wood's problem solving model

Teaching Problem-Solving Skills

Many instructors design opportunities for students to solve “problems”. But are their students solving true problems or merely participating in practice exercises? The former stresses critical thinking and decision­ making skills whereas the latter requires only the application of previously learned procedures.

Problem solving is often broadly defined as "the ability to understand the environment, identify complex problems, review related information to develop, evaluate strategies and implement solutions to build the desired outcome" (Fissore, C. et al, 2021). True problem solving is the process of applying a method – not known in advance – to a problem that is subject to a specific set of conditions and that the problem solver has not seen before, in order to obtain a satisfactory solution.

Below you will find some basic principles for teaching problem solving and one model to implement in your classroom teaching.

Principles for teaching problem solving

• Model a useful problem-solving method . Problem solving can be difficult and sometimes tedious. Show students how to be patient and persistent, and how to follow a structured method, such as Woods’ model described below. Articulate your method as you use it so students see the connections.
• Teach within a specific context . Teach problem-solving skills in the context in which they will be used by students (e.g., mole fraction calculations in a chemistry course). Use real-life problems in explanations, examples, and exams. Do not teach problem solving as an independent, abstract skill.
• Help students understand the problem . In order to solve problems, students need to define the end goal. This step is crucial to successful learning of problem-solving skills. If you succeed at helping students answer the questions “what?” and “why?”, finding the answer to “how?” will be easier.
• Take enough time . When planning a lecture/tutorial, budget enough time for: understanding the problem and defining the goal (both individually and as a class); dealing with questions from you and your students; making, finding, and fixing mistakes; and solving entire problems in a single session.
• Ask questions and make suggestions . Ask students to predict “what would happen if …” or explain why something happened. This will help them to develop analytical and deductive thinking skills. Also, ask questions and make suggestions about strategies to encourage students to reflect on the problem-solving strategies that they use.
• Link errors to misconceptions . Use errors as evidence of misconceptions, not carelessness or random guessing. Make an effort to isolate the misconception and correct it, then teach students to do this by themselves. We can all learn from mistakes.

Woods’ problem-solving model

Define the problem.

• The system . Have students identify the system under study (e.g., a metal bridge subject to certain forces) by interpreting the information provided in the problem statement. Drawing a diagram is a great way to do this.
• Known(s) and concepts . List what is known about the problem, and identify the knowledge needed to understand (and eventually) solve it.
• Unknown(s) . Once you have a list of knowns, identifying the unknown(s) becomes simpler. One unknown is generally the answer to the problem, but there may be other unknowns. Be sure that students understand what they are expected to find.
• Units and symbols . One key aspect in problem solving is teaching students how to select, interpret, and use units and symbols. Emphasize the use of units whenever applicable. Develop a habit of using appropriate units and symbols yourself at all times.
• Constraints . All problems have some stated or implied constraints. Teach students to look for the words "only", "must", "neglect", or "assume" to help identify the constraints.
• Criteria for success . Help students consider, from the beginning, what a logical type of answer would be. What characteristics will it possess? For example, a quantitative problem will require an answer in some form of numerical units (e.g., $/kg product, square cm, etc.) while an optimization problem requires an answer in the form of either a numerical maximum or minimum.

Think about it

• “Let it simmer”.  Use this stage to ponder the problem. Ideally, students will develop a mental image of the problem at hand during this stage.
• Identify specific pieces of knowledge . Students need to determine by themselves the required background knowledge from illustrations, examples and problems covered in the course.
• Collect information . Encourage students to collect pertinent information such as conversion factors, constants, and tables needed to solve the problem.

Plan a solution

• Consider possible strategies . Often, the type of solution will be determined by the type of problem. Some common problem-solving strategies are: compute; simplify; use an equation; make a model, diagram, table, or chart; or work backwards.
• Choose the best strategy . Help students to choose the best strategy by reminding them again what they are required to find or calculate.

Carry out the plan

• Be patient . Most problems are not solved quickly or on the first attempt. In other cases, executing the solution may be the easiest step.
• Be persistent . If a plan does not work immediately, do not let students get discouraged. Encourage them to try a different strategy and keep trying.

Encourage students to reflect. Once a solution has been reached, students should ask themselves the following questions:

• Does the answer make sense?
• Does it fit with the criteria established in step 1?
• Did I answer the question(s)?
• What did I learn by doing this?
• Could I have done the problem another way?

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help.  View the  CTE Support  page to find the most relevant staff member to contact. 

