest on prejudice, stigma, and stereotypes.

Experimental Methods Are Not Neutral Tools

Ana Sofia Morais and Ralph Hertwig explain how experimental psychologists have painted too negative a picture of human rationality, and how their pessimism is rooted in a seemingly mundane detail: methodological choices. 

APS Fellows Elected to SEP

In addition, an APS Rising Star receives the society’s Early Investigator Award.

Privacy Overview

A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
• 2 Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
• 3 School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
• 4 Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
• PMID: 34388005
• PMCID: PMC8715817
• DOI: 10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276

A primary goal of science and engineering (S&E) education is to produce good problem solvers, but how to best teach and measure the quality of problem solving remains unclear. The process is complex, multifaceted, and not fully characterized. Here, we present a detailed characterization of the S&E problem-solving process as a set of specific interlinked decisions. This framework of decisions is empirically grounded and describes the entire process. To develop this, we interviewed 52 successful scientists and engineers ("experts") spanning different disciplines, including biology and medicine. They described how they solved a typical but important problem in their work, and we analyzed the interviews in terms of decisions made. Surprisingly, we found that across all experts and fields, the solution process was framed around making a set of just 29 specific decisions. We also found that the process of making those discipline-general decisions (selecting between alternative actions) relied heavily on domain-specific predictive models that embodied the relevant disciplinary knowledge. This set of decisions provides a guide for the detailed measurement and teaching of S&E problem solving. This decision framework also provides a more specific, complete, and empirically based description of the "practices" of science.

Publication types

• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
• Engineering
• Problem Solving*

Grants and funding

• HHMI/Howard Hughes Medical Institute/United States

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Overview of the Problem-Solving Mental Process

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Rachel Goldman, PhD FTOS, is a licensed psychologist, clinical assistant professor, speaker, wellness expert specializing in eating behaviors, stress management, and health behavior change.

• Identify the Problem
• Define the Problem
• Form a Strategy
• Organize Information
• Allocate Resources
• Monitor Progress
• Evaluate the Results

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem-solving is a mental process that involves discovering, analyzing, and solving problems. The ultimate goal of problem-solving is to overcome obstacles and find a solution that best resolves the issue.

The best strategy for solving a problem depends largely on the unique situation. In some cases, people are better off learning everything they can about the issue and then using factual knowledge to come up with a solution. In other instances, creativity and insight are the best options.

It is not necessary to follow problem-solving steps sequentially, It is common to skip steps or even go back through steps multiple times until the desired solution is reached.

In order to correctly solve a problem, it is often important to follow a series of steps. Researchers sometimes refer to this as the problem-solving cycle. While this cycle is portrayed sequentially, people rarely follow a rigid series of steps to find a solution.

The following steps include developing strategies and organizing knowledge.

1. Identifying the Problem

While it may seem like an obvious step, identifying the problem is not always as simple as it sounds. In some cases, people might mistakenly identify the wrong source of a problem, which will make attempts to solve it inefficient or even useless.

Some strategies that you might use to figure out the source of a problem include :

• Asking questions about the problem
• Breaking the problem down into smaller pieces
• Looking at the problem from different perspectives
• Conducting research to figure out what relationships exist between different variables

2. Defining the Problem

After the problem has been identified, it is important to fully define the problem so that it can be solved. You can define a problem by operationally defining each aspect of the problem and setting goals for what aspects of the problem you will address

At this point, you should focus on figuring out which aspects of the problems are facts and which are opinions. State the problem clearly and identify the scope of the solution.

3. Forming a Strategy

After the problem has been identified, it is time to start brainstorming potential solutions. This step usually involves generating as many ideas as possible without judging their quality. Once several possibilities have been generated, they can be evaluated and narrowed down.

The next step is to develop a strategy to solve the problem. The approach used will vary depending upon the situation and the individual's unique preferences. Common problem-solving strategies include heuristics and algorithms.

• Heuristics are mental shortcuts that are often based on solutions that have worked in the past. They can work well if the problem is similar to something you have encountered before and are often the best choice if you need a fast solution.
• Algorithms are step-by-step strategies that are guaranteed to produce a correct result. While this approach is great for accuracy, it can also consume time and resources.

Heuristics are often best used when time is of the essence, while algorithms are a better choice when a decision needs to be as accurate as possible.

4. Organizing Information

Before coming up with a solution, you need to first organize the available information. What do you know about the problem? What do you not know? The more information that is available the better prepared you will be to come up with an accurate solution.

When approaching a problem, it is important to make sure that you have all the data you need. Making a decision without adequate information can lead to biased or inaccurate results.

5. Allocating Resources

Of course, we don't always have unlimited money, time, and other resources to solve a problem. Before you begin to solve a problem, you need to determine how high priority it is.

If it is an important problem, it is probably worth allocating more resources to solving it. If, however, it is a fairly unimportant problem, then you do not want to spend too much of your available resources on coming up with a solution.

At this stage, it is important to consider all of the factors that might affect the problem at hand. This includes looking at the available resources, deadlines that need to be met, and any possible risks involved in each solution. After careful evaluation, a decision can be made about which solution to pursue.

6. Monitoring Progress

After selecting a problem-solving strategy, it is time to put the plan into action and see if it works. This step might involve trying out different solutions to see which one is the most effective.

It is also important to monitor the situation after implementing a solution to ensure that the problem has been solved and that no new problems have arisen as a result of the proposed solution.

Effective problem-solvers tend to monitor their progress as they work towards a solution. If they are not making good progress toward reaching their goal, they will reevaluate their approach or look for new strategies .

7. Evaluating the Results

After a solution has been reached, it is important to evaluate the results to determine if it is the best possible solution to the problem. This evaluation might be immediate, such as checking the results of a math problem to ensure the answer is correct, or it can be delayed, such as evaluating the success of a therapy program after several months of treatment.

Once a problem has been solved, it is important to take some time to reflect on the process that was used and evaluate the results. This will help you to improve your problem-solving skills and become more efficient at solving future problems.

A Word From Verywell​

It is important to remember that there are many different problem-solving processes with different steps, and this is just one example. Problem-solving in real-world situations requires a great deal of resourcefulness, flexibility, resilience, and continuous interaction with the environment.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares how you can stop dwelling in a negative mindset.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

You can become a better problem solving by:

• Practicing brainstorming and coming up with multiple potential solutions to problems
• Being open-minded and considering all possible options before making a decision
• Breaking down problems into smaller, more manageable pieces
• Asking for help when needed
• Researching different problem-solving techniques and trying out new ones
• Learning from mistakes and using them as opportunities to grow

It's important to communicate openly and honestly with your partner about what's going on. Try to see things from their perspective as well as your own. Work together to find a resolution that works for both of you. Be willing to compromise and accept that there may not be a perfect solution.

Take breaks if things are getting too heated, and come back to the problem when you feel calm and collected. Don't try to fix every problem on your own—consider asking a therapist or counselor for help and insight.

If you've tried everything and there doesn't seem to be a way to fix the problem, you may have to learn to accept it. This can be difficult, but try to focus on the positive aspects of your life and remember that every situation is temporary. Don't dwell on what's going wrong—instead, think about what's going right. Find support by talking to friends or family. Seek professional help if you're having trouble coping.

Davidson JE, Sternberg RJ, editors.  The Psychology of Problem Solving .  Cambridge University Press; 2003. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771

Sarathy V. Real world problem-solving .  Front Hum Neurosci . 2018;12:261. Published 2018 Jun 26. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00261

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Identifying problems and solutions in scientific text

Kevin heffernan.

Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, 15 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge, CB3 0FD UK

Simone Teufel

Research is often described as a problem-solving activity, and as a result, descriptions of problems and solutions are an essential part of the scientific discourse used to describe research activity. We present an automatic classifier that, given a phrase that may or may not be a description of a scientific problem or a solution, makes a binary decision about problemhood and solutionhood of that phrase. We recast the problem as a supervised machine learning problem, define a set of 15 features correlated with the target categories and use several machine learning algorithms on this task. We also create our own corpus of 2000 positive and negative examples of problems and solutions. We find that we can distinguish problems from non-problems with an accuracy of 82.3%, and solutions from non-solutions with an accuracy of 79.7%. Our three most helpful features for the task are syntactic information (POS tags), document and word embeddings.

Introduction

Problem solving is generally regarded as the most important cognitive activity in everyday and professional contexts (Jonassen 2000 ). Many studies on formalising the cognitive process behind problem-solving exist, for instance (Chandrasekaran 1983 ). Jordan ( 1980 ) argues that we all share knowledge of the thought/action problem-solution process involved in real life, and so our writings will often reflect this order. There is general agreement amongst theorists that state that the nature of the research process can be viewed as a problem-solving activity (Strübing 2007 ; Van Dijk 1980 ; Hutchins 1977 ; Grimes 1975 ).

One of the best-documented problem-solving patterns was established by Winter ( 1968 ). Winter analysed thousands of examples of technical texts, and noted that these texts can largely be described in terms of a four-part pattern consisting of Situation, Problem, Solution and Evaluation. This is very similar to the pattern described by Van Dijk ( 1980 ), which consists of Introduction-Theory, Problem-Experiment-Comment and Conclusion. The difference is that in Winter’s view, a solution only becomes a solution after it has been evaluated positively. Hoey changes Winter’s pattern by introducing the concept of Response in place of Solution (Hoey 2001 ). This seems to describe the situation in science better, where evaluation is mandatory for research solutions to be accepted by the community. In Hoey’s pattern, the Situation (which is generally treated as optional) provides background information; the Problem describes an issue which requires attention; the Response provides a way to deal with the issue, and the Evaluation assesses how effective the response is.

An example of this pattern in the context of the Goldilocks story can be seen in Fig.  1 . In this text, there is a preamble providing the setting of the story (i.e. Goldilocks is lost in the woods), which is called the Situation in Hoey’s system. A Problem in encountered when Goldilocks becomes hungry. Her first Response is to try the porridge in big bear’s bowl, but she gives this a negative Evaluation (“too hot!”) and so the pattern returns to the Problem. This continues in a cyclic fashion until the Problem is finally resolved by Goldilocks giving a particular Response a positive Evaluation of baby bear’s porridge (“it’s just right”).

Example of problem-solving pattern when applied to the Goldilocks story.

Reproduced with permission from Hoey ( 2001 )

It would be attractive to detect problem and solution statements automatically in text. This holds true both from a theoretical and a practical viewpoint. Theoretically, we know that sentiment detection is related to problem-solving activity, because of the perception that “bad” situations are transformed into “better” ones via problem-solving. The exact mechanism of how this can be detected would advance the state of the art in text understanding. In terms of linguistic realisation, problem and solution statements come in many variants and reformulations, often in the form of positive or negated statements about the conditions, results and causes of problem–solution pairs. Detecting and interpreting those would give us a reasonably objective manner to test a system’s understanding capacity. Practically, being able to detect any mention of a problem is a first step towards detecting a paper’s specific research goal. Being able to do this has been a goal for scientific information retrieval for some time, and if successful, it would improve the effectiveness of scientific search immensely. Detecting problem and solution statements of papers would also enable us to compare similar papers and eventually even lead to automatic generation of review articles in a field.

There has been some computational effort on the task of identifying problem-solving patterns in text. However, most of the prior work has not gone beyond the usage of keyword analysis and some simple contextual examination of the pattern. Flowerdew ( 2008 ) presents a corpus-based analysis of lexio-grammatical patterns for problem and solution clauses using articles from professional and student reports. Problem and solution keywords were used to search their corpora, and each occurrence was analysed to determine grammatical usage of the keyword. More interestingly, the causal category associated with each keyword in their context was also analysed. For example, Reason–Result or Means-Purpose were common causal categories found to be associated with problem keywords.

The goal of the work by Scott ( 2001 ) was to determine words which are semantically similar to problem and solution, and to determine how these words are used to signal problem-solution patterns. However, their corpus-based analysis used articles from the Guardian newspaper. Since the domain of newspaper text is very different from that of scientific text, we decided not to consider those keywords associated with problem-solving patterns for use in our work.

Instead of a keyword-based approach, Charles ( 2011 ) used discourse markers to examine how the problem-solution pattern was signalled in text. In particular, they examined how adverbials associated with a result such as “thus, therefore, then, hence” are used to signal a problem-solving pattern.

Problem solving also has been studied in the framework of discourse theories such as Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson 1988 ) and Argumentative Zoning (Teufel et al. 2000 ). Problem- and solutionhood constitute two of the original 23 relations in RST (Mann and Thompson 1988 ). While we concentrate solely on this aspect, RST is a general theory of discourse structure which covers many intentional and informational relations. The relationship to Argumentative Zoning is more complicated. The status of certain statements as problem or solutions is one important dimension in the definitions of AZ categories. AZ additionally models dimensions other than problem-solution hood (such as who a scientific idea belongs to, or which intention the authors might have had in stating a particular negative or positive statement). When forming categories, AZ combines aspects of these dimensions, and “flattens” them out into only 7 categories. In AZ it is crucial who it is that experiences the problems or contributes a solution. For instance, the definition of category “CONTRAST” includes statements that some research runs into problems, but only if that research is previous work (i.e., not if it is the work contributed in the paper itself). Similarly, “BASIS” includes statements of successful problem-solving activities, but only if they are achieved by previous work that the current paper bases itself on. Our definition is simpler in that we are interested only in problem solution structure, not in the other dimensions covered in AZ. Our definition is also more far-reaching than AZ, in that we are interested in all problems mentioned in the text, no matter whose problems they are. Problem-solution recognition can therefore be seen as one aspect of AZ which can be independently modelled as a “service task”. This means that good problem solution structure recognition should theoretically improve AZ recognition.

In this work, we approach the task of identifying problem-solving patterns in scientific text. We choose to use the model of problem-solving described by Hoey ( 2001 ). This pattern comprises four parts: Situation, Problem, Response and Evaluation. The Situation element is considered optional to the pattern, and so our focus centres on the core pattern elements.

Goal statement and task

Many surface features in the text offer themselves up as potential signals for detecting problem-solving patterns in text. However, since Situation is an optional element, we decided to focus on either Problem or Response and Evaluation as signals of the pattern. Moreover, we decide to look for each type in isolation. Our reasons for this are as follows: It is quite rare for an author to introduce a problem without resolving it using some sort of response, and so this is a good starting point in identifying the pattern. There are exceptions to this, as authors will sometimes introduce a problem and then leave it to future work, but overall there should be enough signal in the Problem element to make our method of looking for it in isolation worthwhile. The second signal we look for is the use of Response and Evaluation within the same sentence. Similar to Problem elements, we hypothesise that this formulation is well enough signalled externally to help us in detecting the pattern. For example, consider the following Response and Evaluation: “One solution is to use smoothing”. In this statement, the author is explicitly stating that smoothing is a solution to a problem which must have been mentioned in a prior statement. In scientific text, we often observe that solutions implicitly contain both Response and Evaluation (positive) elements. Therefore, due to these reasons there should be sufficient external signals for the two pattern elements we concentrate on here.

When attempting to find Problem elements in text, we run into the issue that the word “problem” actually has at least two word senses that need to be distinguished. There is a word sense of “problem” that means something which must be undertaken (i.e. task), while another sense is the core sense of the word, something that is problematic and negative. Only the latter sense is aligned with our sense of problemhood. This is because the simple description of a task does not predispose problemhood, just a wish to perform some act. Consider the following examples, where the non-desired word sense is being used:

• “Das and Petrov (2011) also consider the problem of unsupervised bilingual POS induction”. (Chen et al. 2011 ).
• “In this paper, we describe advances on the problem of NER in Arabic Wikipedia”. (Mohit et al. 2012 ).

Here, the author explicitly states that the phrases in orange are problems, they align with our definition of research tasks and not with what we call here ‘problematic problems’. We will now give some examples from our corpus for the desired, core word sense:

• “The major limitation of supervised approaches is that they require annotations for example sentences.” (Poon and Domingos 2009 ).
• “To solve the problem of high dimensionality we use clustering to group the words present in the corpus into much smaller number of clusters”. (Saha et al. 2008 ).

When creating our corpus of positive and negative examples, we took care to select only problem strings that satisfy our definition of problemhood; “ Corpus creation ” section will explain how we did that.

Corpus creation

Our new corpus is a subset of the latest version of the ACL anthology released in March, 2016 1 which contains 22,878 articles in the form of PDFs and OCRed text. 2

The 2016 version was also parsed using ParsCit (Councill et al. 2008 ). ParsCit recognises not only document structure, but also bibliography lists as well as references within running text. A random subset of 2500 papers was collected covering the entire ACL timeline. In order to disregard non-article publications such as introductions to conference proceedings or letters to the editor, only documents containing abstracts were considered. The corpus was preprocessed using tokenisation, lemmatisation and dependency parsing with the Rasp Parser (Briscoe et al. 2006 ).

Definition of ground truth

Our goal was to define a ground truth for problem and solution strings, while covering as wide a range as possible of syntactic variations in which such strings naturally occur. We also want this ground truth to cover phenomena of problem and solution status which are applicable whether or not the problem or solution status is explicitly mentioned in the text.

To simplify the task, we only consider here problem and solution descriptions that are at most one sentence long. In reality, of course, many problem descriptions and solution descriptions go beyond single sentence, and require for instance an entire paragraph. However, we also know that short summaries of problems and solutions are very prevalent in science, and also that these tend to occur in the most prominent places in a paper. This is because scientists are trained to express their contribution and the obstacles possibly hindering their success, in an informative, succinct manner. That is the reason why we can afford to only look for shorter problem and solution descriptions, ignoring those that cross sentence boundaries.

To define our ground truth, we examined the parsed dependencies and looked for a target word (“problem/solution”) in subject position, and then chose its syntactic argument as our candidate problem or solution phrase. To increase the variation, i.e., to find as many different-worded problem and solution descriptions as possible, we additionally used semantically similar words (near-synonyms) of the target words “problem” or “solution” for the search. Semantic similarity was defined as cosine in a deep learning distributional vector space, trained using Word2Vec (Mikolov et al. 2013 ) on 18,753,472 sentences from a biomedical corpus based on all full-text Pubmed articles (McKeown et al. 2016 ). From the 200 words which were semantically closest to “problem”, we manually selected 28 clear synonyms. These are listed in Table  1 . From the 200 semantically closest words to “solution” we similarly chose 19 (Table  2 ). Of the sentences matching our dependency search, a subset of problem and solution candidate sentences were randomly selected.