• Fissore, C., Marchisio, M., Roman, F., & Sacchet, M. (2021). Development of problem solving skills with Maple in higher education. In: Corless, R.M., Gerhard, J., Kotsireas, I.S. (eds) Maple in Mathematics Education and Research. MC 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1414. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81698-8_15
• Foshay, R., & Kirkley, J. (1998). Principles for Teaching Problem Solving. TRO Learning Inc., Edina MN.  (PDF) Principles for Teaching Problem Solving (researchgate.net)
• Hayes, J.R. (1989). The Complete Problem Solver. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Woods, D.R., Wright, J.D., Hoffman, T.W., Swartman, R.K., Doig, I.D. (1975). Teaching Problem solving Skills.
• Engineering Education. Vol 1, No. 1. p. 238. Washington, DC: The American Society for Engineering Education.

Catalog search

Teaching tip categories.

• Assessment and feedback
• Blended Learning and Educational Technologies
• Career Development
• Course Design
• Course Implementation
• Inclusive Teaching and Learning
• Learning activities
• Support for Student Learning
• Support for TAs
• Learning activities ,

Problem Solving

What is problem solving, problem solving is a complex mental activity that involves cognitive skills and actions to first identify the problem; analyse and evaluate the problem by applying prior experience and knowledge in the process in order to derive the most practical and fitting solution., chan, cky (2021).

Some definitions of problem solving in the literature include:

Problem solving is the process of constructing and applying mental representations of problems to finding solutions to those problems that are encountered in nearly every context (Jonassen & Hung, 2012, p. 1).

Problem solving is defined as a process, used to obtain a best answer to an unknown, or a decision subject to some constraints (Mourtos, Okamoto & Rhee, 2004, p. 1).

Are You a Strong Problem Solver?

According to Mourtos, Okamoto & Rhee (2004), a good problem solver has the following characteristics:

They are strong at identifying problems;

They can analyse and evaluate the problem thoroughly;

They are able to apply prior experience and knowledge in the problem solving process, and be flexible in the process even if it involves some trials and errors; and 

They can solve problems according to the plan or process after careful consideration of multiple perspectives.

Why is Problem Solving Important?

The importance of problem solving, especially in the workplace, has been validated for years in many studies. Problem solving is regarded as an essential competency for any employees. According to Elger, Armstrong, Beyerlein, Felicione, Fulcher, Rousseau (2001), problem solving competency is imperative to the success in workplace. Therefore, graduates are expected to well-develop their problem solving competency in higher education before starting their first career.  According to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (2021), problem solving is important because:

With good problem solving competency, your other competencies such as creativity, resilience, etc. can also be revealed;

Problem solving competency is vital for your professional and lifelong development;

With good problem solving competency, one is regarded as a valuable assets in the team;

Those with good problem solving competency are usually proactive thinker as well; and 

It is essential to have problem solving competency if you want to advance your career more quickly.

How is Problem Solving Developed?

Because of the importance of problem solving, it is essential for students to develop their problem solving competency. However, as problems are different under various contexts, there is not a standardized methodology that can be best fit for all contexts. In light of this, we narrow down to a specific context, the engineering context, before introducing a possible methodology.

Wood's Process of Problem Solving

The methodology adopted by Wood, with reference to the Professional Decision making (PDM) model (Elger, Armstrong, Beyerlein, Felicione, Fulcher, Rousseau, 2001) is specifically designed for the engineering context for problem solving. It includes six stages after engaging the problem. They are as follow:

Applying Wood's Process of Problem Solving in Teaching

Based on Wood’s Problem Solving Process Model, Wood and colleagues (1975) recommended ways in which problem solving skills can be taught at each stage in the model.

Stage 1: Define the Problem

In this stage, there are several things that teachers can do to guide students in defining the problem. Teachers can first guide students to read the problem statement and interpret useful information. Afterwards, students need to identify what exactly the problem is, the relevant knowledge that requires to solve the problem, as well as the unknown. Then, teachers also need to instruct students identify the implied constraints in the problem. Furthermore, teachers will guide students to think about what a logical answer should be for the specific problem. 

Stage 2: Explore the Problem

In this stage, teachers can guide students to develop a mental image regarding the problem they are solving. Students should have determined what background knowledge is needed in order to solve the problems. Teacher will also encourage students to start information collection that helps to solve the problem in this stage.

Stage 3: Plan a Solution

In this stage, teachers can guide students to consider all possible strategies for solving the problem. Teacher can also help students to select the best strategy for the problem and remind students the answers that students are supposed to find.

Stage 4: Carry out the Plan

Teacher can remind students to be patient and persistent while carrying out the plan. This is because we do not generally solve problems on the first attempt and therefore, teachers will need to be the one to encourage students to try solving the problem with another strategy (Woods, Wright, Hoffman, Swartman & Doig, 1975).

Stage 5 & 6: Check the Solution & Evaluate / Reflect

When students ultimately reach a solution, this is not the end. Teachers can further prompt students to reflect on whether the answers obtained correctly or effectively answer the problem or not, as well as whether they are logical or not. Teachers also need to encourage students to reflect on their learning experience regarding the problem solving process, as well as if there are more alternatives for solving the problem.

Demonstrating Wood’s Problem Solving Process in a Classroom Setting

To demonstrate how this methodology is used, Mourtos, Okamoto & Rhee (2004) has provided several examples, in which “open-ended problems from fluid mechanics, thermodynamics and heat transfer” (p. 2) are studied. Here, we use the fluid mechanics problem as an example.

In Mourtos, Okamoto & Rhee (2004)’s example, students need to solve the problem in the given scenario by deciding whether the individual in the scenario is going to walk or run in the rain from the building and get into the car. The condition is that students need to find the best way that can save the clothes of the individual from getting wet. Applying the methodology introduced above, students starts by defining the criterion of the scenario (the amount of water for the clothes to absorb under both options). Then, they explore the problem by examining the issues and make assumptions for parameters (e.g. the rain droplet volume) in the problem that may affect the problem solving process. Afterwards, they start planning the solution by generating the relevant equations to calculate the amount of water that the clothes will absorb under two options (run or walk). After formulating the equation, students implement the equation by substituting the assumed values into the equation. The next step is then to check whether the calculations of the equations are accurate or not, as well as whether the units are correct or not. Finally, students check if the answers they obtain from the equation is reasonable or not. Through the answers, students revise assumptions to obtain answers that are more reasonable.

For more details about the examples above, or if you are interested in reading other examples about how students make use of the methodology introduced to solve problems, you may refer to the Mourtos, Okamoto & Rhee (2004)’s literature.

How Should I Assess Problem Solving?

Similar to the development of problem solving competency, the assessment of problem solving is not standardized as well because of the complexity of the problems, especially for ill-structured problems. There are different ways to assess students’ problem solving skills, and here are examples of some assessments which have been implemented.

Case Studies

Computing professional skills assessment (cpsa).

The case study introduced is conducted by Danaher & Schoepp (2020), using Computing Professional Skills Assessment (CPSA) as the assessment method.  This is an assessment method that enable six learning outcomes to be assessed, including problem solving, continuing learning, teamwork, communication, computing impacts, as well as legal, security and ethical aspects. This assessment instrument applies “a scenario-based asynchronous discussion board to assess student groups’ ability to problem solve” (p. 2). All the scenarios in the discussion board are ill-structured workplace problems.

Examples of Assessment Approaches for Problem Solving

As stated by Danaher & Schoepp (2020), the purposes of the research include (1) to investigate in how prevalent problem solving is within the discussions in CPSA (2) investigate in how problem solving competency are manifested based on the discussions in CPSA and (3) examine whether there are differences in how problem solving is manifested according to students’ year of study. For the assessment rubric, three criteria with six performance levels are assessed, including (1) problem identification, (2) recommendations for solutions and (3) stakeholder perspective. The study was conducted with all Emirati nationals, from different years (2nd, 3rd, 4th and master). For undergraduate samples, all are females aging from 18 to 24. While for master students, there is a mixture of samples in terms of gender, all ages 24 to 35.

This research demonstrates how the assessment method, CPSA, is effectively applied to assess problem solving. The results show that students’ level of problem solving is increased year by year (from 2nd year till master’s levels), although they did not meet the desired performance level. Senior students, especially those studying masters involve more and perform better when being assessed with their problem solving competency. One main factor for master students to perform better is because of their working experience, which allows them to better identify a problem in different perspectives. With the results assessed, this research proposes that a revision of curriculum to a more problem-based one should be considered. More integration of ill-structured problem solving should be conducted in the computing curriculum to satisfy the demand of workplace in the 21st century (Danaher & Schoepp, 2020). Students should be trained early on how to deal with ill-structured and open-ended problems.