Selected words for use in problem candidate phrase extraction

Selected words for use in solution candidate phrase extraction

An example of this is shown in Fig.  2 . Here, the target word “drawback” is in subject position (highlighted in red), and its clausal argument (ccomp) is “(that) it achieves low performance” (highlighted in purple). Examples of other arguments we searched for included copula constructions and direct/indirect objects.

Example of our extraction method for problems using dependencies. (Color figure online)

If more than one candidate was found in a sentence, one was chosen at random. Non-grammatical sentences were excluded; these might appear in the corpus as a result of its source being OCRed text.

800 candidates phrases expressing problems and solutions were automatically extracted (1600 total) and then independently checked for correctness by two annotators (the two authors of this paper). Both authors found the task simple and straightforward. Correctness was defined by two criteria:

• An unexplained phenomenon or a problematic state in science; or
• A research question; or
• An artifact that does not fulfil its stated specification.
• The phrase must not lexically give away its status as problem or solution phrase.

The second criterion saves us from machine learning cues that are too obvious. If for instance, the phrase itself contained the words “lack of” or “problematic” or “drawback”, our manual check rejected it, because it would be too easy for the machine learner to learn such cues, at the expense of many other, more generally occurring cues.

Sampling of negative examples

We next needed to find negative examples for both cases. We wanted them not to stand out on the surface as negative examples, so we chose them so as to mimic the obvious characteristics of the positive examples as closely as possible. We call the negative examples ‘non-problems’ and ‘non-solutions’ respectively. We wanted the only differences between problems and non-problems to be of a semantic nature, nothing that could be read off on the surface. We therefore sampled a population of phrases that obey the same statistical distribution as our problem and solution strings while making sure they really are negative examples. We started from sentences not containing any problem/solution words (i.e. those used as target words). From each such sentence, we at random selected one syntactic subtree contained in it. From these, we randomly selected a subset of negative examples of problems and solutions that satisfy the following conditions:

• The distribution of the head POS tags of the negative strings should perfectly match the head POS tags 3 of the positive strings. This has the purpose of achieving the same proportion of surface syntactic constructions as observed in the positive cases.
• The average lengths of the negative strings must be within a tolerance of the average length of their respective positive candidates e.g., non-solutions must have an average length very similar (i.e. + / -  small tolerance) to solutions. We chose a tolerance value of 3 characters.

Again, a human quality check was performed on non-problems and non-solutions. For each candidate non-problem statement, the candidate was accepted if it did not contain a phenomenon, a problematic state, a research question or a non-functioning artefact. If the string expressed a research task, without explicit statement that there was anything problematic about it (i.e., the ‘wrong’ sense of “problem”, as described above), it was allowed as a non-problem. A clause was confirmed as a non-solution if the string did not represent both a response and positive evaluation.

If the annotator found that the sentence had been slightly mis-parsed, but did contain a candidate, they were allowed to move the boundaries for the candidate clause. This resulted in cleaner text, e.g., in the frequent case of coordination, when non-relevant constituents could be removed.

From the set of sentences which passed the quality-test for both independent assessors, 500 instances of positive and negative problems/solutions were randomly chosen (i.e. 2000 instances in total). When checking for correctness we found that most of the automatically extracted phrases which did not pass the quality test for problem-/solution-hood were either due to obvious learning cues or instances where the sense of problem-hood used is relating to tasks (cf. “ Goal statement and task ” section).

Experimental design

In our experiments, we used three classifiers, namely Naïve Bayes, Logistic Regression and a Support Vector Machine. For all classifiers an implementation from the WEKA machine learning library (Hall et al. 2009 ) was chosen. Given that our dataset is small, tenfold cross-validation was used instead of a held out test set. All significance tests were conducted using the (two-tailed) Sign Test (Siegel 1956 ).

Linguistic correlates of problem- and solution-hood

We first define a set of features without taking the phrase’s context into account. This will tell us about the disambiguation ability of the problem/solution description’s semantics alone. In particular, we cut out the rest of the sentence other than the phrase and never use it for classification. This is done for similar reasons to excluding certain ‘give-away’ phrases inside the phrases themselves (as explained above). As the phrases were found using templates, we know that the machine learner would simply pick up on the semantics of the template, which always contains a synonym of “problem” or “solution”, thus drowning out the more hidden features hopefully inherent in the semantics of the phrases themselves. If we allowed the machine learner to use these stronger features, it would suffer in its ability to generalise to the real task.

ngrams Bags of words are traditionally successfully used for classification tasks in NLP, so we included bags of words (lemmas) within the candidate phrases as one of our features (and treat it as a baseline later on). We also include bigrams and trigrams as multi-word combinations can be indicative of problems and solutions e.g., “combinatorial explosion”.

Polarity Our second feature concerns the polarity of each word in the candidate strings. Consider the following example of a problem taken from our dataset: “very conservative approaches to exact and partial string matches overgenerate badly”. In this sentence, words such as “badly” will be associated with negative polarity, therefore being useful in determining problem-hood. Similarly, solutions will often be associated with a positive sentiment e.g. “smoothing is a good way to overcome data sparsity” . To do this, we perform word sense disambiguation of each word using the Lesk algorithm (Lesk 1986 ). The polarity of the resulting synset in SentiWordNet (Baccianella et al. 2010 ) was then looked up and used as a feature.

Syntax Next, a set of syntactic features were defined by using the presence of POS tags in each candidate. This feature could be helpful in finding syntactic patterns in problems and solutions. We were careful not to base the model directly on the head POS tag and the length of each candidate phrase, as these are defining characteristics used for determining the non-problem and non-solution candidate set.

Negation Negation is an important property that can often greatly affect the polarity of a phrase. For example, a phrase containing a keyword pertinent to solution-hood may be a good indicator but with the presence of negation may flip the polarity to problem-hood e.g., “this can’t work as a solution”. Therefore, presence of negation is determined.

Exemplification and contrast Problems and solutions are often found to be coupled with examples as they allow the author to elucidate their point. For instance, consider the following solution: “Once the translations are generated, an obvious solution is to pick the most fluent alternative, e.g., using an n-gram language model”. (Madnani et al. 2012 ). To acknowledge this, we check for presence of exemplification. In addition to examples, problems in particular are often found when contrast is signalled by the author (e.g. “however, “but”), therefore we also check for presence of contrast in the problem and non-problem candidates only.

Discourse Problems and solutions have also been found to have a correlation with discourse properties. For example, problem-solving patterns often occur in the background sections of a paper. The rationale behind this is that the author is conventionally asked to objectively criticise other work in the background (e.g. describing research gaps which motivate the current paper). To take this in account, we examine the context of each string and capture the section header under which it is contained (e.g. Introduction, Future work). In addition, problems and solutions are often found following the Situation element in the problem-solving pattern (cf. “ Introduction ” section). This preamble setting up the problem or solution means that these elements are likely not to be found occurring at the beginning of a section (i.e. it will usually take some sort of introduction to detail how something is problematic and why a solution is needed). Therefore we record the distance from the candidate string to the nearest section header.

Subcategorisation and adverbials Solutions often involve an activity (e.g. a task). We also model the subcategorisation properties of the verbs involved. Our intuition was that since problematic situations are often described as non-actions, then these are more likely to be intransitive. Conversely solutions are often actions and are likely to have at least one argument. This feature was calculated by running the C&C parser (Curran et al. 2007 ) on each sentence. C&C is a supertagger and parser that has access to subcategorisation information. Solutions are also associated with resultative adverbial modification (e.g. “thus, therefore, consequently”) as it expresses the solutionhood relation between the problem and the solution. It has been seen to occur frequently in problem-solving patterns, as studied by Charles ( 2011 ). Therefore, we check for presence of resultative adverbial modification in the solution and non-solution candidate only.

Embeddings We also wanted to add more information using word embeddings. This was done in two different ways. Firstly, we created a Doc2Vec model (Le and Mikolov 2014 ), which was trained on  ∼  19  million sentences from scientific text (no overlap with our data set). An embedding was created for each candidate sentence. Secondly, word embeddings were calculated using the Word2Vec model (cf. “ Corpus creation ” section). For each candidate head, the full word embedding was included as a feature. Lastly, when creating our polarity feature we query SentiWordNet using synsets assigned by the Lesk algorithm. However, not all words are assigned a sense by Lesk, so we need to take care when that happens. In those cases, the distributional semantic similarity of the word is compared to two words with a known polarity, namely “poor” and “excellent”. These particular words have traditionally been consistently good indicators of polarity status in many studies (Turney 2002 ; Mullen and Collier 2004 ). Semantic similarity was defined as cosine similarity on the embeddings of the Word2Vec model (cf. “ Corpus creation ” section).

Modality Responses to problems in scientific writing often express possibility and necessity, and so have a close connection with modality. Modality can be broken into three main categories, as described by Kratzer ( 1991 ), namely epistemic (possibility), deontic (permission / request / wish) and dynamic (expressing ability).

Problems have a strong relationship to modality within scientific writing. Often, this is due to a tactic called “hedging” (Medlock and Briscoe 2007 ) where the author uses speculative language, often using Epistemic modality, in an attempt to make either noncommital or vague statements. This has the effect of allowing the author to distance themselves from the statement, and is often employed when discussing negative or problematic topics. Consider the following example of Epistemic modality from Nakov and Hearst ( 2008 ): “A potential drawback is that it might not work well for low-frequency words”.

To take this linguistic correlate into account as a feature, we replicated a modality classifier as described by (Ruppenhofer and Rehbein 2012 ). More sophisticated modality classifiers have been recently introduced, for instance using a wide range of features and convolutional neural networks, e.g, (Zhou et al. 2015 ; Marasović and Frank 2016 ). However, we wanted to check the effect of a simpler method of modality classification on the final outcome first before investing heavily into their implementation. We trained three classifiers using the subset of features which Ruppenhofer et al. reported as performing best, and evaluated them on the gold standard dataset provided by the authors 4 . The results of the are shown in Table  3 . The dataset contains annotations of English modal verbs on the 535 documents of the first MPQA corpus release (Wiebe et al. 2005 ).

Modality classifier results (precision/recall/f-measure) using Naïve Bayes (NB), logistic regression, and a support vector machine (SVM)

Italicized results reflect highest f-measure reported per modal category

Logistic Regression performed best overall and so this model was chosen for our upcoming experiments. With regards to the optative and concessive modal categories, they can be seen to perform extremely poorly, with the optative category receiving a null score across all three classifiers. This is due to a limitation in the dataset, which is unbalanced and contains very few instances of these two categories. This unbalanced data also is the reason behind our decision of reporting results in terms of recall, precision and f-measure in Table  3 .

The modality classifier was then retrained on the entirety of the dataset used by Ruppenhofer and Rehbein ( 2012 ) using the best performing model from training (Logistic Regression). This new model was then used in the upcoming experiment to predict modality labels for each instance in our dataset.

As can be seen from Table  4 , we are able to achieve good results for distinguishing a problematic statement from non-problematic one. The bag-of-words baseline achieves a very good performance of 71.0% for the Logistic Regression classifier, showing that there is enough signal in the candidate phrases alone to distinguish them much better than random chance.

Results distinguishing problems from non-problems using Naïve Bayes (NB), logistic regression (LR) and a support vector machine (SVM)

Each feature set’s performance is shown in isolation followed by combinations with other features. Tenfold stratified cross-validation was used across all experiments. Statistical significance with respect to the baseline at the p  < 0.05 , 0.01, 0.001 levels is denoted by *, ** and *** respectively

Taking a look at Table  5 , which shows the information gain for the top lemmas,

Information gain (IG) in bits of top lemmas from the bag-of-words baseline in Table  4

we can see that the top lemmas are indeed indicative of problemhood (e.g. “limit”,“explosion”). Bigrams achieved good performance on their own (as did negation and discourse) but unfortunately performance deteriorated when using trigrams, particularly with the SVM and LR. The subcategorisation feature was the worst performing feature in isolation. Upon taking a closer look at our data, we saw that our hypothesis that intransitive verbs are commonly used in problematic statements was true, with over 30% of our problems (153) using them. However, due to our sampling method for the negative cases we also picked up many intransitive verbs (163). This explains the almost random chance performance (i.e.  50%) given that the distribution of intransitive verbs amongst the positive and negative candidates was almost even.

The modality feature was the most expensive to produce, but also didn’t perform very well is isolation. This surprising result may be partly due to a data sparsity issue

where only a small portion (169) of our instances contained modal verbs. The breakdown of how many types of modal senses which occurred is displayed in Table  6 . The most dominant modal sense was epistemic. This is a good indicator of problemhood (e.g. hedging, cf. “ Linguistic correlates of problem- and solution-hood ” section) but if the accumulation of additional data was possible, we think that this feature may have the potential to be much more valuable in determining problemhood. Another reason for the performance may be domain dependence of the classifier since it was trained on text from different domains (e.g. news). Additionally, modality has also shown to be helpful in determining contextual polarity (Wilson et al. 2005 ) and argumentation (Becker et al. 2016 ), so using the output from this modality classifier may also prove useful for further feature engineering taking this into account in future work.

Number of instances of modal senses

Polarity managed to perform well but not as good as we hoped. However, this feature also suffers from a sparsity issue resulting from cases where the Lesk algorithm (Lesk 1986 ) is not able to resolve the synset of the syntactic head.

Knowledge of syntax provides a big improvement with a significant increase over the baseline results from two of the classifiers.

Examining this in greater detail, POS tags with high information gain mostly included tags from open classes (i.e. VB-, JJ-, NN- and RB-). These tags are often more associated with determining polarity status than tags such as prepositions and conjunctions (i.e. adverbs and adjectives are more likely to be describing something with a non-neutral viewpoint).

The embeddings from Doc2Vec allowed us to obtain another significant increase in performance (72.9% with Naïve Bayes) over the baseline and polarity using Word2Vec provided the best individual feature result (77.2% with SVM).

Combining all features together, each classifier managed to achieve a significant result over the baseline with the best result coming from the SVM (81.8%). Problems were also better classified than non-problems as shown in the confusion matrix in Table  7 . The addition of the Word2Vec vectors may be seen as a form of smoothing in cases where previous linguistic features had a sparsity issue i.e., instead of a NULL entry, the embeddings provide some sort of value for each candidate. Particularly wrt. the polarity feature, cases where Lesk was unable to resolve a synset meant that a ZERO entry was added to the vector supplied to the machine learner. Amongst the possible combinations, the best subset of features was found by combining all features with the exception of bigrams, trigrams, subcategorisation and modality. This subset of features managed to improve results in both the Naïve Bayes and SVM classifiers with the highest overall result coming from the SVM (82.3%).

Confusion matrix for problems

The results for disambiguation of solutions from non-solutions can be seen in Table  8 . The bag-of-words baseline performs much better than random, with the performance being quite high with regard to the SVM (this result was also higher than any of the baseline performances from the problem classifiers). As shown in Table  9 , the top ranked lemmas from the best performing model (using information gain) included “use” and “method”. These lemmas are very indicative of solutionhood and so give some insight into the high baseline returned from the machine learners. Subcategorisation and the result adverbials were the two worst performing features. However, the low performance for subcategorisation is due to the sampling of the non-solutions (the same reason for the low performance of the problem transitivity feature). When fitting the POS-tag distribution for the negative samples, we noticed that over 80% of the head POS-tags were verbs (much higher than the problem heads). The most frequent verb type being the infinite form.

Results distinguishing solutions from non-solutions using Naïve Bayes (NB), logistic regression (LR) and a support vector machine (SVM)

Each feature set’s performance is shown in isolation followed by combinations with other features. Tenfold stratified cross-validation was used across all experiments

Information gain (IG) in bits of top lemmas from the bag-of-words baseline in Table  8

This is not surprising given that a very common formulation to describe a solution is to use the infinitive “TO” since it often describes a task e.g., “One solution is to find the singletons and remove them”. Therefore, since the head POS tags of the non-solutions had to match this high distribution of infinitive verbs present in the solution, the subcategorisation feature is not particularly discriminatory. Polarity, negation, exemplification and syntactic features were slightly more discriminate and provided comparable results. However, similar to the problem experiment, the embeddings from Word2Vec and Doc2Vec proved to be the best features, with polarity using Word2Vec providing the best individual result (73.4% with SVM).

Combining all features together managed to improve over each feature in isolation and beat the baseline using all three classifiers. Furthermore, when looking at the confusion matrix in Table  10 the solutions were classified more accurately than the non-solutions. The best subset of features was found by combining all features without adverbial of result, bigrams, exemplification, negation, polarity and subcategorisation. The best result using this subset of features was achieved by the SVM with 79.7%. It managed to greatly improve upon the baseline but was just shy of achieving statistical significance ( p = 0.057 ).

Confusion matrix for solutions

In this work, we have presented new supervised classifiers for the task of identifying problem and solution statements in scientific text. We have also introduced a new corpus for this task and used it for evaluating our classifiers. Great care was taken in constructing the corpus by ensuring that the negative and positive samples were closely matched in terms of syntactic shape. If we had simply selected random subtrees for negative samples without regard for any syntactic similarity with our positive samples, the machine learner may have found easy signals such as sentence length. Additionally, since we did not allow the machine learner to see the surroundings of the candidate string within the sentence, this made our task even harder. Our performance on the corpus shows promise for this task, and proves that there are strong signals for determining both the problem and solution parts of the problem-solving pattern independently.

With regard to classifying problems from non-problems, features such as the POS tag, document and word embeddings provide the best features, with polarity using the Word2Vec embeddings achieving the highest feature performance. The best overall result was achieved using an SVM with a subset of features (82.3%). Classifying solutions from non-solutions also performs well using the embedding features, with the best feature also being polarity using the Word2Vec embeddings, and the highest result also coming from the SVM with a feature subset (79.7%).