Stealth Assessment

Apart from CPSA, another assessment method is stealth assessment. In a research conducted by Shute & Emihovich (2018), they explained howproblem solving can be assessed through stealth assessment in a game-based immersive environment. The problem solving stealth assessment is developed by Shute, Wang, Greiff, Zhao & Moore (2016) and is embedded in the game, Use Your Brainz. In this example, a four-facet problem solving competency model is developed. Associating with the four-facets, 32 observable indicators are delineated after repeatedly game playing and reviewing expert solutions. The indicators are then classified into separate scoring categories before establishing statistical relationships “between each indicator and the associated levels of the competency model variables” (p. 642).

Assessments of Problem Solving in the Workplace Setting

Similar to the assessments of problem solving in higher education, the problem solving competency of graduates are always assessed by their employers as well. As stated by Targetjobs (2021), employers apply different assessment methods such as competency-based interview questions, hypothetical interview questions, as well as problem solving tests or exercises (e.g.: ability test, game-based recruitment tests, case study exercises, etc.) to assess job candidates’ problem solving competency. If you are interested to know more on the researches mentioned, please visit the further reading session.

Further Readings

For further examples about developing problem solving or even the challenges that hinder the development of problem solving, you can refer to the following references:

Defining, teaching, and assessing problem solving skills - written by Nikos J Mourtos, Nicole Okamoto and J. Rhee​

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238601642_Defining_Teaching_and_Assessing_Problem_Solving_Skills

Developing Problem Solving Skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program - written by Donald R. Woods et al.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1997.tb00270.x

For more examples of assessing problem solving, you can refer to the following references:

Assessing problem solving skills in game-based immersive environments - written by Benjamin Emihovich and Valerie J. Shute

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_40

Assessment Strategies for Enhancing Students’ Mathematical Problem solving Skills: A Review of Literature - written by Fidele Ukobizaba, Gabriel Nizeyimana and Angel Mukuka

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9728

Danaher, M., & Schoepp, K. (2020). Effective Assessment of Workplace Problem Solving in Higher Education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 19. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.28945/4496

Elger, D. F., Armstrong, T. R., Beyerlein, S. W., Felicione, C. F., Fulcher, K. J., & Rousseau, P. W. (2001). A structured problem solving model for developing high-level skills. age, 6, 2.

Jonassen, D. H. (2014). Assessing problem solving. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 269-288. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_22

Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2012). Problem Solving. Seel N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_208

Mourtos, N. J., Okamoto, N. D., & Rhee, J. (2004). Defining, teaching, and assessing problem solving skills. In 7th UICEE Annual Conference on Engineering Education. 1-5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238601642_Defining_Teaching_and_Assessing_Problem_Solving_Skills

Shute, V. J., Wang, L., Greiff, S., Zhao, W., & Moore, G. (2016). Measuring problem solving skills via stealth assessment in an engaging video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.047

Shute, V. J., & Emihovich, B. (2018). Assessing problem solving skills in game-based immersive environments. Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, 635-648. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_40

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. (2021). Problem Solving. Retrieved from: https://www.icaew.com/archive/learning-and-development/job-essential-skills/employability-skills/problem-solving

Woods, D.R., Wright, J.D., Hoffman, T.W., Swartman, R.K., Doig, I.D. (1975). Teaching Problem solving Skills. Engineering Education, 1(1). 238.

Common Problem-Solving Models & How to Use Them

Problem – solving models are step-by-step processes that provide a framework for addressing challenges. Problems arise in every facet of life. From work. to home. to friends and family, problems and conflicts can make life difficult and interfere with our physical and mental well-being. Understanding how to approach problems when they arise and implementing problem-solving techniques can make the journey through a problem less onerous on ourselves and those around us.

By building a structured problem-solving process, you can begin to build muscle memory by repeatedly practicing the same approach, and eventually, you may even begin to find yourself solving complex problems . Building a problem-solving model for each of the situations where you may encounter a problem can give you a path forward, even when the most difficult of problems arise.

This article will explore the concept of problem-solving models and dive into examples of such models and how to use them. It will also outline the benefits of implementing a problem-solving model in each area of life and why these problem-solving methods can have a large impact on your overall well-being. The goal of this article is to help you identify effective problem-solving strategies and develop critical thinking to generate solutions for any problem that comes your way.

Problem-Solving Model Defined

The first step in creating a problem-solving plan is to understand what we mean when we say problem-solving models. A problem-solving model is a step-by-step process that helps a team identify and effectively solve problems that they may encounter. This problem-solving approach gives the team the muscle memory and guide to address a conflict and resolve disputes quickly and effectively.

There are common problem-solving models that many teams have implemented, but there is also the freedom to shape a method to fit the needs of a specific situation. These models often rely on various problem-solving techniques to identify the root cause of the issue and find the best solution. This article will explore some common problem-solving models as well as general problem-solving techniques to help a team engage with and solve problems effectively.