In future work, we plan to link problem and solution statements which were found independently during our corpus creation. Given that our classifiers were trained on data solely from the ACL anthology, we also hope to investigate the domain specificity of our classifiers and see how well they can generalise to domains other than ACL (e.g. bioinformatics). Since we took great care at removing the knowledge our classifiers have of the explicit statements of problem and solution (i.e. the classifiers were trained only on the syntactic argument of the explicit statement of problem-/solution-hood), our classifiers should in principle be in a good position to generalise, i.e., find implicit statements too. In future work, we will measure to which degree this is the case.

To facilitate further research on this topic, all code and data used in our experiments can be found here: www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~kh562/identifying-problems-and-solutions.html

Acknowledgements

The first author has been supported by an EPSRC studentship (Award Ref: 1641528). We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments.

1 http://acl-arc.comp.nus.edu.sg/ .

2 The corpus comprises 3,391,198 sentences, 71,149,169 words and 451,996,332 characters.

3 The head POS tags were found using a modification of the Collins’ Head Finder. This modified algorithm addresses some of the limitations of the head finding heuristics described by Collins ( 2003 ) and can be found here: http://nlp.stanford.edu/nlp/javadoc/javanlp/edu/stanford/nlp/trees/ModCollinsHeadFinder.html .

4 https://www.uni-hildesheim.de/ruppenhofer/data/modalia_release1.0.tgz.

Contributor Information

Kevin Heffernan, Email: [email protected] .

Simone Teufel, Email: [email protected] .

• Baccianella S, Esuli A, Sebastiani F. Sentiwordnet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. LREC. 2010; 10 :2200–2204. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker, M., Palmer, A., & Frank, A. (2016). Clause types and modality in argumentative microtexts. In Workshop on foundations of the language of argumentation (in conjunction with COMMA) .
• Briscoe, T., Carroll, J., & Watson, R. (2006). The second release of the rasp system. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on interactive presentation sessions, association for computational linguistics pp. 77–80.
• Chandrasekaran B. Towards a taxonomy of problem solving types. AI Magazine. 1983; 4 (1):9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles M. Adverbials of result: Phraseology and functions in the problem-solution pattern. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2011; 10 (1):47–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.01.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, D., Dyer, C., Cohen, S. B., & Smith, N. A. (2011). Unsupervised bilingual pos tagging with markov random fields. In Proceedings of the first workshop on unsupervised learning in NLP, association for computational linguistics pp. 64–71.
• Collins M. Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Computational Linguistics. 2003; 29 (4):589–637. doi: 10.1162/089120103322753356. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Councill, I. G., Giles, C. L., & Kan, M. Y. (2008). Parscit: An open-source CRF reference string parsing package. In LREC .
• Curran, J. R., Clark, S., & Bos, J. (2007). Linguistically motivated large-scale NLP with C&C and boxer. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the ACL on interactive poster and demonstration sessions, association for computational linguistics pp. 33–36.
• Flowerdew L. Corpus-based analyses of the problem-solution pattern: A phraseological approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimes JE. The thread of discourse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH. The weka data mining software: An update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter. 2009; 11 (1):10–18. doi: 10.1145/1656274.1656278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoey M. Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. Portland: Psychology Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchins J. On the structure of scientific texts. UEA Papers in Linguistics. 1977; 5 (3):18–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jonassen DH. Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2000; 48 (4):63–85. doi: 10.1007/BF02300500. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jordan MP. Short texts to explain problem-solution structures-and vice versa. Instructional Science. 1980; 9 (3):221–252. doi: 10.1007/BF00177328. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In von Stechow & Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research .
• Le QV, Mikolov T. Distributed representations of sentences and documents. ICML. 2014; 14 :1188–1196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesk, M. (1986). Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readable dictionaries: How to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone. In Proceedings of the 5th annual international conference on Systems documentation, ACM (pp. 24–26).
• Madnani, N., Tetreault, J., & Chodorow, M. (2012). Exploring grammatical error correction with not-so-crummy machine translation. In Proceedings of the seventh workshop on building educational applications using NLP, association for computational linguistics pp. 44–53.
• Mann WC, Thompson SA. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 1988; 8 (3):243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marasović, A., & Frank, A. (2016). Multilingual modal sense classification using a convolutional neural network. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP .
• McKeown K, Daume H, Chaturvedi S, Paparrizos J, Thadani K, Barrio P, Biran O, Bothe S, Collins M, Fleischmann KR, et al. Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016; 67 :2684–2696. doi: 10.1002/asi.23612. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Medlock B, Briscoe T. Weakly supervised learning for hedge classification in scientific literature. ACL, Citeseer. 2007; 2007 :992–999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 3111–3119).
• Mohit, B., Schneider, N., Bhowmick, R., Oflazer, K., & Smith, N. A. (2012). Recall-oriented learning of named entities in arabic wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 13th conference of the European chapter of the association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics (pp. 162–173).
• Mullen T, Collier N. Sentiment analysis using support vector machines with diverse information sources. EMNLP. 2004; 4 :412–418. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakov, P., Hearst, M. A. (2008). Solving relational similarity problems using the web as a corpus. In: ACL (pp. 452–460).
• Poon, H., & Domingos, P. (2009). Unsupervised semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the 2009 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: Volume 1-association for computational linguistics (pp. 1–10).
• Ruppenhofer, J., & Rehbein, I. (2012). Yes we can!? Annotating the senses of English modal verbs. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC), Citeseer (pp. 24–26).
• Saha, S. K., Mitra, P., & Sarkar, S. (2008). Word clustering and word selection based feature reduction for maxent based hindi ner. In ACL (pp. 488–495).
• Scott, M. (2001). Mapping key words to problem and solution. In Patterns of text: In honour of Michael Hoey Benjamins, Amsterdam (pp. 109–127).
• Siegel S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-hill; 1956. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing. In The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 580–602).
• Teufel, S., et al. (2000). Argumentative zoning: Information extraction from scientific text. PhD Thesis, Citeseer .
• Turney, P. D. (2002). Thumbs up or thumbs down?: Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, association for computational linguistics (pp. 417–424).
• Van Dijk TA. Text and context explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiebe J, Wilson T, Cardie C. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation. 2005; 39 (2):165–210. doi: 10.1007/s10579-005-7880-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing, association for computational linguistics (pp. 347–354).
• Winter, E. O. (1968). Some aspects of cohesion. In Sentence and clause in scientific English . University College London.
• Zhou, M., Frank, A., Friedrich, A., & Palmer, A. (2015). Semantically enriched models for modal sense classification. In Workshop on linking models of lexical, sentential and discourse-level semantics (LSDSem) (p. 44).

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 4 min read

The Problem-Solving Process

Looking at the basic problem-solving process to help keep you on the right track.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Problem-solving is an important part of planning and decision-making. The process has much in common with the decision-making process, and in the case of complex decisions, can form part of the process itself.

We face and solve problems every day, in a variety of guises and of differing complexity. Some, such as the resolution of a serious complaint, require a significant amount of time, thought and investigation. Others, such as a printer running out of paper, are so quickly resolved they barely register as a problem at all.

Despite the everyday occurrence of problems, many people lack confidence when it comes to solving them, and as a result may chose to stay with the status quo rather than tackle the issue. Broken down into steps, however, the problem-solving process is very simple. While there are many tools and techniques available to help us solve problems, the outline process remains the same.

The main stages of problem-solving are outlined below, though not all are required for every problem that needs to be solved.

1. Define the Problem

Clarify the problem before trying to solve it. A common mistake with problem-solving is to react to what the problem appears to be, rather than what it actually is. Write down a simple statement of the problem, and then underline the key words. Be certain there are no hidden assumptions in the key words you have underlined. One way of doing this is to use a synonym to replace the key words. For example, ‘We need to encourage higher productivity ’ might become ‘We need to promote superior output ’ which has a different meaning.

2. Analyze the Problem

Ask yourself, and others, the following questions.

• Where is the problem occurring?
• When is it occurring?
• Why is it happening?

Be careful not to jump to ‘who is causing the problem?’. When stressed and faced with a problem it is all too easy to assign blame. This, however, can cause negative feeling and does not help to solve the problem. As an example, if an employee is underperforming, the root of the problem might lie in a number of areas, such as lack of training, workplace bullying or management style. To assign immediate blame to the employee would not therefore resolve the underlying issue.

Once the answers to the where, when and why have been determined, the following questions should also be asked:

• Where can further information be found?
• Is this information correct, up-to-date and unbiased?
• What does this information mean in terms of the available options?

3. Generate Potential Solutions

When generating potential solutions it can be a good idea to have a mixture of ‘right brain’ and ‘left brain’ thinkers. In other words, some people who think laterally and some who think logically. This provides a balance in terms of generating the widest possible variety of solutions while also being realistic about what can be achieved. There are many tools and techniques which can help produce solutions, including thinking about the problem from a number of different perspectives, and brainstorming, where a team or individual write as many possibilities as they can think of to encourage lateral thinking and generate a broad range of potential solutions.

4. Select Best Solution

When selecting the best solution, consider:

• Is this a long-term solution, or a ‘quick fix’?
• Is the solution achievable in terms of available resources and time?
• Are there any risks associated with the chosen solution?
• Could the solution, in itself, lead to other problems?

This stage in particular demonstrates why problem-solving and decision-making are so closely related.

5. Take Action

In order to implement the chosen solution effectively, consider the following:

• What will the situation look like when the problem is resolved?
• What needs to be done to implement the solution? Are there systems or processes that need to be adjusted?
• What will be the success indicators?
• What are the timescales for the implementation? Does the scale of the problem/implementation require a project plan?
• Who is responsible?

Once the answers to all the above questions are written down, they can form the basis of an action plan.

6. Monitor and Review

One of the most important factors in successful problem-solving is continual observation and feedback. Use the success indicators in the action plan to monitor progress on a regular basis. Is everything as expected? Is everything on schedule? Keep an eye on priorities and timelines to prevent them from slipping.

If the indicators are not being met, or if timescales are slipping, consider what can be done. Was the plan realistic? If so, are sufficient resources being made available? Are these resources targeting the correct part of the plan? Or does the plan need to be amended? Regular review and discussion of the action plan is important so small adjustments can be made on a regular basis to help keep everything on track.

Once all the indicators have been met and the problem has been resolved, consider what steps can now be taken to prevent this type of problem recurring? It may be that the chosen solution already prevents a recurrence, however if an interim or partial solution has been chosen it is important not to lose momentum.

Problems, by their very nature, will not always fit neatly into a structured problem-solving process. This process, therefore, is designed as a framework which can be adapted to individual needs and nature.

Join Mind Tools and get access to exclusive content.

This resource is only available to Mind Tools members.

Already a member? Please Login here

Team Management

Learn the key aspects of managing a team, from building and developing your team, to working with different types of teams, and troubleshooting common problems.

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

SWOT Analysis

SMART Goals

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

How to stop procrastinating.

Overcoming the Habit of Delaying Important Tasks

What Is Time Management?

Working Smarter to Enhance Productivity

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Energizing yourself infographic.

Infographic Transcript

Infographic

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

48 Problem Solving

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara

• Published: 03 June 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Problem solving refers to cognitive processing directed at achieving a goal when the problem solver does not initially know a solution method. A problem exists when someone has a goal but does not know how to achieve it. Problems can be classified as routine or nonroutine, and as well defined or ill defined. The major cognitive processes in problem solving are representing, planning, executing, and monitoring. The major kinds of knowledge required for problem solving are facts, concepts, procedures, strategies, and beliefs. Classic theoretical approaches to the study of problem solving are associationism, Gestalt, and information processing. Current issues and suggested future issues include decision making, intelligence and creativity, teaching of thinking skills, expert problem solving, analogical reasoning, mathematical and scientific thinking, everyday thinking, and the cognitive neuroscience of problem solving. Common themes concern the domain specificity of problem solving and a focus on problem solving in authentic contexts.

The study of problem solving begins with defining problem solving, problem, and problem types. This introduction to problem solving is rounded out with an examination of cognitive processes in problem solving, the role of knowledge in problem solving, and historical approaches to the study of problem solving.

Definition of Problem Solving

Problem solving refers to cognitive processing directed at achieving a goal for which the problem solver does not initially know a solution method. This definition consists of four major elements (Mayer, 1992 ; Mayer & Wittrock, 2006 ):

Cognitive —Problem solving occurs within the problem solver’s cognitive system and can only be inferred indirectly from the problem solver’s behavior (including biological changes, introspections, and actions during problem solving). Process —Problem solving involves mental computations in which some operation is applied to a mental representation, sometimes resulting in the creation of a new mental representation. Directed —Problem solving is aimed at achieving a goal. Personal —Problem solving depends on the existing knowledge of the problem solver so that what is a problem for one problem solver may not be a problem for someone who already knows a solution method.

The definition is broad enough to include a wide array of cognitive activities such as deciding which apartment to rent, figuring out how to use a cell phone interface, playing a game of chess, making a medical diagnosis, finding the answer to an arithmetic word problem, or writing a chapter for a handbook. Problem solving is pervasive in human life and is crucial for human survival. Although this chapter focuses on problem solving in humans, problem solving also occurs in nonhuman animals and in intelligent machines.

How is problem solving related to other forms of high-level cognition processing, such as thinking and reasoning? Thinking refers to cognitive processing in individuals but includes both directed thinking (which corresponds to the definition of problem solving) and undirected thinking such as daydreaming (which does not correspond to the definition of problem solving). Thus, problem solving is a type of thinking (i.e., directed thinking).

Reasoning refers to problem solving within specific classes of problems, such as deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, the reasoner is given premises and must derive a conclusion by applying the rules of logic. For example, given that “A is greater than B” and “B is greater than C,” a reasoner can conclude that “A is greater than C.” In inductive reasoning, the reasoner is given (or has experienced) a collection of examples or instances and must infer a rule. For example, given that X, C, and V are in the “yes” group and x, c, and v are in the “no” group, the reasoning may conclude that B is in “yes” group because it is in uppercase format. Thus, reasoning is a type of problem solving.

Definition of Problem

A problem occurs when someone has a goal but does not know to achieve it. This definition is consistent with how the Gestalt psychologist Karl Duncker ( 1945 , p. 1) defined a problem in his classic monograph, On Problem Solving : “A problem arises when a living creature has a goal but does not know how this goal is to be reached.” However, today researchers recognize that the definition should be extended to include problem solving by intelligent machines. This definition can be clarified using an information processing approach by noting that a problem occurs when a situation is in the given state, the problem solver wants the situation to be in the goal state, and there is no obvious way to move from the given state to the goal state (Newell & Simon, 1972 ). Accordingly, the three main elements in describing a problem are the given state (i.e., the current state of the situation), the goal state (i.e., the desired state of the situation), and the set of allowable operators (i.e., the actions the problem solver is allowed to take). The definition of “problem” is broad enough to include the situation confronting a physician who wishes to make a diagnosis on the basis of preliminary tests and a patient examination, as well as a beginning physics student trying to solve a complex physics problem.

Types of Problems

It is customary in the problem-solving literature to make a distinction between routine and nonroutine problems. Routine problems are problems that are so familiar to the problem solver that the problem solver knows a solution method. For example, for most adults, “What is 365 divided by 12?” is a routine problem because they already know the procedure for long division. Nonroutine problems are so unfamiliar to the problem solver that the problem solver does not know a solution method. For example, figuring out the best way to set up a funding campaign for a nonprofit charity is a nonroutine problem for most volunteers. Technically, routine problems do not meet the definition of problem because the problem solver has a goal but knows how to achieve it. Much research on problem solving has focused on routine problems, although most interesting problems in life are nonroutine.

Another customary distinction is between well-defined and ill-defined problems. Well-defined problems have a clearly specified given state, goal state, and legal operators. Examples include arithmetic computation problems or games such as checkers or tic-tac-toe. Ill-defined problems have a poorly specified given state, goal state, or legal operators, or a combination of poorly defined features. Examples include solving the problem of global warming or finding a life partner. Although, ill-defined problems are more challenging, much research in problem solving has focused on well-defined problems.

Cognitive Processes in Problem Solving

The process of problem solving can be broken down into two main phases: problem representation , in which the problem solver builds a mental representation of the problem situation, and problem solution , in which the problem solver works to produce a solution. The major subprocess in problem representation is representing , which involves building a situation model —that is, a mental representation of the situation described in the problem. The major subprocesses in problem solution are planning , which involves devising a plan for how to solve the problem; executing , which involves carrying out the plan; and monitoring , which involves evaluating and adjusting one’s problem solving.

For example, given an arithmetic word problem such as “Alice has three marbles. Sarah has two more marbles than Alice. How many marbles does Sarah have?” the process of representing involves building a situation model in which Alice has a set of marbles, there is set of marbles for the difference between the two girls, and Sarah has a set of marbles that consists of Alice’s marbles and the difference set. In the planning process, the problem solver sets a goal of adding 3 and 2. In the executing process, the problem solver carries out the computation, yielding an answer of 5. In the monitoring process, the problem solver looks over what was done and concludes that 5 is a reasonable answer. In most complex problem-solving episodes, the four cognitive processes may not occur in linear order, but rather may interact with one another. Although some research focuses mainly on the execution process, problem solvers may tend to have more difficulty with the processes of representing, planning, and monitoring.

Knowledge for Problem Solving

An important theme in problem-solving research is that problem-solving proficiency on any task depends on the learner’s knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001 ; Mayer, 1992 ). Five kinds of knowledge are as follows:

Facts —factual knowledge about the characteristics of elements in the world, such as “Sacramento is the capital of California” Concepts —conceptual knowledge, including categories, schemas, or models, such as knowing the difference between plants and animals or knowing how a battery works Procedures —procedural knowledge of step-by-step processes, such as how to carry out long-division computations Strategies —strategic knowledge of general methods such as breaking a problem into parts or thinking of a related problem Beliefs —attitudinal knowledge about how one’s cognitive processing works such as thinking, “I’m good at this”

Although some research focuses mainly on the role of facts and procedures in problem solving, complex problem solving also depends on the problem solver’s concepts, strategies, and beliefs (Mayer, 1992 ).

Historical Approaches to Problem Solving

Psychological research on problem solving began in the early 1900s, as an outgrowth of mental philosophy (Humphrey, 1963 ; Mandler & Mandler, 1964 ). Throughout the 20th century four theoretical approaches developed: early conceptions, associationism, Gestalt psychology, and information processing.

Early Conceptions

The start of psychology as a science can be set at 1879—the year Wilhelm Wundt opened the first world’s psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany, and sought to train the world’s first cohort of experimental psychologists. Instead of relying solely on philosophical speculations about how the human mind works, Wundt sought to apply the methods of experimental science to issues addressed in mental philosophy. His theoretical approach became structuralism —the analysis of consciousness into its basic elements.

Wundt’s main contribution to the study of problem solving, however, was to call for its banishment. According to Wundt, complex cognitive processing was too complicated to be studied by experimental methods, so “nothing can be discovered in such experiments” (Wundt, 1911/1973 ). Despite his admonishments, however, a group of his former students began studying thinking mainly in Wurzburg, Germany. Using the method of introspection, subjects were asked to describe their thought process as they solved word association problems, such as finding the superordinate of “newspaper” (e.g., an answer is “publication”). Although the Wurzburg group—as they came to be called—did not produce a new theoretical approach, they found empirical evidence that challenged some of the key assumptions of mental philosophy. For example, Aristotle had proclaimed that all thinking involves mental imagery, but the Wurzburg group was able to find empirical evidence for imageless thought .

Associationism

The first major theoretical approach to take hold in the scientific study of problem solving was associationism —the idea that the cognitive representations in the mind consist of ideas and links between them and that cognitive processing in the mind involves following a chain of associations from one idea to the next (Mandler & Mandler, 1964 ; Mayer, 1992 ). For example, in a classic study, E. L. Thorndike ( 1911 ) placed a hungry cat in what he called a puzzle box—a wooden crate in which pulling a loop of string that hung from overhead would open a trap door to allow the cat to escape to a bowl of food outside the crate. Thorndike placed the cat in the puzzle box once a day for several weeks. On the first day, the cat engaged in many extraneous behaviors such as pouncing against the wall, pushing its paws through the slats, and meowing, but on successive days the number of extraneous behaviors tended to decrease. Overall, the time required to get out of the puzzle box decreased over the course of the experiment, indicating the cat was learning how to escape.

Thorndike’s explanation for how the cat learned to solve the puzzle box problem is based on an associationist view: The cat begins with a habit family hierarchy —a set of potential responses (e.g., pouncing, thrusting, meowing, etc.) all associated with the same stimulus (i.e., being hungry and confined) and ordered in terms of strength of association. When placed in the puzzle box, the cat executes its strongest response (e.g., perhaps pouncing against the wall), but when it fails, the strength of the association is weakened, and so on for each unsuccessful action. Eventually, the cat gets down to what was initially a weak response—waving its paw in the air—but when that response leads to accidentally pulling the string and getting out, it is strengthened. Over the course of many trials, the ineffective responses become weak and the successful response becomes strong. Thorndike refers to this process as the law of effect : Responses that lead to dissatisfaction become less associated with the situation and responses that lead to satisfaction become more associated with the situation. According to Thorndike’s associationist view, solving a problem is simply a matter of trial and error and accidental success. A major challenge to assocationist theory concerns the nature of transfer—that is, where does a problem solver find a creative solution that has never been performed before? Associationist conceptions of cognition can be seen in current research, including neural networks, connectionist models, and parallel distributed processing models (Rogers & McClelland, 2004 ).

Gestalt Psychology

The Gestalt approach to problem solving developed in the 1930s and 1940s as a counterbalance to the associationist approach. According to the Gestalt approach, cognitive representations consist of coherent structures (rather than individual associations) and the cognitive process of problem solving involves building a coherent structure (rather than strengthening and weakening of associations). For example, in a classic study, Kohler ( 1925 ) placed a hungry ape in a play yard that contained several empty shipping crates and a banana attached overhead but out of reach. Based on observing the ape in this situation, Kohler noted that the ape did not randomly try responses until one worked—as suggested by Thorndike’s associationist view. Instead, the ape stood under the banana, looked up at it, looked at the crates, and then in a flash of insight stacked the crates under the bananas as a ladder, and walked up the steps in order to reach the banana.

According to Kohler, the ape experienced a sudden visual reorganization in which the elements in the situation fit together in a way to solve the problem; that is, the crates could become a ladder that reduces the distance to the banana. Kohler referred to the underlying mechanism as insight —literally seeing into the structure of the situation. A major challenge of Gestalt theory is its lack of precision; for example, naming a process (i.e., insight) is not the same as explaining how it works. Gestalt conceptions can be seen in modern research on mental models and schemas (Gentner & Stevens, 1983 ).

Information Processing

The information processing approach to problem solving developed in the 1960s and 1970s and was based on the influence of the computer metaphor—the idea that humans are processors of information (Mayer, 2009 ). According to the information processing approach, problem solving involves a series of mental computations—each of which consists of applying a process to a mental representation (such as comparing two elements to determine whether they differ).

In their classic book, Human Problem Solving , Newell and Simon ( 1972 ) proposed that problem solving involved a problem space and search heuristics . A problem space is a mental representation of the initial state of the problem, the goal state of the problem, and all possible intervening states (based on applying allowable operators). Search heuristics are strategies for moving through the problem space from the given to the goal state. Newell and Simon focused on means-ends analysis , in which the problem solver continually sets goals and finds moves to accomplish goals.

Newell and Simon used computer simulation as a research method to test their conception of human problem solving. First, they asked human problem solvers to think aloud as they solved various problems such as logic problems, chess, and cryptarithmetic problems. Then, based on an information processing analysis, Newell and Simon created computer programs that solved these problems. In comparing the solution behavior of humans and computers, they found high similarity, suggesting that the computer programs were solving problems using the same thought processes as humans.

An important advantage of the information processing approach is that problem solving can be described with great clarity—as a computer program. An important limitation of the information processing approach is that it is most useful for describing problem solving for well-defined problems rather than ill-defined problems. The information processing conception of cognition lives on as a keystone of today’s cognitive science (Mayer, 2009 ).

Classic Issues in Problem Solving

Three classic issues in research on problem solving concern the nature of transfer (suggested by the associationist approach), the nature of insight (suggested by the Gestalt approach), and the role of problem-solving heuristics (suggested by the information processing approach).

Transfer refers to the effects of prior learning on new learning (or new problem solving). Positive transfer occurs when learning A helps someone learn B. Negative transfer occurs when learning A hinders someone from learning B. Neutral transfer occurs when learning A has no effect on learning B. Positive transfer is a central goal of education, but research shows that people often do not transfer what they learned to solving problems in new contexts (Mayer, 1992 ; Singley & Anderson, 1989 ).

Three conceptions of the mechanisms underlying transfer are specific transfer , general transfer , and specific transfer of general principles . Specific transfer refers to the idea that learning A will help someone learn B only if A and B have specific elements in common. For example, learning Spanish may help someone learn Latin because some of the vocabulary words are similar and the verb conjugation rules are similar. General transfer refers to the idea that learning A can help someone learn B even they have nothing specifically in common but A helps improve the learner’s mind in general. For example, learning Latin may help people learn “proper habits of mind” so they are better able to learn completely unrelated subjects as well. Specific transfer of general principles is the idea that learning A will help someone learn B if the same general principle or solution method is required for both even if the specific elements are different.

In a classic study, Thorndike and Woodworth ( 1901 ) found that students who learned Latin did not subsequently learn bookkeeping any better than students who had not learned Latin. They interpreted this finding as evidence for specific transfer—learning A did not transfer to learning B because A and B did not have specific elements in common. Modern research on problem-solving transfer continues to show that people often do not demonstrate general transfer (Mayer, 1992 ). However, it is possible to teach people a general strategy for solving a problem, so that when they see a new problem in a different context they are able to apply the strategy to the new problem (Judd, 1908 ; Mayer, 2008 )—so there is also research support for the idea of specific transfer of general principles.

Insight refers to a change in a problem solver’s mind from not knowing how to solve a problem to knowing how to solve it (Mayer, 1995 ; Metcalfe & Wiebe, 1987 ). In short, where does the idea for a creative solution come from? A central goal of problem-solving research is to determine the mechanisms underlying insight.

The search for insight has led to five major (but not mutually exclusive) explanatory mechanisms—insight as completing a schema, insight as suddenly reorganizing visual information, insight as reformulation of a problem, insight as removing mental blocks, and insight as finding a problem analog (Mayer, 1995 ). Completing a schema is exemplified in a study by Selz (Fridja & de Groot, 1982 ), in which people were asked to think aloud as they solved word association problems such as “What is the superordinate for newspaper?” To solve the problem, people sometimes thought of a coordinate, such as “magazine,” and then searched for a superordinate category that subsumed both terms, such as “publication.” According to Selz, finding a solution involved building a schema that consisted of a superordinate and two subordinate categories.

Reorganizing visual information is reflected in Kohler’s ( 1925 ) study described in a previous section in which a hungry ape figured out how to stack boxes as a ladder to reach a banana hanging above. According to Kohler, the ape looked around the yard and found the solution in a flash of insight by mentally seeing how the parts could be rearranged to accomplish the goal.

Reformulating a problem is reflected in a classic study by Duncker ( 1945 ) in which people are asked to think aloud as they solve the tumor problem—how can you destroy a tumor in a patient without destroying surrounding healthy tissue by using rays that at sufficient intensity will destroy any tissue in their path? In analyzing the thinking-aloud protocols—that is, transcripts of what the problem solvers said—Duncker concluded that people reformulated the goal in various ways (e.g., avoid contact with healthy tissue, immunize healthy tissue, have ray be weak in healthy tissue) until they hit upon a productive formulation that led to the solution (i.e., concentrating many weak rays on the tumor).

Removing mental blocks is reflected in classic studies by Duncker ( 1945 ) in which solving a problem involved thinking of a novel use for an object, and by Luchins ( 1942 ) in which solving a problem involved not using a procedure that had worked well on previous problems. Finding a problem analog is reflected in classic research by Wertheimer ( 1959 ) in which learning to find the area of a parallelogram is supported by the insight that one could cut off the triangle on one side and place it on the other side to form a rectangle—so a parallelogram is really a rectangle in disguise. The search for insight along each of these five lines continues in current problem-solving research.

Heuristics are problem-solving strategies, that is, general approaches to how to solve problems. Newell and Simon ( 1972 ) suggested three general problem-solving heuristics for moving from a given state to a goal state: random trial and error , hill climbing , and means-ends analysis . Random trial and error involves randomly selecting a legal move and applying it to create a new problem state, and repeating that process until the goal state is reached. Random trial and error may work for simple problems but is not efficient for complex ones. Hill climbing involves selecting the legal move that moves the problem solver closer to the goal state. Hill climbing will not work for problems in which the problem solver must take a move that temporarily moves away from the goal as is required in many problems.

Means-ends analysis involves creating goals and seeking moves that can accomplish the goal. If a goal cannot be directly accomplished, a subgoal is created to remove one or more obstacles. Newell and Simon ( 1972 ) successfully used means-ends analysis as the search heuristic in a computer program aimed at general problem solving, that is, solving a diverse collection of problems. However, people may also use specific heuristics that are designed to work for specific problem-solving situations (Gigerenzer, Todd, & ABC Research Group, 1999 ; Kahneman & Tversky, 1984 ).

Current and Future Issues in Problem Solving

Eight current issues in problem solving involve decision making, intelligence and creativity, teaching of thinking skills, expert problem solving, analogical reasoning, mathematical and scientific problem solving, everyday thinking, and the cognitive neuroscience of problem solving.

Decision Making

Decision making refers to the cognitive processing involved in choosing between two or more alternatives (Baron, 2000 ; Markman & Medin, 2002 ). For example, a decision-making task may involve choosing between getting $240 for sure or having a 25% change of getting $1000. According to economic theories such as expected value theory, people should chose the second option, which is worth $250 (i.e., .25 x $1000) rather than the first option, which is worth $240 (1.00 x $240), but psychological research shows that most people prefer the first option (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984 ).

Research on decision making has generated three classes of theories (Markman & Medin, 2002 ): descriptive theories, such as prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky), which are based on the ideas that people prefer to overweight the cost of a loss and tend to overestimate small probabilities; heuristic theories, which are based on the idea that people use a collection of short-cut strategies such as the availability heuristic (Gigerenzer et al., 1999 ; Kahneman & Tversky, 2000 ); and constructive theories, such as mental accounting (Kahneman & Tversky, 2000 ), in which people build a narrative to justify their choices to themselves. Future research is needed to examine decision making in more realistic settings.

Intelligence and Creativity

Although researchers do not have complete consensus on the definition of intelligence (Sternberg, 1990 ), it is reasonable to view intelligence as the ability to learn or adapt to new situations. Fluid intelligence refers to the potential to solve problems without any relevant knowledge, whereas crystallized intelligence refers to the potential to solve problems based on relevant prior knowledge (Sternberg & Gregorenko, 2003 ). As people gain more experience in a field, their problem-solving performance depends more on crystallized intelligence (i.e., domain knowledge) than on fluid intelligence (i.e., general ability) (Sternberg & Gregorenko, 2003 ). The ability to monitor and manage one’s cognitive processing during problem solving—which can be called metacognition —is an important aspect of intelligence (Sternberg, 1990 ). Research is needed to pinpoint the knowledge that is needed to support intelligent performance on problem-solving tasks.

Creativity refers to the ability to generate ideas that are original (i.e., other people do not think of the same idea) and functional (i.e., the idea works; Sternberg, 1999 ). Creativity is often measured using tests of divergent thinking —that is, generating as many solutions as possible for a problem (Guilford, 1967 ). For example, the uses test asks people to list as many uses as they can think of for a brick. Creativity is different from intelligence, and it is at the heart of creative problem solving—generating a novel solution to a problem that the problem solver has never seen before. An important research question concerns whether creative problem solving depends on specific knowledge or creativity ability in general.

Teaching of Thinking Skills

How can people learn to be better problem solvers? Mayer ( 2008 ) proposes four questions concerning teaching of thinking skills:

What to teach —Successful programs attempt to teach small component skills (such as how to generate and evaluate hypotheses) rather than improve the mind as a single monolithic skill (Covington, Crutchfield, Davies, & Olton, 1974 ). How to teach —Successful programs focus on modeling the process of problem solving rather than solely reinforcing the product of problem solving (Bloom & Broder, 1950 ). Where to teach —Successful programs teach problem-solving skills within the specific context they will be used rather than within a general course on how to solve problems (Nickerson, 1999 ). When to teach —Successful programs teaching higher order skills early rather than waiting until lower order skills are completely mastered (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988 ).

Overall, research on teaching of thinking skills points to the domain specificity of problem solving; that is, successful problem solving depends on the problem solver having domain knowledge that is relevant to the problem-solving task.

Expert Problem Solving

Research on expertise is concerned with differences between how experts and novices solve problems (Ericsson, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006 ). Expertise can be defined in terms of time (e.g., 10 years of concentrated experience in a field), performance (e.g., earning a perfect score on an assessment), or recognition (e.g., receiving a Nobel Prize or becoming Grand Master in chess). For example, in classic research conducted in the 1940s, de Groot ( 1965 ) found that chess experts did not have better general memory than chess novices, but they did have better domain-specific memory for the arrangement of chess pieces on the board. Chase and Simon ( 1973 ) replicated this result in a better controlled experiment. An explanation is that experts have developed schemas that allow them to chunk collections of pieces into a single configuration.

In another landmark study, Larkin et al. ( 1980 ) compared how experts (e.g., physics professors) and novices (e.g., first-year physics students) solved textbook physics problems about motion. Experts tended to work forward from the given information to the goal, whereas novices tended to work backward from the goal to the givens using a means-ends analysis strategy. Experts tended to store their knowledge in an integrated way, whereas novices tended to store their knowledge in isolated fragments. In another study, Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser ( 1981 ) found that experts tended to focus on the underlying physics concepts (such as conservation of energy), whereas novices tended to focus on the surface features of the problem (such as inclined planes or springs). Overall, research on expertise is useful in pinpointing what experts know that is different from what novices know. An important theme is that experts rely on domain-specific knowledge rather than solely general cognitive ability.

Analogical Reasoning

Analogical reasoning occurs when people solve one problem by using their knowledge about another problem (Holyoak, 2005 ). For example, suppose a problem solver learns how to solve a problem in one context using one solution method and then is given a problem in another context that requires the same solution method. In this case, the problem solver must recognize that the new problem has structural similarity to the old problem (i.e., it may be solved by the same method), even though they do not have surface similarity (i.e., the cover stories are different). Three steps in analogical reasoning are recognizing —seeing that a new problem is similar to a previously solved problem; abstracting —finding the general method used to solve the old problem; and mapping —using that general method to solve the new problem.

Research on analogical reasoning shows that people often do not recognize that a new problem can be solved by the same method as a previously solved problem (Holyoak, 2005 ). However, research also shows that successful analogical transfer to a new problem is more likely when the problem solver has experience with two old problems that have the same underlying structural features (i.e., they are solved by the same principle) but different surface features (i.e., they have different cover stories) (Holyoak, 2005 ). This finding is consistent with the idea of specific transfer of general principles as described in the section on “Transfer.”

Mathematical and Scientific Problem Solving

Research on mathematical problem solving suggests that five kinds of knowledge are needed to solve arithmetic word problems (Mayer, 2008 ):

Factual knowledge —knowledge about the characteristics of problem elements, such as knowing that there are 100 cents in a dollar Schematic knowledge —knowledge of problem types, such as being able to recognize time-rate-distance problems Strategic knowledge —knowledge of general methods, such as how to break a problem into parts Procedural knowledge —knowledge of processes, such as how to carry our arithmetic operations Attitudinal knowledge —beliefs about one’s mathematical problem-solving ability, such as thinking, “I am good at this”

People generally possess adequate procedural knowledge but may have difficulty in solving mathematics problems because they lack factual, schematic, strategic, or attitudinal knowledge (Mayer, 2008 ). Research is needed to pinpoint the role of domain knowledge in mathematical problem solving.