Benefits of Implementing Problem-Solving Models

Before we discuss the exact models for problem-solving, it can be helpful to discuss why problem-solving models are beneficial in the first place. There are a variety of benefits to having a plan in place when a problem arises, but a few important benefits are listed below.

Guide Posts

When a team encounters a problem and has a guide for how to approach and solve the problem, it can be a relief to know that they have a process to fall back on when the issue cannot be resolved quickly from the beginning. A problem-solving strategy will serve as a guide for the parties to know which steps to take next and how to identify the appropriate solution.

It can also clarify when the issue needs to stay within the team, and when the issue needs to be escalated to someone in a position with more authority. It can also help the entire team solve complex problems without creating an issue out of the way the team solves the problem. It gives the team a blueprint to work from and encourages them to find a good solution.

Creative Solutions That Last

When the team or family has a way to fall back on to solve a problem, it takes some of the pressure off of coming up with the process and allows the parties to focus on identifying the relevant information and coming up with various potential solutions to the issue. By using a problem-solving method, the parties can come up with different solutions and find common ground with the best solution. This can be stifled if the team is too focused on figuring out how to solve the problem.

Additionally, the solutions that the parties come up with through problem-solving tools will often address the root cause of the issue and stop the team from having to revisit the same problem over and over again. This can lead to overall productivity and well-being and help the team continue to output quality work. By encouraging collaboration and creativity, a problem-solving technique will often keep solving problems between the parties moving forward and possibly even address them before they show up.

Common Models to Use in the Problem-Solving Process

Several models can be applied to a complex problem and create possible solutions. These range from common and straightforward to creative and in-depth to identify the most effective ways to solve a problem. This section will discuss and break down the problem-solving models that are most frequently used.

Standard Problem-Solving Process

When you search for a problem-solving technique, chances are you will find the standard model for saving problems. This model identifies and uses several important steps that will often be used in other models as well, so it can be helpful to begin the model-building process with an understanding of this model as a base. Other models often draw from this process and adapt one or more of the steps to help create additional options. Each of these steps works to accomplish a specific goal in furtherance of a solution.

Define the Problem

The first step in addressing a problem is to create a clear definition of the issue at hand. This will often require the team to communicate openly and honestly to place parameters around the issue. As the team defines the problem, it will be clear what needs to be solved and what pieces of the conflict are ancillary to the major issue. It helps to find the root causes of the issue and begin a process to address that rather than the symptoms of the problem. The team can also create a problem statement, which outlines the parameters of the problem and what needs to be fixed.

In addition to open and honest communication, other techniques can help to identify the root cause and define the problem. This includes a thorough review of the processes and steps that are currently used in the task and whether any of those steps are directly or indirectly causing the problem.

This includes reviewing how tasks are done, how communication is shared, and the current partners and team members that work together to identify if any of those are part of the issue. It is also the time to identify if some of the easy fixes or new tools would solve the problem and what the impact would be.

It is also important to gain a wide understanding of the problem from all of the people involved. Many people will have opinions on what is going on, but it is also important to understand the facts over the opinions that are affecting the problem. This can also help you identify if the problem is arising from a boundary or standard that is not being met or honored. By gathering data and understanding the source of the problem, the process of solving it can begin.

Generate Solutions

The next step in the basic process is to generate possible solutions to the problem. At this step, it is less important to evaluate how each of the options will play out and how they may change the process and more important to identify solutions that could address the issue. This includes solutions that support the goals of the team and the task, and the team can also identify short and long-term solutions.

The team should work to brainstorm as many viable solutions as possible to give them the best options to consider moving forward. They cannot pick the first solution that is proposed and consider it a successful problem-solving process.

Evaluate and Select

After a few good options have been identified, the next step is to evaluate the options and pick the most viable option that also supports the goals of the team or organization. This includes looking at each of the possible solutions and determining how they would either encourage or hinder the goals and standards of the team. These should evaluated without bias toward the solution proposed or the person putting forward the solution. Additionally, the team should consider both actual outcomes that have happened in the past and predicted instances that may occur if the solution is chosen.

Each solution should be evaluated by considering if the solution would solve the current problem without causing additional issues, the willingness of the team to buy in and implement the solution, and the actual ability of the team to implement the solution.

Participation and honesty from all team members will make the process go more smoothly and ensure that the best option for everyone involved is selected. Once the team picks the option they would like to use for the specific problem, they should clearly define what the solution is and how it should be implemented. There should also be a strategy for how to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution.

Implement the Solution and Follow Up

Once a solution is chosen, a team will often assume that the work of solving problems is complete. However, the final step in the basic model is an important step to determine if the matter is resolved or if additional options are needed. After the solution has been implemented by the team, the members of the team must provide feedback and identify any potential obstacles that may have been missed in the decision-making process.

This encourages long-term solutions for the problem and helps the team to continue to move forward with their work. It also gives the team a sense of ownership and an example of how to evaluate an idea in the future.

If the solution is not working the way that it should, the team will often need to adapt the option, or they may get to the point where they scrap the option and attempt another. Solving a problem is not always a linear process, and encouraging reform and change within the process will help the team find the answer to the issues that they face.

GROW Method

Another method that is similar to the standard method is the G.R.O.W. method. This method has very similar steps to the standard method, but the catchiness of the acronym helps a team approach the problem from the same angle each time and work through the method quickly.

The first step in the method is to identify a goal, which is what the “g” stands for in “grow.” To establish a goal, the team will need to look at the issues that they are facing and identify what they would like to accomplish and solve through the problem-solving process. The team will likely participate in conversations that identify the issues that they are facing and what they need to resolve.

The next step is to establish the current reality that the group is facing. This helps them to determine where they currently are and what needs to be done to move them forward. This can help the group establish a baseline for where they started and what they would like to change.

The next step is to find any obstacles that may be blocking the group from achieving their goal. This is where the main crux of the issues that the group is facing will come out. This is also helpful in giving the group a chance to find ways around these obstacles and toward a solution.

Way Forward

After identifying the obstacles and potential ways to avoid them, the group will then need to pick the best way to move forward and approach their goal together. Here, they will need to create steps to move forward with that goal.

Divide and Conquer

Another common problem-solving method is the divide-and-conquer method. Here, instead of the entire team working through each step of the process as a large group, they split up the issue into smaller problems that can be solved and have individual members or small groups work through the smaller problems. Once each group is satisfied with the solution to the problem, they present it to the larger group to consider along with the other options.

This process can be helpful if there is a large team attempting to solve a large and complex problem. It is also beneficial because it can be used in teams with smaller, specialized teams within it because it allows each smaller group to focus on what they know best.

However, it does encourage the parties to shy away from collaboration on the overall issue, and the different solutions that each proposes may not be possible when combined and implemented.

For this reason, it is best to use this solution when approaching complex problems with large teams and the ability to combine several problem-solving methods into one.

Six Thinking Hats

The Six Thinking Hats theory is a concept designed for a team with a lot of differing conflict styles and problem-solving techniques. This method was developed to help sort through the various techniques that people may use and help a team find a solution that works for everyone involved. It helps to organize thinking and lead the conversation to the best possible solution.

Within this system, there are six different “hats” that identify with the various aspects of the decision-making process: the overall process, idea generation, intuition and emotions, values, information gathering, and caution or critical thinking. The group agrees to participate in the process by agreeing on which of the hats the group is wearing at a given moment. This helps set parameters and expectations around what the group is attempting to achieve at any moment.

This system is particularly good in a group with different conflict styles or where people have a hard time collecting and organizing their thoughts. It can be incredibly beneficial for complex problems with many moving parts. It can also help groups identify how each of the smaller sections relates to the big picture and help create new ideas to answer the overall problem.

However, it can derail if the group focuses too heavily or for too long on one of the “hats.” The group should ensure that they have a facilitator to guide them through the process and ensure that each idea and section is considered adequately.

Trial and Error

The trial and error process takes over the evaluation and selection process and instead chooses to try out each of the alternatives to determine what the best option would be. It allows the team to gather data on each of the options and how they apply practically. It also provides the ability for the team to have an example of each possible answer to help a decision-maker determine what the best option is.

Problem-solving methods that focus on trial and error can be helpful when a team has a simple problem or a lot of time to test potential solutions, gather data, and determine an answer to the issue.

It can also be helpful when the team has a sense of the best guess for a solution but wants to test it out to determine if the data supports that option, or if they have several viable options and would like to identify the best one. However, it can be incredibly time-consuming to test each of the options and evaluate how they went. Time can often be saved by evaluating each option and selecting the best to test.

Other Problem-Solving Skills

In addition to the methods outlined above, other problem-solving skills can be used regardless of the model that is used. These techniques can round out the problem-solving process and help address either specific steps in the overall method or alter the step in some way to help it fit a specific situation.