Research on scientific problem solving shows that people harbor misconceptions, such as believing that a force is needed to keep an object in motion (McCloskey, 1983 ). Learning to solve science problems involves conceptual change, in which the problem solver comes to recognize that previous conceptions are wrong (Mayer, 2008 ). Students can be taught to engage in scientific reasoning such as hypothesis testing through direct instruction in how to control for variables (Chen & Klahr, 1999 ). A central theme of research on scientific problem solving concerns the role of domain knowledge.

Everyday Thinking

Everyday thinking refers to problem solving in the context of one’s life outside of school. For example, children who are street vendors tend to use different procedures for solving arithmetic problems when they are working on the streets than when they are in school (Nunes, Schlieman, & Carraher, 1993 ). This line of research highlights the role of situated cognition —the idea that thinking always is shaped by the physical and social context in which it occurs (Robbins & Aydede, 2009 ). Research is needed to determine how people solve problems in authentic contexts.

Cognitive Neuroscience of Problem Solving

The cognitive neuroscience of problem solving is concerned with the brain activity that occurs during problem solving. For example, using fMRI brain imaging methodology, Goel ( 2005 ) found that people used the language areas of the brain to solve logical reasoning problems presented in sentences (e.g., “All dogs are pets…”) and used the spatial areas of the brain to solve logical reasoning problems presented in abstract letters (e.g., “All D are P…”). Cognitive neuroscience holds the potential to make unique contributions to the study of problem solving.

Problem solving has always been a topic at the fringe of cognitive psychology—too complicated to study intensively but too important to completely ignore. Problem solving—especially in realistic environments—is messy in comparison to studying elementary processes in cognition. The field remains fragmented in the sense that topics such as decision making, reasoning, intelligence, expertise, mathematical problem solving, everyday thinking, and the like are considered to be separate topics, each with its own separate literature. Yet some recurring themes are the role of domain-specific knowledge in problem solving and the advantages of studying problem solving in authentic contexts.

Future Directions

Some important issues for future research include the three classic issues examined in this chapter—the nature of problem-solving transfer (i.e., How are people able to use what they know about previous problem solving to help them in new problem solving?), the nature of insight (e.g., What is the mechanism by which a creative solution is constructed?), and heuristics (e.g., What are some teachable strategies for problem solving?). In addition, future research in problem solving should continue to pinpoint the role of domain-specific knowledge in problem solving, the nature of cognitive ability in problem solving, how to help people develop proficiency in solving problems, and how to provide aids for problem solving.

Anderson L. W. , Krathwohl D. R. , Airasian P. W. , Cruikshank K. A. , Mayer R. E. , Pintrich P. R. , Raths, J., & Wittrock M. C. ( 2001 ). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York : Longman.

Baron J. ( 2000 ). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bloom B. S. , & Broder B. J. ( 1950 ). Problem-solving processes of college students: An exploratory investigation. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Chase W. G. , & Simon H. A. ( 1973 ). Perception in chess.   Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.

Chen Z. , & Klahr D. ( 1999 ). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variable strategy . Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.

Chi M. T. H. , Feltovich P. J. , & Glaser R. ( 1981 ). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

Covington M. V. , Crutchfield R. S. , Davies L. B. , & Olton R. M. ( 1974 ). The productive thinking program. Columbus, OH : Merrill.

de Groot A. D. ( 1965 ). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, The Netherlands : Mouton.

Duncker K. ( 1945 ). On problem solving.   Psychological Monographs, 58 (3) (Whole No. 270).

Ericsson K. A. , Feltovich P. J. , & Hoffman R. R. (Eds.). ( 2006 ). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Fridja N. H. , & de Groot A. D. ( 1982 ). Otto Selz: His contribution to psychology. The Hague, The Netherlands : Mouton.

Gentner D. , & Stevens A. L. (Eds.). ( 1983 ). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Gigerenzer G. , Todd P. M. , & ABC Research Group (Eds.). ( 1999 ). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford, England : Oxford University Press.

Goel V. ( 2005 ). Cognitive neuroscience of deductive reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 475–492). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Guilford J. P. ( 1967 ). The nature of human intelligence. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Holyoak K. J. ( 2005 ). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Humphrey G. ( 1963 ). Thinking: An introduction to experimental psychology. New York : Wiley.

Judd C. H. ( 1908 ). The relation of special training and general intelligence. Educational Review, 36, 28–42.

Kahneman D. , & Tversky A. ( 1984 ). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.

Kahneman D. , & Tversky A. (Eds.). ( 2000 ). Choices, values, and frames. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Kohler W. ( 1925 ). The mentality of apes. New York : Liveright.

Larkin J. H. , McDermott J. , Simon D. P. , & Simon H. A. ( 1980 ). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.

Luchins A. ( 1942 ). Mechanization in problem solving.   Psychological Monographs, 54 (6) (Whole No. 248).

Mandler J. M. , & Mandler G. ( 1964 ). Thinking from associationism to Gestalt. New York : Wiley.

Markman A. B. , & Medin D. L. ( 2002 ). Decision making. In D. Medin (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology, Vol. 2. Memory and cognitive processes (2nd ed., pp. 413–466). New York : Wiley.

Mayer R. E. ( 1992 ). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed). New York : Freeman.

Mayer R. E. ( 1995 ). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Mayer R. E. ( 2008 ). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Merrill Prentice Hall.

Mayer R. E. ( 2009 ). Information processing. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 168–174). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.

Mayer R. E. , & Wittrock M. C. ( 2006 ). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.

McCloskey M. ( 1983 ). Intuitive physics.   Scientific American, 248 (4), 122–130.

Metcalfe J. , & Wiebe D. ( 1987 ). Intuition in insight and non-insight problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 15, 238–246.

Newell A. , & Simon H. A. ( 1972 ). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.

Nickerson R. S. ( 1999 ). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). New York : Cambridge University Press.

Nunes T. , Schliemann A. D. , & Carraher D. W , ( 1993 ). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.

Robbins P. , & Aydede M. (Eds.). ( 2009 ). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Rogers T. T. , & McClelland J. L. ( 2004 ). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

Singley M. K. , & Anderson J. R. ( 1989 ). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.

Sternberg R. J. ( 1990 ). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg R. J. ( 1999 ). Handbook of creativity. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg R. J. , & Gregorenko E. L. (Eds.). ( 2003 ). The psychology of abilities, competencies, and expertise. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Tharp R. G. , & Gallimore R. ( 1988 ). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York : Cambridge University Press.

Thorndike E. L. ( 1911 ). Animal intelligence. New York: Hafner.

Thorndike E. L. , & Woodworth R. S. ( 1901 ). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.

Wertheimer M. ( 1959 ). Productive thinking. New York : Harper and Collins.

Wundt W. ( 1973 ). An introduction to experimental psychology. New York : Arno Press. (Original work published in 1911).

Further Reading

Baron, J. ( 2008 ). Thinking and deciding (4th ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncker, K. ( 1945 ). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs , 58(3) (Whole No. 270).

Holyoak, K. J. , & Morrison, R. G. ( 2005 ). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. , & Wittrock, M. C. ( 2006 ). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R. J. , & Ben-Zeev, T. ( 2001 ). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought . New York: Oxford University Press.

Weisberg, R. W. ( 2006 ). Creativity . New York: Wiley.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

Teaching resources

Found 4 resources for the concept: Problem-solving and decision-making benefit from a scientific approach.

Grade Level(s):

• UC Museum of Paleontology

Resource type:

• lab activity

Discipline:

• Life Science

Time: 10-15 minutes

This short activity quickly engages the participants in the process of developing testable hypotheses. Students come up with multiple hypotheses to explain a set of observations and figure out how to test these hypotheses.

View details »

Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide

• Science Story

Time: 15 minutes

Teach about test design in science using an example from everyday life: comparing chocolate chip cookie recipes. Get tips on using Science Stories in class .

Investigating a Crime Scene

• powerpoint slides

Time: 30 minutes

Two suspicious dogs and a shredded book provide a perfect combination for focusing on the process of science and to do so with a bit of a chuckle. This powerpoint has been developed so that you can ask for student responses throughout.

Number patterns

• classroom activity

Time: 15-20 minutes

Students try to discover the relationship among six numbers. The objective of this activity is to engage students in a problem-solving situation in which they practice aspects of the process of science.

Subscribe to our newsletter

• Understanding Science 101
• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool
• Misconceptions

• Admiral “Amazing Grace” Hopper

Exploring the Intricacies of NP-Completeness in Computer Science

Understanding p vs np problems in computer science: a primer for beginners, understanding key theoretical frameworks in computer science: a beginner’s guide.

Learn Computer Science with Python

CS is a journey, not a destination

• Foundations

Understanding Algorithms: The Key to Problem-Solving Mastery

The world of computer science is a fascinating realm, where intricate concepts and technologies continuously shape the way we interact with machines. Among the vast array of ideas and principles, few are as fundamental and essential as algorithms. These powerful tools serve as the building blocks of computation, enabling computers to solve problems, make decisions, and process vast amounts of data efficiently.

An algorithm can be thought of as a step-by-step procedure or a set of instructions designed to solve a specific problem or accomplish a particular task. It represents a systematic approach to finding solutions and provides a structured way to tackle complex computational challenges. Algorithms are at the heart of various applications, from simple calculations to sophisticated machine learning models and complex data analysis.

Understanding algorithms and their inner workings is crucial for anyone interested in computer science. They serve as the backbone of software development, powering the creation of innovative applications across numerous domains. By comprehending the concept of algorithms, aspiring computer science enthusiasts gain a powerful toolset to approach problem-solving and gain insight into the efficiency and performance of different computational methods.

In this article, we aim to provide a clear and accessible introduction to algorithms, focusing on their importance in problem-solving and exploring common types such as searching, sorting, and recursion. By delving into these topics, readers will gain a solid foundation in algorithmic thinking and discover the underlying principles that drive the functioning of modern computing systems. Whether you’re a beginner in the world of computer science or seeking to deepen your understanding, this article will equip you with the knowledge to navigate the fascinating world of algorithms.

What are Algorithms?

At its core, an algorithm is a systematic, step-by-step procedure or set of rules designed to solve a problem or perform a specific task. It provides clear instructions that, when followed meticulously, lead to the desired outcome.

Consider an algorithm to be akin to a recipe for your favorite dish. When you decide to cook, the recipe is your go-to guide. It lists out the ingredients you need, their exact quantities, and a detailed, step-by-step explanation of the process, from how to prepare the ingredients to how to mix them, and finally, the cooking process. It even provides an order for adding the ingredients and specific times for cooking to ensure the dish turns out perfect.

In the same vein, an algorithm, within the realm of computer science, provides an explicit series of instructions to accomplish a goal. This could be a simple goal like sorting a list of numbers in ascending order, a more complex task such as searching for a specific data point in a massive dataset, or even a highly complicated task like determining the shortest path between two points on a map (think Google Maps). No matter the complexity of the problem at hand, there’s always an algorithm working tirelessly behind the scenes to solve it.

Furthermore, algorithms aren’t limited to specific programming languages. They are universal and can be implemented in any language. This is why understanding the fundamental concept of algorithms can empower you to solve problems across various programming languages.

The Importance of Algorithms

Algorithms are indisputably the backbone of all computational operations. They’re a fundamental part of the digital world that we interact with daily. When you search for something on the web, an algorithm is tirelessly working behind the scenes to sift through millions, possibly billions, of web pages to bring you the most relevant results. When you use a GPS to find the fastest route to a location, an algorithm is computing all possible paths, factoring in variables like traffic and road conditions, to provide you the optimal route.

Consider the world of social media, where algorithms curate personalized feeds based on our previous interactions, or in streaming platforms where they recommend shows and movies based on our viewing habits. Every click, every like, every search, and every interaction is processed by algorithms to serve you a seamless digital experience.

In the realm of computer science and beyond, everything revolves around problem-solving, and algorithms are our most reliable problem-solving tools. They provide a structured approach to problem-solving, breaking down complex problems into manageable steps and ensuring that every eventuality is accounted for.

Moreover, an algorithm’s efficiency is not just a matter of preference but a necessity. Given that computers have finite resources — time, memory, and computational power — the algorithms we use need to be optimized to make the best possible use of these resources. Efficient algorithms are the ones that can perform tasks more quickly, using less memory, and provide solutions to complex problems that might be infeasible with less efficient alternatives.

In the context of massive datasets (the likes of which are common in our data-driven world), the difference between a poorly designed algorithm and an efficient one could be the difference between a solution that takes years to compute and one that takes mere seconds. Therefore, understanding, designing, and implementing efficient algorithms is a critical skill for any computer scientist or software engineer.

Hence, as a computer science beginner, you are starting a journey where algorithms will be your best allies — universal keys capable of unlocking solutions to a myriad of problems, big or small.

Common Types of Algorithms: Searching and Sorting

Two of the most ubiquitous types of algorithms that beginners often encounter are searching and sorting algorithms.

Searching algorithms are designed to retrieve specific information from a data structure, like an array or a database. A simple example is the linear search, which works by checking each element in the array until it finds the one it’s looking for. Although easy to understand, this method isn’t efficient for large datasets, which is where more complex algorithms like binary search come in.

Binary search, on the other hand, is like looking up a word in the dictionary. Instead of checking each word from beginning to end, you open the dictionary in the middle and see if the word you’re looking for should be on the left or right side, thereby reducing the search space by half with each step.

Sorting algorithms, meanwhile, are designed to arrange elements in a particular order. A simple sorting algorithm is bubble sort, which works by repeatedly swapping adjacent elements if they’re in the wrong order. Again, while straightforward, it’s not efficient for larger datasets. More advanced sorting algorithms, such as quicksort or mergesort, have been designed to sort large data collections more efficiently.

Diving Deeper: Graph and Dynamic Programming Algorithms

Building upon our understanding of searching and sorting algorithms, let’s delve into two other families of algorithms often encountered in computer science: graph algorithms and dynamic programming algorithms.

A graph is a mathematical structure that models the relationship between pairs of objects. Graphs consist of vertices (or nodes) and edges (where each edge connects a pair of vertices). Graphs are commonly used to represent real-world systems such as social networks, web pages, biological networks, and more.

Graph algorithms are designed to solve problems centered around these structures. Some common graph algorithms include:

Dynamic programming is a powerful method used in optimization problems, where the main problem is broken down into simpler, overlapping subproblems. The solutions to these subproblems are stored and reused to build up the solution to the main problem, saving computational effort.

Here are two common dynamic programming problems:

Understanding these algorithm families — searching, sorting, graph, and dynamic programming algorithms — not only equips you with powerful tools to solve a variety of complex problems but also serves as a springboard to dive deeper into the rich ocean of algorithms and computer science.

Recursion: A Powerful Technique

While searching and sorting represent specific problem domains, recursion is a broad technique used in a wide range of algorithms. Recursion involves breaking down a problem into smaller, more manageable parts, and a function calling itself to solve these smaller parts.

To visualize recursion, consider the task of calculating factorial of a number. The factorial of a number n (denoted as n! ) is the product of all positive integers less than or equal to n . For instance, the factorial of 5 ( 5! ) is 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120 . A recursive algorithm for finding factorial of n would involve multiplying n by the factorial of n-1 . The function keeps calling itself with a smaller value of n each time until it reaches a point where n is equal to 1, at which point it starts returning values back up the chain.

Algorithms are truly the heart of computer science, transforming raw data into valuable information and insight. Understanding their functionality and purpose is key to progressing in your computer science journey. As you continue your exploration, remember that each algorithm you encounter, no matter how complex it may seem, is simply a step-by-step procedure to solve a problem.

We’ve just scratched the surface of the fascinating world of algorithms. With time, patience, and practice, you will learn to create your own algorithms and start solving problems with confidence and efficiency.

Related Articles

Three Elegant Algorithms Every Computer Science Beginner Should Know

Exploring the Problem Solving Cycle in Computer Science – Strategies, Techniques, and Tools

• Post author By bicycle-u
• Post date 08.12.2023

The world of computer science is built on the foundation of problem solving. Whether it’s finding a solution to a complex algorithm or analyzing data to make informed decisions, the problem solving cycle is at the core of every computer science endeavor.

At its essence, problem solving in computer science involves breaking down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable parts. This allows for a systematic approach to finding a solution by analyzing each part individually. The process typically starts with gathering and understanding the data or information related to the problem at hand.

Once the data is collected, computer scientists use various techniques and algorithms to analyze and explore possible solutions. This involves evaluating different approaches and considering factors such as efficiency, accuracy, and scalability. During this analysis phase, it is crucial to think critically and creatively to come up with innovative solutions.

After a thorough analysis, the next step in the problem solving cycle is designing and implementing a solution. This involves creating a detailed plan of action, selecting the appropriate tools and technologies, and writing the necessary code to bring the solution to life. Attention to detail and precision are key in this stage to ensure that the solution functions as intended.

The final step in the problem solving cycle is evaluating the solution and its effectiveness. This includes testing the solution against different scenarios and data sets to ensure its reliability and performance. If any issues or limitations are discovered, adjustments and optimizations are made to improve the solution.

In conclusion, the problem solving cycle is a fundamental process in computer science, involving analysis, data exploration, algorithm development, solution implementation, and evaluation. It is through this cycle that computer scientists are able to tackle complex problems and create innovative solutions that drive progress in the field of computer science.

Understanding the Importance

In computer science, problem solving is a crucial skill that is at the core of the problem solving cycle. The problem solving cycle is a systematic approach to analyzing and solving problems, involving various stages such as problem identification, analysis, algorithm design, implementation, and evaluation. Understanding the importance of this cycle is essential for any computer scientist or programmer.

Data Analysis and Algorithm Design

The first step in the problem solving cycle is problem identification, which involves recognizing and defining the issue at hand. Once the problem is identified, the next crucial step is data analysis. This involves gathering and examining relevant data to gain insights and understand the problem better. Data analysis helps in identifying patterns, trends, and potential solutions.

After data analysis, the next step is algorithm design. An algorithm is a step-by-step procedure or set of rules to solve a problem. Designing an efficient algorithm is crucial as it determines the effectiveness and efficiency of the solution. A well-designed algorithm takes into consideration the constraints, resources, and desired outcomes while implementing the solution.