Ask Good Questions

One of the best ways to work through any of the problem-solving models is to ask good questions. This will help the group find the issue at the heart of the problem and address that issue rather than the symptoms. The best questions will also help the group find viable solutions and pick the solution that the group can use to move forward. The more creative the questions , the more likely that they will produce innovative solutions.

Take a Step Back

Occasionally, paying attention to a problem too much can give the group tunnel vision and harm the overall processes that the group is using. Other times, the focus can lead to escalations in conflict. When this happens, it can be helpful to set aside the problem and give the group time to calm down. Once they have a chance to reconsider the options and how they apply, they can approach the issue with a new sense of purpose and determination. This can lead to additional creative solutions that may help the group find a new way forward.

Final Thoughts

Problem-solving can be a daunting part of life. However, with a good problem-solving method and the right techniques, problems can be addressed well and quickly. Applying some of these options outlined in this article can give you a head start in solving your next problem and any others that arise.

To learn more about problem-solving models, problem-solving activities, and more, contact ADR Times !

Must-read Articles:

• Recent Posts

• Understanding the Benefits of Caucus Mediation - May 3, 2024
• When Does an Informal Agreement Become a Binding Contract? - May 2, 2024
• How Much Do Mediators Make? An Overview - April 30, 2024

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

• Development
• Published: March 1997
• Volume 45 , pages 65–94, ( 1997 )

Cite this article

• David H. Jonassen 1  

10k Accesses

794 Citations

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Developing real life problem-solving skills through situational design: a pilot study

Designing Problem-Solving for Meaningful Learning: A Discussion of Asia-Pacific Research

An Instructional Design Model for Information Science

Anderson, J.R., Farrell, R. & Sauers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP. Cognitive Science, 8 , 87–129.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arlin, P.K. (1989). The problem of the problem. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 229–237). New York: Praeger.

Google Scholar  

Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook 1; The cognitive domain . New York: Longman.

Bodker, S. (1991). Activity theory as a challenge to systems design. In H.E. Nissen, H.K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions . Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bransford, J. (1994). Who ya gonna call? Thoughts about teaching problem solving. In P. Hallinger, K. Lithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership . New York: Teacher's College Press.

Bransford, J., & Stein, B.S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity . New York : W.H. Freeman .

Charney, D., Reder, L., & Kusbit, G.W. (1990). Goal setting and procedure selection in acquiring computer skills: A comparison of tutorials, problem solving, and learner exploration. Cognition & Instruction, 7 (4) 323–342.

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

Chi, M.T.H. & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach . New York: W.H. Freeman.

Chi, M.T.H. & Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Churchman, C.W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organizations . New York: Basic Books.

Cognition Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 77–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation of mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 , 347–362.

Covington, M.C., Crutchfield, R.S., Daves, L.B., & Olton, R.M. (1974). The productive thinking program: A course in learning to think . Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.

de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good an poor novice problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 , 279–288.

deBono, E. (1974). CoRT thinking materials . London: Direct Educational Services.

Dunkle, M.E., Schraw, G., & Bendixen, L.D. (1995, April). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Ernst, G.W., & Newell, A. (1969). GPS: A case study in generality and problem solving . New York: Academic Press.

Gagné, R.M. (1966). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R.M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.

Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21 , 99–120.

Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12 , 306–355.

Gordon, S.E., & Gill, R.T.. (1989). The formation and use of knowledge structures in problem solving domains. Tech. Report AFOSR-88-0063. Washington, DC: Bolling AFB.

Greeno, J. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In W. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 239–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayes, J.R. (1981) The compleat problem solver . Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Jacobson, M.J. (1990). Knowledge acquisition, cognitive flexibility, and the instructional applications of hypertext: A comparison of contrasting designs for computer-enhanced learning environments . (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois).

Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Scaffolding diagnostic reasoning in case-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education .

Jonassen, D.H., Ambruso, D.R., & Olesen, J. (1992). Designing a hypertext on transfusion medicine using cognitive flexibility theory. Journal of Educational Hypermedia and Multimedia, 1 (3), 309–322.

Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M.A. (1993). Structural knowledge . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D.H., Doricott, D., & Engels, R. (1995). Comparing the effectiveness of worked examples and trial-and-error learning methods in an engineering microworld . American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Jonassen, D.H., Mann, E., & Ambruso, D.J. (1996). Causal modeling for structuring case-based learning environments. Intelligent Tutoring Media, 6 (3/4), 103–112.

Jonassen, D.H., & Tessmer, M. (1996). An outcomes-based taxonomy for the design, evaluation, and research of instructional systems. Training Research Journal .