Implementation and Evaluation

Once the algorithm is designed, the next step in the problem solving cycle is implementation. This involves translating the algorithm into a computer program using a programming language. The implementation phase requires coding skills and expertise in a specific programming language.

After implementation, the solution needs to be evaluated to ensure that it solves the problem effectively. Evaluation involves testing the program and verifying its correctness and efficiency. This step is critical to identify any errors or issues and to make necessary improvements or adjustments.

In conclusion, understanding the importance of the problem solving cycle in computer science is essential for any computer scientist or programmer. It provides a systematic and structured approach to analyze and solve problems, ensuring efficient and effective solutions. By following the problem solving cycle, computer scientists can develop robust algorithms, implement them in efficient programs, and evaluate their solutions to ensure their correctness and efficiency.

Identifying the Problem

In the problem solving cycle in computer science, the first step is to identify the problem that needs to be solved. This step is crucial because without a clear understanding of the problem, it is impossible to find a solution.

Identification of the problem involves a thorough analysis of the given data and understanding the goals of the task at hand. It requires careful examination of the problem statement and any constraints or limitations that may affect the solution.

During the identification phase, the problem is broken down into smaller, more manageable parts. This can involve breaking the problem down into sub-problems or identifying the different aspects or components that need to be addressed.

Identifying the problem also involves considering the resources and tools available for solving it. This may include considering the specific tools and programming languages that are best suited for the problem at hand.

By properly identifying the problem, computer scientists can ensure that they are focused on the right goals and are better equipped to find an effective and efficient solution. It sets the stage for the rest of the problem solving cycle, including the analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation phases.

Gathering the Necessary Data

Before finding a solution to a computer science problem, it is essential to gather the necessary data. Whether it’s writing a program or developing an algorithm, data serves as the backbone of any solution. Without proper data collection and analysis, the problem-solving process can become inefficient and ineffective.

The Importance of Data

In computer science, data is crucial for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it provides the information needed to understand and define the problem at hand. By analyzing the available data, developers and programmers can gain insights into the nature of the problem and determine the most efficient approach for solving it.

Additionally, data allows for the evaluation of potential solutions. By collecting and organizing relevant data, it becomes possible to compare different algorithms or strategies and select the most suitable one. Data also helps in tracking progress and measuring the effectiveness of the chosen solution.

Data Gathering Process

The process of gathering data involves several steps. Firstly, it is necessary to identify the type of data needed for the particular problem. This may include numerical values, textual information, or other types of data. It is important to determine the sources of data and assess their reliability.

Once the required data has been identified, it needs to be collected. This can be done through various methods, such as surveys, experiments, observations, or by accessing existing data sets. The collected data should be properly organized, ensuring its accuracy and validity.

Data cleaning and preprocessing are vital steps in the data gathering process. This involves removing any irrelevant or erroneous data and transforming it into a suitable format for analysis. Properly cleaned and preprocessed data will help in generating reliable and meaningful insights.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

After gathering and preprocessing the data, the next step is data analysis and interpretation. This involves applying various statistical and analytical methods to uncover patterns, trends, and relationships within the data. By analyzing the data, programmers can gain valuable insights that can inform the development of an effective solution.

During the data analysis process, it is crucial to remain objective and unbiased. The analysis should be based on sound reasoning and logical thinking. It is also important to communicate the findings effectively, using visualizations or summaries to convey the information to stakeholders or fellow developers.

In conclusion, gathering the necessary data is a fundamental step in solving computer science problems. It provides the foundation for understanding the problem, evaluating potential solutions, and tracking progress. By following a systematic and rigorous approach to data gathering and analysis, developers can ensure that their solutions are efficient, effective, and well-informed.

Analyzing the Data

Once you have collected the necessary data, the next step in the problem-solving cycle is to analyze it. Data analysis is a crucial component of computer science, as it helps us understand the problem at hand and develop effective solutions.

To analyze the data, you need to break it down into manageable pieces and examine each piece closely. This process involves identifying patterns, trends, and outliers that may be present in the data. By doing so, you can gain insights into the problem and make informed decisions about the best course of action.

There are several techniques and tools available for data analysis in computer science. Some common methods include statistical analysis, data visualization, and machine learning algorithms. Each approach has its own strengths and limitations, so it’s essential to choose the most appropriate method for the problem you are solving.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis involves using mathematical models and techniques to analyze data. It helps in identifying correlations, distributions, and other statistical properties of the data. By applying statistical tests, you can determine the significance and validity of your findings.

Data Visualization

Data visualization is the process of presenting data in a visual format, such as charts, graphs, or maps. It allows for a better understanding of complex data sets and facilitates the communication of findings. Through data visualization, patterns and trends can become more apparent, making it easier to derive meaningful insights.

Machine Learning Algorithms

Machine learning algorithms are powerful tools for analyzing large and complex data sets. These algorithms can automatically detect patterns and relationships in the data, leading to the development of predictive models and solutions. By training the algorithm on a labeled dataset, it can learn from the data and make accurate predictions or classifications.

In conclusion, analyzing the data is a critical step in the problem-solving cycle in computer science. It helps us gain a deeper understanding of the problem and develop effective solutions. Whether through statistical analysis, data visualization, or machine learning algorithms, data analysis plays a vital role in transforming raw data into actionable insights.

Exploring Possible Solutions

Once you have gathered data and completed the analysis, the next step in the problem-solving cycle is to explore possible solutions. This is where the true power of computer science comes into play. With the use of algorithms and the application of scientific principles, computer scientists can develop innovative solutions to complex problems.

During this stage, it is important to consider a variety of potential solutions. This involves brainstorming different ideas and considering their feasibility and potential effectiveness. It may be helpful to consult with colleagues or experts in the field to gather additional insights and perspectives.

Developing an Algorithm

One key aspect of exploring possible solutions is the development of an algorithm. An algorithm is a step-by-step set of instructions that outlines a specific process or procedure. In the context of problem solving in computer science, an algorithm provides a clear roadmap for implementing a solution.

The development of an algorithm requires careful thought and consideration. It is important to break down the problem into smaller, manageable steps and clearly define the inputs and outputs of each step. This allows for the creation of a logical and efficient solution.

Evaluating the Solutions

Once you have developed potential solutions and corresponding algorithms, the next step is to evaluate them. This involves analyzing each solution to determine its strengths, weaknesses, and potential impact. Consider factors such as efficiency, scalability, and resource requirements.

It may be helpful to conduct experiments or simulations to further assess the effectiveness of each solution. This can provide valuable insights and data to support the decision-making process.

Ultimately, the goal of exploring possible solutions is to find the most effective and efficient solution to the problem at hand. By leveraging the power of data, analysis, algorithms, and scientific principles, computer scientists can develop innovative solutions that drive progress and solve complex problems in the world of technology.

Evaluating the Options

Once you have identified potential solutions and algorithms for a problem, the next step in the problem-solving cycle in computer science is to evaluate the options. This evaluation process involves analyzing the potential solutions and algorithms based on various criteria to determine the best course of action.

Consider the Problem

Before evaluating the options, it is important to take a step back and consider the problem at hand. Understand the requirements, constraints, and desired outcomes of the problem. This analysis will help guide the evaluation process.

Analyze the Options

Next, it is crucial to analyze each solution or algorithm option individually. Look at factors such as efficiency, accuracy, ease of implementation, and scalability. Consider whether the solution or algorithm meets the specific requirements of the problem, and if it can be applied to related problems in the future.

Additionally, evaluate the potential risks and drawbacks associated with each option. Consider factors such as cost, time, and resources required for implementation. Assess any potential limitations or trade-offs that may impact the overall effectiveness of the solution or algorithm.

Select the Best Option

Based on the analysis, select the best option that aligns with the specific problem-solving goals. This may involve prioritizing certain criteria or making compromises based on the limitations identified during the evaluation process.

Remember that the best option may not always be the most technically complex or advanced solution. Consider the practicality and feasibility of implementation, as well as the potential impact on the overall system or project.

In conclusion, evaluating the options is a critical step in the problem-solving cycle in computer science. By carefully analyzing the potential solutions and algorithms, considering the problem requirements, and considering the limitations and trade-offs, you can select the best option to solve the problem at hand.

Making a Decision

Decision-making is a critical component in the problem-solving process in computer science. Once you have analyzed the problem, identified the relevant data, and generated a potential solution, it is important to evaluate your options and choose the best course of action.

Consider All Factors

When making a decision, it is important to consider all relevant factors. This includes evaluating the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option, as well as understanding any constraints or limitations that may impact your choice.

In computer science, this may involve analyzing the efficiency of different algorithms or considering the scalability of a proposed solution. It is important to take into account both the short-term and long-term impacts of your decision.

Weigh the Options

Once you have considered all the factors, it is important to weigh the options and determine the best approach. This may involve assigning weights or priorities to different factors based on their importance.

Using techniques such as decision matrices or cost-benefit analysis can help you systematically compare and evaluate different options. By quantifying and assessing the potential risks and rewards, you can make a more informed decision.

Remember: Decision-making in computer science is not purely subjective or based on personal preference. It is crucial to use analytical and logical thinking to select the most optimal solution.

In conclusion, making a decision is a crucial step in the problem-solving process in computer science. By considering all relevant factors and weighing the options using logical analysis, you can choose the best possible solution to a given problem.

Implementing the Solution

Once the problem has been analyzed and a solution has been proposed, the next step in the problem-solving cycle in computer science is implementing the solution. This involves turning the proposed solution into an actual computer program or algorithm that can solve the problem.

In order to implement the solution, computer science professionals need to have a strong understanding of various programming languages and data structures. They need to be able to write code that can manipulate and process data in order to solve the problem at hand.

During the implementation phase, the proposed solution is translated into a series of steps or instructions that a computer can understand and execute. This involves breaking down the problem into smaller sub-problems and designing algorithms to solve each sub-problem.

Computer scientists also need to consider the efficiency of their solution during the implementation phase. They need to ensure that the algorithm they design is able to handle large amounts of data and solve the problem in a reasonable amount of time. This often requires optimization techniques and careful consideration of the data structures used.

Once the code has been written and the algorithm has been implemented, it is important to test and debug the solution. This involves running test cases and checking the output to ensure that the program is working correctly. If any errors or bugs are found, they need to be fixed before the solution can be considered complete.

In conclusion, implementing the solution is a crucial step in the problem-solving cycle in computer science. It requires strong programming skills and a deep understanding of algorithms and data structures. By carefully designing and implementing the solution, computer scientists can solve problems efficiently and effectively.

Testing and Debugging

In computer science, testing and debugging are critical steps in the problem-solving cycle. Testing helps ensure that a program or algorithm is functioning correctly, while debugging analyzes and resolves any issues or bugs that may arise.

Testing involves running a program with specific input data to evaluate its output. This process helps verify that the program produces the expected results and handles different scenarios correctly. It is important to test both the normal and edge cases to ensure the program’s reliability.

Debugging is the process of identifying and fixing errors or bugs in a program. When a program does not produce the expected results or crashes, it is necessary to go through the code to find and fix the problem. This can involve analyzing the program’s logic, checking for syntax errors, and using debugging tools to trace the flow of data and identify the source of the issue.

Data analysis plays a crucial role in both testing and debugging. It helps to identify patterns, anomalies, or inconsistencies in the program’s behavior. By analyzing the data, developers can gain insights into potential issues and make informed decisions on how to improve the program’s performance.

In conclusion, testing and debugging are integral parts of the problem-solving cycle in computer science. Through testing and data analysis, developers can verify the correctness of their programs and identify and resolve any issues that may arise. This ensures that the algorithms and programs developed in computer science are robust, reliable, and efficient.

Iterating for Improvement

In computer science, problem solving often involves iterating through multiple cycles of analysis, solution development, and evaluation. This iterative process allows for continuous improvement in finding the most effective solution to a given problem.

The problem solving cycle starts with problem analysis, where the specific problem is identified and its requirements are understood. This step involves examining the problem from various angles and gathering all relevant information.

Once the problem is properly understood, the next step is to develop an algorithm or a step-by-step plan to solve the problem. This algorithm is a set of instructions that, when followed correctly, will lead to the solution.

After the algorithm is developed, it is implemented in a computer program. This step involves translating the algorithm into a programming language that a computer can understand and execute.

Once the program is implemented, it is then tested and evaluated to ensure that it produces the correct solution. This evaluation step is crucial in identifying any errors or inefficiencies in the program and allows for further improvement.

If any issues or problems are found during testing, the cycle iterates, starting from problem analysis again. This iterative process allows for refinement and improvement of the solution until the desired results are achieved.

Iterating for improvement is a fundamental concept in computer science problem solving. By continually analyzing, developing, and evaluating solutions, computer scientists are able to find the most optimal and efficient approaches to solving problems.

Documenting the Process

Documenting the problem-solving process in computer science is an essential step to ensure that the cycle is repeated successfully. The process involves gathering information, analyzing the problem, and designing a solution.

During the analysis phase, it is crucial to identify the specific problem at hand and break it down into smaller components. This allows for a more targeted approach to finding the solution. Additionally, analyzing the data involved in the problem can provide valuable insights and help in designing an effective solution.

Once the analysis is complete, it is important to document the findings. This documentation can take various forms, such as written reports, diagrams, or even code comments. The goal is to create a record that captures the problem, the analysis, and the proposed solution.

Documenting the process serves several purposes. Firstly, it allows for easy communication and collaboration between team members or future developers. By documenting the problem, analysis, and solution, others can easily understand the thought process behind the solution and potentially build upon it.

Secondly, documenting the process provides an opportunity for reflection and improvement. By reviewing the documentation, developers can identify areas where the problem-solving cycle can be strengthened or optimized. This continuous improvement is crucial in the field of computer science, as new challenges and technologies emerge rapidly.

In conclusion, documenting the problem-solving process is an integral part of the computer science cycle. It allows for effective communication, collaboration, and reflection on the solutions devised. By taking the time to document the process, developers can ensure a more efficient and successful problem-solving experience.

Communicating the Solution

Once the problem solving cycle is complete, it is important to effectively communicate the solution. This involves explaining the analysis, data, and steps taken to arrive at the solution.

Analyzing the Problem

During the problem solving cycle, a thorough analysis of the problem is conducted. This includes understanding the problem statement, gathering relevant data, and identifying any constraints or limitations. It is important to clearly communicate this analysis to ensure that others understand the problem at hand.

Presenting the Solution

The next step in communicating the solution is presenting the actual solution. This should include a detailed explanation of the steps taken to solve the problem, as well as any algorithms or data structures used. It is important to provide clear and concise descriptions of the solution, so that others can understand and reproduce the results.

Overall, effective communication of the solution in computer science is essential to ensure that others can understand and replicate the problem solving process. By clearly explaining the analysis, data, and steps taken, the solution can be communicated in a way that promotes understanding and collaboration within the field of computer science.

Reflecting and Learning

Reflecting and learning are crucial steps in the problem solving cycle in computer science. Once a problem has been solved, it is essential to reflect on the entire process and learn from the experience. This allows for continuous improvement and growth in the field of computer science.

During the reflecting phase, one must analyze and evaluate the problem solving process. This involves reviewing the initial problem statement, understanding the constraints and requirements, and assessing the effectiveness of the chosen algorithm and solution. It is important to consider the efficiency and accuracy of the solution, as well as any potential limitations or areas for optimization.

By reflecting on the problem solving cycle, computer scientists can gain valuable insights into their own strengths and weaknesses. They can identify areas where they excelled and areas where improvement is needed. This self-analysis helps in honing problem solving skills and becoming a better problem solver.

Learning from Mistakes

Mistakes are an integral part of the problem solving cycle, and they provide valuable learning opportunities. When a problem is not successfully solved, it is essential to analyze the reasons behind the failure and learn from them. This involves identifying errors in the algorithm or solution, understanding the underlying concepts or principles that were misunderstood, and finding alternative approaches or strategies.

Failure should not be seen as a setback, but rather as an opportunity for growth. By learning from mistakes, computer scientists can improve their problem solving abilities and expand their knowledge and understanding of computer science. It is through these failures and the subsequent learning process that new ideas and innovations are often born.

Continuous Improvement

Reflecting and learning should not be limited to individual problem solving experiences, but should be an ongoing practice. As computer science is a rapidly evolving field, it is crucial to stay updated with new technologies, algorithms, and problem solving techniques. Continuous learning and improvement contribute to staying competitive and relevant in the field.

Computer scientists can engage in continuous improvement by seeking feedback from peers, participating in research and development activities, attending conferences and workshops, and actively seeking new challenges and problem solving opportunities. This dedication to learning and improvement ensures that one’s problem solving skills remain sharp and effective.

In conclusion, reflecting and learning are integral parts of the problem solving cycle in computer science. They enable computer scientists to refine their problem solving abilities, learn from mistakes, and continuously improve their skills and knowledge. By embracing these steps, computer scientists can stay at the forefront of the ever-changing world of computer science and contribute to its advancements.

Applying Problem Solving in Real Life

In computer science, problem solving is not limited to the realm of programming and algorithms. It is a skill that can be applied to various aspects of our daily lives, helping us to solve problems efficiently and effectively. By using the problem-solving cycle and applying the principles of analysis, data, solution, algorithm, and cycle, we can tackle real-life challenges with confidence and success.

The first step in problem-solving is to analyze the problem at hand. This involves breaking it down into smaller, more manageable parts and identifying the key issues or goals. By understanding the problem thoroughly, we can gain insights into its root causes and potential solutions.

For example, let’s say you’re facing a recurring issue in your daily commute – traffic congestion. By analyzing the problem, you may discover that the main causes are a lack of alternative routes and a lack of communication between drivers. This analysis helps you identify potential solutions such as using navigation apps to find alternate routes or promoting carpooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the road.

Gathering and Analyzing Data

Once we have identified the problem, it is important to gather relevant data to support our analysis. This may involve conducting surveys, collecting statistics, or reviewing existing research. By gathering data, we can make informed decisions and prioritize potential solutions based on their impact and feasibility.

Continuing with the traffic congestion example, you may gather data on the average commute time, the number of vehicles on the road, and the impact of carpooling on congestion levels. This data can help you analyze the problem more accurately and determine the most effective solutions.

Generating and Evaluating Solutions

After analyzing the problem and gathering data, the next step is to generate potential solutions. This can be done through brainstorming, researching best practices, or seeking input from experts. It is important to consider multiple options and think outside the box to find innovative and effective solutions.

For our traffic congestion problem, potential solutions can include implementing a smart traffic management system that optimizes traffic flow or investing in public transportation to incentivize people to leave their cars at home. By evaluating each solution’s potential impact, cost, and feasibility, you can make an informed decision on the best course of action.

Implementing and Iterating

Once a solution has been chosen, it is time to implement it in real life. This may involve developing a plan, allocating resources, and executing the solution. It is important to monitor the progress and collect feedback to learn from the implementation and make necessary adjustments.

For example, if the chosen solution to address traffic congestion is implementing a smart traffic management system, you would work with engineers and transportation authorities to develop and deploy the system. Regular evaluation and iteration of the system’s performance would ensure that it is effective and making a positive impact on reducing congestion.

By applying the problem-solving cycle derived from computer science to real-life situations, we can approach challenges with a systematic and analytical mindset. This can help us make better decisions, improve our problem-solving skills, and ultimately achieve more efficient and effective solutions.

Building Problem Solving Skills

In the field of computer science, problem-solving is a fundamental skill that is crucial for success. Whether you are a computer scientist, programmer, or student, developing strong problem-solving skills will greatly benefit your work and studies. It allows you to approach challenges with a logical and systematic approach, leading to efficient and effective problem resolution.

The Problem Solving Cycle

Problem-solving in computer science involves a cyclical process known as the problem-solving cycle. This cycle consists of several stages, including problem identification, data analysis, solution development, implementation, and evaluation. By following this cycle, computer scientists are able to tackle complex problems and arrive at optimal solutions.

Importance of Data Analysis

Data analysis is a critical step in the problem-solving cycle. It involves gathering and examining relevant data to gain insights and identify patterns that can inform the development of a solution. Without proper data analysis, computer scientists may overlook important information or make unfounded assumptions, leading to subpar solutions.

To effectively analyze data, computer scientists can employ various techniques such as data visualization, statistical analysis, and machine learning algorithms. These tools enable them to extract meaningful information from large datasets and make informed decisions during the problem-solving process.

Developing Effective Solutions

Developing effective solutions requires creativity, critical thinking, and logical reasoning. Computer scientists must evaluate multiple approaches, consider various factors, and assess the feasibility of different solutions. They should also consider potential limitations and trade-offs to ensure that the chosen solution addresses the problem effectively.

Furthermore, collaboration and communication skills are vital when building problem-solving skills. Computer scientists often work in teams and need to effectively communicate their ideas, propose solutions, and address any challenges that arise during the problem-solving process. Strong interpersonal skills facilitate collaboration and enhance problem-solving outcomes.

• Mastering programming languages and algorithms
• Staying updated with technological advancements in the field
• Practicing problem solving through coding challenges and projects
• Seeking feedback and learning from mistakes
• Continuing to learn and improve problem-solving skills

By following these strategies, individuals can strengthen their problem-solving abilities and become more effective computer scientists or programmers. Problem-solving is an essential skill in computer science and plays a central role in driving innovation and advancing the field.

Questions and answers:

What is the problem solving cycle in computer science.

The problem solving cycle in computer science refers to a systematic approach that programmers use to solve problems. It involves several steps, including problem definition, algorithm design, implementation, testing, and debugging.

How important is the problem solving cycle in computer science?

The problem solving cycle is extremely important in computer science as it allows programmers to effectively tackle complex problems and develop efficient solutions. It helps in organizing the thought process and ensures that the problem is approached in a logical and systematic manner.

What are the steps involved in the problem solving cycle?

The problem solving cycle typically consists of the following steps: problem definition and analysis, algorithm design, implementation, testing, and debugging. These steps are repeated as necessary until a satisfactory solution is achieved.

Can you explain the problem definition and analysis step in the problem solving cycle?

During the problem definition and analysis step, the programmer identifies and thoroughly understands the problem that needs to be solved. This involves analyzing the requirements, constraints, and possible inputs and outputs. It is important to have a clear understanding of the problem before proceeding to the next steps.

Why is testing and debugging an important step in the problem solving cycle?

Testing and debugging are important steps in the problem solving cycle because they ensure that the implemented solution functions as intended and is free from errors. Through testing, the programmer can identify and fix any issues or bugs in the code, thereby improving the quality and reliability of the solution.

What is the problem-solving cycle in computer science?

The problem-solving cycle in computer science refers to the systematic approach that computer scientists use to solve problems. It involves various steps, including problem analysis, algorithm design, coding, testing, and debugging.

Related posts:

• The Stages of the Problem Solving Cycle in Cognitive Psychology – Understanding, Planning, Execution, Evaluation, and Reflection
• A Comprehensive Guide to the Problem Solving Cycle in Psychology – Strategies, Techniques, and Applications
• The Step-by-Step Problem Solving Cycle for Effective Solutions
• The Importance of Implementing the Problem Solving Cycle in Education to Foster Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in Students
• The Importance of the Problem Solving Cycle in Business Studies – Strategies for Success
• The Comprehensive Guide to the Problem Solving Cycle in PDF Format
• A Comprehensive Guide on the Problem Solving Cycle – Step-by-Step Approach with Real-Life Example
• The Seven Essential Steps of the Problem Solving Cycle

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Share Podcast

Do You Understand the Problem You’re Trying to Solve?

To solve tough problems at work, first ask these questions.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem without taking time to really understand the dilemma we face, according to Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg , an expert in innovation and the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for just one root cause can be misleading.

Key episode topics include: leadership, decision making and problem solving, power and influence, business management.

HBR On Leadership curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock the best in those around you. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the original HBR IdeaCast episode: The Secret to Better Problem Solving (2016)
• Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR on Leadership , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock the best in those around you.

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But even the most experienced among us can fall into the trap of solving the wrong problem.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg says that all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem – without taking time to really understand what we’re facing.

He’s an expert in innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

  In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems, by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for one root cause can be misleading. And you’ll learn how to use experimentation and rapid prototyping as problem-solving tools.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in December 2016. Here it is.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green Carmichael.

Problem solving is popular. People put it on their resumes. Managers believe they excel at it. Companies count it as a key proficiency. We solve customers’ problems.

The problem is we often solve the wrong problems. Albert Einstein and Peter Drucker alike have discussed the difficulty of effective diagnosis. There are great frameworks for getting teams to attack true problems, but they’re often hard to do daily and on the fly. That’s where our guest comes in.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg is a consultant who helps companies and managers reframe their problems so they can come up with an effective solution faster. He asks the question “Are You Solving The Right Problems?” in the January-February 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review. Thomas, thank you so much for coming on the HBR IdeaCast .

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thanks for inviting me.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I thought maybe we could start by talking about the problem of talking about problem reframing. What is that exactly?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Basically, when people face a problem, they tend to jump into solution mode to rapidly, and very often that means that they don’t really understand, necessarily, the problem they’re trying to solve. And so, reframing is really a– at heart, it’s a method that helps you avoid that by taking a second to go in and ask two questions, basically saying, first of all, wait. What is the problem we’re trying to solve? And then crucially asking, is there a different way to think about what the problem actually is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I feel like so often when this comes up in meetings, you know, someone says that, and maybe they throw out the Einstein quote about you spend an hour of problem solving, you spend 55 minutes to find the problem. And then everyone else in the room kind of gets irritated. So, maybe just give us an example of maybe how this would work in practice in a way that would not, sort of, set people’s teeth on edge, like oh, here Sarah goes again, reframing the whole problem instead of just solving it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I mean, you’re bringing up something that’s, I think is crucial, which is to create legitimacy for the method. So, one of the reasons why I put out the article is to give people a tool to say actually, this thing is still important, and we need to do it. But I think the really critical thing in order to make this work in a meeting is actually to learn how to do it fast, because if you have the idea that you need to spend 30 minutes in a meeting delving deeply into the problem, I mean, that’s going to be uphill for most problems. So, the critical thing here is really to try to make it a practice you can implement very, very rapidly.

There’s an example that I would suggest memorizing. This is the example that I use to explain very rapidly what it is. And it’s basically, I call it the slow elevator problem. You imagine that you are the owner of an office building, and that your tenants are complaining that the elevator’s slow.

Now, if you take that problem framing for granted, you’re going to start thinking creatively around how do we make the elevator faster. Do we install a new motor? Do we have to buy a new lift somewhere?

The thing is, though, if you ask people who actually work with facilities management, well, they’re going to have a different solution for you, which is put up a mirror next to the elevator. That’s what happens is, of course, that people go oh, I’m busy. I’m busy. I’m– oh, a mirror. Oh, that’s beautiful.

And then they forget time. What’s interesting about that example is that the idea with a mirror is actually a solution to a different problem than the one you first proposed. And so, the whole idea here is once you get good at using reframing, you can quickly identify other aspects of the problem that might be much better to try to solve than the original one you found. It’s not necessarily that the first one is wrong. It’s just that there might be better problems out there to attack that we can, means we can do things much faster, cheaper, or better.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, in that example, I can understand how A, it’s probably expensive to make the elevator faster, so it’s much cheaper just to put up a mirror. And B, maybe the real problem people are actually feeling, even though they’re not articulating it right, is like, I hate waiting for the elevator. But if you let them sort of fix their hair or check their teeth, they’re suddenly distracted and don’t notice.

But if you have, this is sort of a pedestrian example, but say you have a roommate or a spouse who doesn’t clean up the kitchen. Facing that problem and not having your elegant solution already there to highlight the contrast between the perceived problem and the real problem, how would you take a problem like that and attack it using this method so that you can see what some of the other options might be?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right. So, I mean, let’s say it’s you who have that problem. I would go in and say, first of all, what would you say the problem is? Like, if you were to describe your view of the problem, what would that be?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I hate cleaning the kitchen, and I want someone else to clean it up.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: OK. So, my first observation, you know, that somebody else might not necessarily be your spouse. So, already there, there’s an inbuilt assumption in your question around oh, it has to be my husband who does the cleaning. So, it might actually be worth, already there to say, is that really the only problem you have? That you hate cleaning the kitchen, and you want to avoid it? Or might there be something around, as well, getting a better relationship in terms of how you solve problems in general or establishing a better way to handle small problems when dealing with your spouse?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Or maybe, now that I’m thinking that, maybe the problem is that you just can’t find the stuff in the kitchen when you need to find it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right, and so that’s an example of a reframing, that actually why is it a problem that the kitchen is not clean? Is it only because you hate the act of cleaning, or does it actually mean that it just takes you a lot longer and gets a lot messier to actually use the kitchen, which is a different problem. The way you describe this problem now, is there anything that’s missing from that description?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That is a really good question.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Other, basically asking other factors that we are not talking about right now, and I say those because people tend to, when given a problem, they tend to delve deeper into the detail. What often is missing is actually an element outside of the initial description of the problem that might be really relevant to what’s going on. Like, why does the kitchen get messy in the first place? Is it something about the way you use it or your cooking habits? Is it because the neighbor’s kids, kind of, use it all the time?

There might, very often, there might be issues that you’re not really thinking about when you first describe the problem that actually has a big effect on it.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I think at this point it would be helpful to maybe get another business example, and I’m wondering if you could tell us the story of the dog adoption problem.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Yeah. This is a big problem in the US. If you work in the shelter industry, basically because dogs are so popular, more than 3 million dogs every year enter a shelter, and currently only about half of those actually find a new home and get adopted. And so, this is a problem that has persisted. It’s been, like, a structural problem for decades in this space. In the last three years, where people found new ways to address it.

So a woman called Lori Weise who runs a rescue organization in South LA, and she actually went in and challenged the very idea of what we were trying to do. She said, no, no. The problem we’re trying to solve is not about how to get more people to adopt dogs. It is about keeping the dogs with their first family so they never enter the shelter system in the first place.

In 2013, she started what’s called a Shelter Intervention Program that basically works like this. If a family comes and wants to hand over their dog, these are called owner surrenders. It’s about 30% of all dogs that come into a shelter. All they would do is go up and ask, if you could, would you like to keep your animal? And if they said yes, they would try to fix whatever helped them fix the problem, but that made them turn over this.

And sometimes that might be that they moved into a new building. The landlord required a deposit, and they simply didn’t have the money to put down a deposit. Or the dog might need a $10 rabies shot, but they didn’t know how to get access to a vet.

And so, by instigating that program, just in the first year, she took her, basically the amount of dollars they spent per animal they helped went from something like $85 down to around $60. Just an immediate impact, and her program now is being rolled out, is being supported by the ASPCA, which is one of the big animal welfare stations, and it’s being rolled out to various other places.

And I think what really struck me with that example was this was not dependent on having the internet. This was not, oh, we needed to have everybody mobile before we could come up with this. This, conceivably, we could have done 20 years ago. Only, it only happened when somebody, like in this case Lori, went in and actually rethought what the problem they were trying to solve was in the first place.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, what I also think is so interesting about that example is that when you talk about it, it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that would have been thought of through other kinds of problem solving methods. There wasn’t necessarily an After Action Review or a 5 Whys exercise or a Six Sigma type intervention. I don’t want to throw those other methods under the bus, but how can you get such powerful results with such a very simple way of thinking about something?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That was something that struck me as well. This, in a way, reframing and the idea of the problem diagnosis is important is something we’ve known for a long, long time. And we’ve actually have built some tools to help out. If you worked with us professionally, you are familiar with, like, Six Sigma, TRIZ, and so on. You mentioned 5 Whys. A root cause analysis is another one that a lot of people are familiar with.

Those are our good tools, and they’re definitely better than nothing. But what I notice when I work with the companies applying those was those tools tend to make you dig deeper into the first understanding of the problem we have. If it’s the elevator example, people start asking, well, is that the cable strength, or is the capacity of the elevator? That they kind of get caught by the details.

That, in a way, is a bad way to work on problems because it really assumes that there’s like a, you can almost hear it, a root cause. That you have to dig down and find the one true problem, and everything else was just symptoms. That’s a bad way to think about problems because problems tend to be multicausal.

There tend to be lots of causes or levers you can potentially press to address a problem. And if you think there’s only one, if that’s the right problem, that’s actually a dangerous way. And so I think that’s why, that this is a method I’ve worked with over the last five years, trying to basically refine how to make people better at this, and the key tends to be this thing about shifting out and saying, is there a totally different way of thinking about the problem versus getting too caught up in the mechanistic details of what happens.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What about experimentation? Because that’s another method that’s become really popular with the rise of Lean Startup and lots of other innovation methodologies. Why wouldn’t it have worked to, say, experiment with many different types of fixing the dog adoption problem, and then just pick the one that works the best?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: You could say in the dog space, that’s what’s been going on. I mean, there is, in this industry and a lot of, it’s largely volunteer driven. People have experimented, and they found different ways of trying to cope. And that has definitely made the problem better. So, I wouldn’t say that experimentation is bad, quite the contrary. Rapid prototyping, quickly putting something out into the world and learning from it, that’s a fantastic way to learn more and to move forward.

My point is, though, that I feel we’ve come to rely too much on that. There’s like, if you look at the start up space, the wisdom is now just to put something quickly into the market, and then if it doesn’t work, pivot and just do more stuff. What reframing really is, I think of it as the cognitive counterpoint to prototyping. So, this is really a way of seeing very quickly, like not just working on the solution, but also working on our understanding of the problem and trying to see is there a different way to think about that.

If you only stick with experimentation, again, you tend to sometimes stay too much in the same space trying minute variations of something instead of taking a step back and saying, wait a minute. What is this telling us about what the real issue is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, to go back to something that we touched on earlier, when we were talking about the completely hypothetical example of a spouse who does not clean the kitchen–

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Completely, completely hypothetical.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yes. For the record, my husband is a great kitchen cleaner.

You started asking me some questions that I could see immediately were helping me rethink that problem. Is that kind of the key, just having a checklist of questions to ask yourself? How do you really start to put this into practice?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I think there are two steps in that. The first one is just to make yourself better at the method. Yes, you should kind of work with a checklist. In the article, I kind of outlined seven practices that you can use to do this.

But importantly, I would say you have to consider that as, basically, a set of training wheels. I think there’s a big, big danger in getting caught in a checklist. This is something I work with.

My co-author Paddy Miller, it’s one of his insights. That if you start giving people a checklist for things like this, they start following it. And that’s actually a problem, because what you really want them to do is start challenging their thinking.

So the way to handle this is to get some practice using it. Do use the checklist initially, but then try to step away from it and try to see if you can organically make– it’s almost a habit of mind. When you run into a colleague in the hallway and she has a problem and you have five minutes, like, delving in and just starting asking some of those questions and using your intuition to say, wait, how is she talking about this problem? And is there a question or two I can ask her about the problem that can help her rethink it?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, that is also just a very different approach, because I think in that situation, most of us can’t go 30 seconds without jumping in and offering solutions.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Very true. The drive toward solutions is very strong. And to be clear, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that if the solutions work. So, many problems are just solved by oh, you know, oh, here’s the way to do that. Great.

But this is really a powerful method for those problems where either it’s something we’ve been banging our heads against tons of times without making progress, or when you need to come up with a really creative solution. When you’re facing a competitor with a much bigger budget, and you know, if you solve the same problem later, you’re not going to win. So, that basic idea of taking that approach to problems can often help you move forward in a different way than just like, oh, I have a solution.

I would say there’s also, there’s some interesting psychological stuff going on, right? Where you may have tried this, but if somebody tries to serve up a solution to a problem I have, I’m often resistant towards them. Kind if like, no, no, no, no, no, no. That solution is not going to work in my world. Whereas if you get them to discuss and analyze what the problem really is, you might actually dig something up.

Let’s go back to the kitchen example. One powerful question is just to say, what’s your own part in creating this problem? It’s very often, like, people, they describe problems as if it’s something that’s inflicted upon them from the external world, and they are innocent bystanders in that.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Right, or crazy customers with unreasonable demands.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Exactly, right. I don’t think I’ve ever met an agency or consultancy that didn’t, like, gossip about their customers. Oh, my god, they’re horrible. That, you know, classic thing, why don’t they want to take more risk? Well, risk is bad.