Kosonen, P., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Effects of teaching statistical laws on reasoning about everyday problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 , 33–46.

Kitchner, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26 , 222–232.

Kitchner, K.S., & King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2 , 89–116.

Kluwe, R.H., & Friedrichsen, G. (1985), Mechanisms of control and regulation and problem solving. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control (pp. 203–217). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B.A Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

LeBlanc, S.E., & Fogler, H.S. (1995). Strategies for creative problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leont'ev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mayer, R.E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59 (1), 43–64.

McCombs, B.L. (1986). The instructional systems development model: A review of those factors critical to its implementation. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34 , 67–81.

Meacham, J.A., & Emont, N.C. (1989). The interpersonal basis of everyday problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 7–23). New York: Praeger.

Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nardi, B.A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In R.S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Attention and Performance, VIII . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Polson. P., & Jeffries, R. (1985). Instruction in problem solving skills: An analysis of four approaches. In J.W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1, pp. 417–455). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Polya, M. (1957). How to solve it (2nd Ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Reed, S. K. (1992). Cognition: Theory and applications . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Reitman, W. (1965). Cognition and thought . New York: Wiley.

Robertson, W.C. (1990). Detection of cognitive structure with protocol data: Predicting performance on physics transfer problems. Cognitive Science, 14 , 253–280.

Rubinstein, M. (1975). Patterns of problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Scandura, J.M. (1964). An analysis of exposition and discovery modes of problem solving instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 33 (2), 149–159.

Schank, R., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schön, D.A. (1990). The design process. In V.A. Howard (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard's philosophy of education center (pp. 110–141). New York: Routledge.

Simon, H.A. (1976). Identifying basic abilities underlying intelligent performance on complex tasks. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Simon, D.P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive process . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Simon, D.P., & Simon, H.A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In R. Siegler (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sinnott, J.D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. In J.D. Sinnott (Ed.), Everyday problem solving: Theory and applications (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.

Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1993). Instructional design . Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiro, R.J., Vispoel, W., Schmitz, J., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B.C. Britton (Ed.), Executive control processes . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains . Tech Report No. 441. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 , 257–285.

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985) The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2 , 59–89.

Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 , 424–436.

Voss, J.F. (1988). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem solving model. International Journal of Educational Research, 11 , 607–622.

Voss, J.F., & Post, T.A. (1989). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In M.T.H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Voss, J.F., Wolfe, C.R., Lawrence, J.A., & Engle, R.A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Complex problem solving . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7 (1), 1–39.

Wickelgren, W.A., (1973). How to solve problems: Elements of a theory of problems and problem solving . San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.

Wood, P.K. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structures: Implications for cognitive development. Human Development, 26 , 249–265.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

the Pennsylvania State University, USA

David H. Jonassen ( Professor and head of the Instructional Systems program )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

His publications include the recently completed Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology , reviewed in this issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jonassen, D.H. Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. ETR&D 45 , 65–94 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

Download citation

Issue Date : March 1997

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

Share this article

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

• Educational Technology
• Learning Outcome
• Instructional Design
• Processing Theory
• Solution Path
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• 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

How to Talk to an Employee Who Isn’t Meeting Expectations

• Jenny Fernandez

It’s an opportunity to address the gap between the work they’re delivering and the company’s goals.

Approaching a conversation about improving an employee’s performance requires preparation, empathy, and a focus on collaboration. Even though hearing the truth about their current performance will be tough and potentially hurtful, it’s a teaching moment managers must embrace to help them become more resilient and adept at problem-solving and developing professional relationships. The author offers several strategies for treating difficult performance conversations not as fault-finding missions, but instead as opportunities to work collaboratively to define a shared commitment to growth and development.

As a leadership and team coach, I frequently encounter situations where managers feel ill-equipped to give their team members negative performance feedback. These conversations can be particularly challenging because the stakes are high for both sides. Unfavorable performance reviews and ratings come with tangible consequences for an employee’s compensation and career progression. Further, if the negative feedback is a surprise to them, it might prompt them to start looking for a new job.

• Jenny Fernandez , MBA, is an executive and team coach, Columbia and NYU faculty, and future of work and brand strategist. She works with senior leaders and their teams to become more collaborative, innovative, and resilient. Her work spans Fortune 500 companies, startups, and higher education. Jenny has been recognized by LinkedIn as a “Top Voice in Executive Coaching, Leadership Development, and Personal Branding” and was invited to join the prestigious Marshall Goldsmith’s 100 Coaches community. She is a Gen Z advocate. Connect with her on LinkedIn .

Partner Center