It’s their business that’s on the line, not the consultancy’s, right? So, absolutely, that’s one of the things when you step into a different mindset and kind of, wait. Oh yeah, maybe I actually am part of creating this problem in a sense, as well. That tends to open some new doors for you to move forward, in a way, with stuff that you may have been struggling with for years.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, we’ve surfaced a couple of questions that are useful. I’m curious to know, what are some of the other questions that you find yourself asking in these situations, given that you have made this sort of mental habit that you do? What are the questions that people seem to find really useful?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: One easy one is just to ask if there are any positive exceptions to the problem. So, was there day where your kitchen was actually spotlessly clean? And then asking, what was different about that day? Like, what happened there that didn’t happen the other days? That can very often point people towards a factor that they hadn’t considered previously.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: We got take-out.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: S,o that is your solution. Take-out from [INAUDIBLE]. That might have other problems.

Another good question, and this is a little bit more high level. It’s actually more making an observation about labeling how that person thinks about the problem. And what I mean with that is, we have problem categories in our head. So, if I say, let’s say that you describe a problem to me and say, well, we have a really great product and are, it’s much better than our previous product, but people aren’t buying it. I think we need to put more marketing dollars into this.

Now you can go in and say, that’s interesting. This sounds like you’re thinking of this as a communications problem. Is there a different way of thinking about that? Because you can almost tell how, when the second you say communications, there are some ideas about how do you solve a communications problem. Typically with more communication.

And what you might do is go in and suggest, well, have you considered that it might be, say, an incentive problem? Are there incentives on behalf of the purchasing manager at your clients that are obstructing you? Might there be incentive issues with your own sales force that makes them want to sell the old product instead of the new one?

So literally, just identifying what type of problem does this person think about, and is there different potential way of thinking about it? Might it be an emotional problem, a timing problem, an expectations management problem? Thinking about what label of what type of problem that person is kind of thinking as it of.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That’s really interesting, too, because I think so many of us get requests for advice that we’re really not qualified to give. So, maybe the next time that happens, instead of muddying my way through, I will just ask some of those questions that we talked about instead.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That sounds like a good idea.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, Thomas, this has really helped me reframe the way I think about a couple of problems in my own life, and I’m just wondering. I know you do this professionally, but is there a problem in your life that thinking this way has helped you solve?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I’ve, of course, I’ve been swallowing my own medicine on this, too, and I think I have, well, maybe two different examples, and in one case somebody else did the reframing for me. But in one case, when I was younger, I often kind of struggled a little bit. I mean, this is my teenage years, kind of hanging out with my parents. I thought they were pretty annoying people. That’s not really fair, because they’re quite wonderful, but that’s what life is when you’re a teenager.

And one of the things that struck me, suddenly, and this was kind of the positive exception was, there was actually an evening where we really had a good time, and there wasn’t a conflict. And the core thing was, I wasn’t just seeing them in their old house where I grew up. It was, actually, we were at a restaurant. And it suddenly struck me that so much of the sometimes, kind of, a little bit, you love them but they’re annoying kind of dynamic, is tied to the place, is tied to the setting you are in.

And of course, if– you know, I live abroad now, if I visit my parents and I stay in my old bedroom, you know, my mother comes in and wants to wake me up in the morning. Stuff like that, right? And it just struck me so, so clearly that it’s– when I change this setting, if I go out and have dinner with them at a different place, that the dynamic, just that dynamic disappears.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Thomas, this has been really, really helpful. Thank you for talking with me today.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thank you, Sarah.  

HANNAH BATES: That was Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg in conversation with Sarah Green Carmichael on the HBR IdeaCast. He’s an expert in problem solving and innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about leadership from the Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

We’re a production of Harvard Business Review. If you want more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos like this, find it all at HBR dot org.

This episode was produced by Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Music by Coma Media. Special thanks to Maureen Hoch, Adi Ignatius, Karen Player, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener.

See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about leadership.

• Decision making and problem solving
• Power and influence
• Business management

Partner Center

Guide to Teaching Computer Science pp 143–168 Cite as

Problem-Solving Strategies

• Orit Hazzan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8627-0997 4 ,
• Noa Ragonis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8163-0199 5 &
• Tami Lapidot 4  
• First Online: 06 August 2020

1329 Accesses

Problem-solving is generally considered as one of the most important and challenging cognitive activities in everyday as well as in any professional contexts. Specifically, it is one of the central activities performed by computer scientists as well as by computer science learners. However, it is not a uniform or linear process that can be taught as an algorithm to be followed, and the understanding of this individual process is not always clear. Computer science learners often face difficulties in performing two of the main stages of a problem-solving process: problem analysis and solution construction. Therefore, it is important that computer science educators be aware of these difficulties and acquire appropriate pedagogical tools to guide and scaffold learners in learning these skills. This chapter is dedicated to such pedagogical tools. It presents several problem-solving strategies to address in the MTCS course together with appropriate activities that mediate them to the prospective computer science teachers by enabling them to experience the different strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

An algorithmic problem is defined by what is given – the initial conditions of the problem and its goals – the desired state, what should be accomplished. An algorithm problem can be solved with a series of actions formulated formally either by pseudo-code or a programming language. See Sect. 12.4.1 .

In advanced computer science classes, it is relevant to mention that in computer science, in addition to the development of problem-solving strategies, special emphasis is placed also on non-solvable problems (see Sect. 12.4.3 ).

Role of Variables in Python: http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~saja/var_roles/stud_vers/stud_Python_eng.html

Roles of Variables with examples in Scratch: https://www.sisd.net/cms/lib/TX01001452/Centricity/domain/433/cse/1.1.5%20RolesOfVariables_UsedActivity1.2.4.pptx

The Roles of Variables home page ( http://saja.kapsi.fi/var_roles/ ) is a rich resource and contains different kinds of educational resources.

See http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~saja/var_roles/role_intro.html

See http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~saja/var_roles/try.html

See http://cs.uef.fi/~pgerdt/RAE/

See http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~saja/var_roles/why_roles.html

See http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/~saja/var_roles/teaching.html

See http://saja.kapsi.fi/var_roles/literature.html

Ahrendt W, Bubel R, Hahnle R (2009) Integrated and tool-supported teaching of testing, debugging, and verification. In: Gibbons J, Oliveira JN (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on teaching formal methods (TFM ’09). Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 125–143

Google Scholar  

Alqadi BS, Maletic JI (2017) An empirical study of debugging patterns among novices programmers. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE ’17). ACM, New York, pp 15–20

Arshad N (2009) Teaching programming and problem solving to CS2 students using think-alouds. SIGCSE Bull 41(1):372–376

Astrachan O, Berry G, Cox L, Mitchener G (1998) Design patterns: an essential component of CS curricula. In: Proceeding of SIGCSE, pp 153–160

Batory D, Sarvela JN, Rauschmayer A (2004) Scaling stepwise refinement. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(6):355–371

Bauer A, Popović Z (2017) Collaborative problem solving in an open-ended scientific discovery game. In: Proceedings of the ACM Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW, Article 22 (December 2017)

Ben-Ari M, Sajaniemi J (2003) Roles of variables from the perspective of computer science educators. University of Joensuu, Department of Computer Science, Technical Report, Series A-2003–6

Börstler J, Hilburn TB (2016) Team projects in computing education. ACM Trans Comput Educ 16(2), Article 4 (March 2016)

Byckling P, Sajaniemi J (2006) Roles of variables and programming skills improvement. SIGCSE Bull 38(1):413–417

Carver S, McCoy (1988) Learning and transfer of debugging skills: applying task analysis to curriculum design and assessment. In Mayer RE (ed) Teaching and learning computer programming, multiple research perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Chapter 11

Celepkolu M, Boyer KE (2018) The importance of producing shared code through pair programming. In: Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE ’18). ACM, New York, pp 765–770

Clancy MJ, Linn M C (1999) Patterns and pedagogy. In: Proceedings of the SIGCSE’99, pp 37–42

Cosmides L, Tooby J (1997) Evolutionary psychology: a primer. Retrieved 24 October 2004, from http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html

Dijkstra EW (1976) A discipline of programming. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

MATH   Google Scholar  

East JP, Thomas SR, Wallingford E, Beck W, Drake J (1996) Pattern-based programming instruction. In: Proceedings of ASEE annual conference and exposition, Washington, DC

Ginat D (2003) The greedy trap and learning from mistakes. SIGCSE Bull 35(1):11–15

Ginat D (2004) Algorithmic patterns and the case of the sliding delta. SIGCSE Bull 36(2):29–33

Ginat D (2008) Learning from wrong and creative algorithm design. SIGCSE Bull 40(1):26–30

Ginat D (2009) Interleaved pattern composition and scaffolded learning. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education – ITiCSE ‘09, Paris, France, pp 109–113

Ginat D, Shmalo R (2013) Constructive use of errors in teaching CS1. In: Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE ’13). ACM, New York, pp 353–358

Hasni TF, Lodhi F (2011) Teaching problem solving effectively. ACM Inroads 2(3):58–62

Hazzan O, Leron U (2006) Why do we resist testing? Syst Des Front Exclus Front Cover Syst Des 3(7):20–23

Johnson DW, Johanson RT (2017) Cooperative learning. Retrieved from: https://2017.congresoinnovacion.educa.aragon.es/documents/48/David_Johnson.pdf

Jonassen DH (2000) Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educ Technol Res Dev 48(4):63–85

Kiesmüller U (2009) Diagnosing learners’ problem-solving strategies using learning environments with algorithmic problems in secondary education. Trans Comput Educ 9(3), Article 17 (September 2009), 26 pages

Laakso MJ, Malmi L, Korhonen A, Rajala T, Kaila E, Salakoski T (2008) Using roles of variables to enhance novice’s debugging work. Issues Informing Sci Inf Technol 5:281–295

Lapidot T, Hazzan O (2005) Song debugging: merging content and pedagogy in computer science education. Inroads SIGCSE Bull 37(4):79–83

Lieberman H (1997) The debugging scandal and what to do about it (special section). Comm ACM 40(4):27–29

Lishinski A, Yadav A, Enbody R, Good J (2016) The influence of problem solving abilities on Students’ performance on different assessment tasks in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, pp 329–334

Muller O (2005) Pattern oriented instruction and the enhancement of analogical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Computer Education Research ICER ‘05, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 57–67

Muller O, Haberman B, Averbuch H (2004) (An almost) pedagogical pattern for pattern-based problem solving instruction. In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science. Education, pp 102–106

Muller O, Ginat D, Haberman B (2007) Pattern-oriented instruction and its influence on problem decomposition and solution construction. ACM SIGCSE Bull 39(3):151–155

Murphy L, Lewandowski G, McCauley R, Simon B, Thomas L, Zander C (2008) Debugging: the good, the bad, and the quirky – a qualitative analysis of novices’ strategies. SIGCSE Bull 40(1):163–167

Nagvajara P, Taskin B (2007) Design-for-debug: a vital aspect in education. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international conference on microelectronic systems education (MSE ’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 65–66

Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc, New York

Polya G (1957) How to solve it. Doubleday and Co., Inc, Garden City

Polya G (1981) Mathematical discovery on understanding learning and teaching problem solving. Wiley, New York

Popper KR (1992/1959) Logic of scientific discovery. Harper and Row, New York

Proulx VK (2000) Programming patterns and design patterns in the introductory computer science course. Proc SIGCSE 32(1):80–84

Ragonis N (2012) Integrating the teaching of algorithmic patterns into computer science teacher preparation programs. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE ’12). ACM, New York, pp 339–344

Raman K, Svore KM, Gilad-Bachrach R, Burges CJC (2012) Learning from mistakes: towards a correctable learning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (CIKM ’12). ACM, New York, pp 1930–1934

Reed D (1999) Incorporating problem-solving patterns in CS1. J Comput Sci Edu 13(1):6–13

Reynolds RG, Maletic JI, Porvin SE (1992) Stepwise refinement and problem solving. IEEE Softw 9(5):79–88

Robins A, Rountree J, Rountree N (2003) Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Comput Sci Edu 13(2):137–172

Sajaniemi J (2005) Roles of variables and learning to program. In: Jimoyiannis A (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd Panhellenic conference didactics of informatics, University of Peloponnese, Korinthos, Greece. http://cs.joensuu.fi/~saja/var_roles/abstracts/didinf05.pdf . Accessed 3 July 2010

Santos AL, Sousa J (2017) An exploratory study of how programming instructors illustrate variables and control flow. In: Proceedings of the 17th Koli calling international conference on computing education research (Koli Calling ’17). ACM, New York, pp 173–177

Schoenfeld AH (1983) Episodes and executive decisions in mathematical problem-solving. In: Lesh R, Landaue M (eds) Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes. Academic Press Inc, New York

Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner. BasicBooks

Seta K, Kajino T, Umano M, Ikeda M (2006) An ontology based reflection support system to encourage learning from mistakes. In: Deved V (ed) Proceedings of the 24th IASTED international conference on artificial intelligence and applications (AIA’06). ACTA Press, Anaheim, pp 142–149

Soloway E (1986) Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. CACM 29(1):850–858

Spohrer JG, Soloway E (1986) Analyzing the high frequency bugs in novice programs. In: Soloway E, Iyengar S (eds) Empirical studies of programmers. Ablex, Norwood, pp 230–251

Stoeffler K, Rosen Y, von Davier A (2017) Exploring the measurement of collaborative problem solving using a human-agent educational game. In: Proceedings of the seventh international learning analytics & knowledge conference (LAK ‘17). ACM, New York, pp 570–571

Vainio V, Sajaniemi J (2007) Factors in novice programmers’ poor tracing skills. SIGCSE Bull 39(3):236–240

Vasconcelos J (2007) Basic strategy for algorithmic problem solving. http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jorgev/cs106/ProblemSolving.html . Accessed 2 June 2010

Vírseda R d V, Orna EP, Berbis E, Guerrero S d L (2011) A logic teaching tool based on tableaux for verification and debugging of algorithms. In: Blackburn P, van Ditmarsch H, Soler-Toscano F, Manzano M (eds) Proceedings of the third international congress conference on tools for teaching logic (TICTTL’11). Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 239–248

Von Davier AA, Halpin PF (2013) Collaborative problem solving and the assessment of cognitive skills: psychometric considerations. ETS Res Rep Ser 2013(2):1–36

Wallingford E (1996) Toward a first course based on object-oriented patterns. In: Proceedings of the SIGCSE, pp 27–31

Wirth N (1971) Program development by stepwise refinement. CACM 14(4):221–227. http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.355/wirth-refinement.html . Accessed 13 Nov 2010

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education in Science & Technology, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Orit Hazzan & Tami Lapidot

Faculty of Education, Beit Berl College, Doar Beit Berl, Israel

Noa Ragonis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hazzan, O., Ragonis, N., Lapidot, T. (2020). Problem-Solving Strategies. In: Guide to Teaching Computer Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1_8

Published : 06 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-39359-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-39360-1

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

The Problem solving process

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 6, 2024   •   9:27 Your Solar Eclipse Soundtrack
• April 5, 2024   •   15:54 What Does Larry David Know About Manners?
• April 4, 2024   •   8:40 Julia Louis-Dreyfus Wants You to Listen to Older Women
• April 2, 2024   •   7:05 Beyoncé’s New Album Reviewed
• March 30, 2024   •   9:00 Solving the ‘3 Body Problem’
• March 29, 2024   •   5:26 The Latest on Sean Combs’s Legal Woes
• March 28, 2024   •   9:10 Before Beyoncé: Black Artists Who Crossed Over to Country
• March 27, 2024   •   3:50 A Boxing Novel That Brings the Heat
• March 22, 2024   •   7:47 New Music for Your Weekend
• March 21, 2024   •   6:57 A Surreal New TV Series About Life, Love and Fruit
• March 20, 2024   •   9:37 Curl Up With a Delicious Recipe
• March 15, 2024   •   7:20 Kacey Musgraves Finds Inner Peace on Her New Album

Solving the ‘3 Body Problem’

Unpacking netflix’s new hit with the times’s cosmic affairs correspondent..

Produced by Alex Barron

Edited by Lynn Levy

Engineered by Efim Shapiro

Featuring Dennis Overbye

The show “3 Body Problem” premiered on March 21 and quickly became one of Netflix’s most-watched titles. It is an adventure story about a group of scientists contending with an extraterrestrial threat. But despite its science fiction trappings, the show is often based in real — and complex — scientific concepts, whether string theory or nanomaterials. In this episode, Dennis Overbye, The Times’s cosmic affairs correspondent, breaks down some of the more brain-bending science behind “3 Body Problem.”

On today’s episode

Dennis Overbye is the cosmic affairs correspondent for The Times, covering physics and astronomy.

The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Dennis Overbye is the cosmic affairs correspondent for The Times, covering physics and astronomy. More about Dennis Overbye

Advertisement

• Trending Now
• Foundational Courses
• Data Science
• Practice Problem
• Machine Learning
• System Design
• DevOps Tutorial

Welcome to the daily solving of our PROBLEM OF THE DAY with Yash Dwivedi . We will discuss the entire problem step-by-step and work towards developing an optimized solution. This will not only help you brush up on your concepts of Arrays but also build up problem-solving skills. In this problem, we are given an array nums of n positive integers. Find the minimum number of operations required to modify the array such that array elements are in strictly increasing order (nums[i] < nums[i+1]). Changing a number to greater or lesser than original number is counted as one operation. Note: Array elements can become negative after applying operation. Example : Input: n = 6 nums = [1, 2, 3, 6, 5, 4] Output:  2 Explanation:  By decreasing 6 by 2 and increasing 4 by 2, nums will be like [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] which is stricly increasing. Give the problem a try before going through the video. All the best!!! Problem Link: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/problems/convert-to-strictly-increasing-array3351/1 Solution IDE Link: https://ide.geeksforgeeks.org/online-cpp-compiler/8ed95be1-40c2-44d3-861c-bd46148e787f

JavaScript disabled

You have to enable JavaScript in your browser's settings in order to use the eReader.

Or try downloading the content offline

Did you know?

Reader environment loaded

Loading publication (1.7 MB)

Large documents might take a while