Identify Goal
Define Problem
Define Problem
Gather Data
Define Causes
Identify Options
Clarify Problem
Generate Ideas
Evaluate Options
Generate Ideas
Choose the Best Solution
Implement Solution
Select Solution
Take Action
MacLeod offers her own problem solving procedure, which echoes the above steps:
“1. Recognize the Problem: State what you see. Sometimes the problem is covert. 2. Identify: Get the facts — What exactly happened? What is the issue? 3. and 4. Explore and Connect: Dig deeper and encourage group members to relate their similar experiences. Now you're getting more into the feelings and background [of the situation], not just the facts. 5. Possible Solutions: Consider and brainstorm ideas for resolution. 6. Implement: Choose a solution and try it out — this could be role play and/or a discussion of how the solution would be put in place. 7. Evaluate: Revisit to see if the solution was successful or not.”
Many of these problem solving techniques can be used in concert with one another, or multiple can be appropriate for any given problem. It’s less about facilitating a perfect CPS session, and more about encouraging team members to continually think outside the box and push beyond personal boundaries that inhibit their innovative thinking. So, try out several methods, find those that resonate best with your team, and continue adopting new techniques and adapting your processes along the way.
Empower your people to go above and beyond with a flexible platform designed to match the needs of your team — and adapt as those needs change.
The Smartsheet platform makes it easy to plan, capture, manage, and report on work from anywhere, helping your team be more effective and get more done. Report on key metrics and get real-time visibility into work as it happens with roll-up reports, dashboards, and automated workflows built to keep your team connected and informed.
When teams have clarity into the work getting done, there’s no telling how much more they can accomplish in the same amount of time. Try Smartsheet for free, today.
Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 January 2010
There have been numerous demands in U.S. education for enhanced creative thinking and reasoning skills in our students. Unfortunately, there appears to be a dearth of research regarding the relationship between creative thinking and reasoning. Interestingly, Marzano (1998) reported that Goal 3 of The National Educational Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners (National Education Goals Panel, 1991) addressed the improvement of thinking and reasoning skills. It is suggested, though, that creative thinking and reasoning are essential skills for student achievement and, ultimately, success in school. The purpose of this chapter, then, is to examine the relationship between creative thinking and reasoning. The chapter begins with a discussion of reasoning. This is followed by a discussion of creativity/creative thinking. Next is a discussion of research related to creative thinking and reasoning. Last, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications to research and practice.
There are many definitions of reasoning. For the purpose of this chapter, reasoning is defined as “ … a deliberating process of working things out to solve problems …” (Calne, 1999, p. 18). As Calne noted, it may be perceived as a tool. However, he felt that reason does not have the ability to motivate because it has no affective component, which is required for one to attain any “mental rewards” (p. 27).
Interestingly, it was Inhelder and Piaget (1958) who first stipulated that there was an invariant sequence of stages of cognitive development that influenced mental/intellectual reasoning.
Save book to kindle.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .
Problem solving is clearly a key feature of human intelligence. Human intelligence does not, in the main, rely on behaviour patterns fixed by evolution and nor does it depend on habit learning. To understand human intelligence, we need to study how humans can solve both ill-defined and well-defined problems. ‘Problem solving’ considers both types of problems and the different approaches used to solve them: the computational approach, insight, and expertise. It also looks at dual-process theory and explains that fast, intuitive processes can be both a source of error and also a cause of success, depending on the context and the prior knowledge of the problem solver.
Sign in with a library card.
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Click the account icon in the top right to:
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.
Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
October 2022 | 1 |
November 2022 | 2 |
December 2022 | 6 |
January 2023 | 14 |
February 2023 | 2 |
April 2023 | 4 |
May 2023 | 2 |
July 2023 | 5 |
August 2023 | 8 |
September 2023 | 2 |
October 2023 | 1 |
January 2024 | 2 |
March 2024 | 6 |
April 2024 | 2 |
May 2024 | 1 |
June 2024 | 4 |
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
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
Part of the book series: Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies ((LSIS,volume 5))
1072 Accesses
4 Citations
Instructional designers must work in interdisciplinary contexts with incomplete information and with resource constraints. Instructional designers and instructional design researchers must have a broad understanding of multiple theories that inform and impact the planning and implementation of effective learning activities and environments. Obviously relevant theories include learning theory, systems theory, communications theory, and media theory [see Spector (2011), Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives . New York, NY: Routledge]. In addition, instructional practitioners and researchers, and others working in complex problem-solving domains, require a great deal of skill in collecting and analyzing information from multiple sources in a variety of formats and presenting relevant syntheses to decision makers and others. How is this vast knowledge base best developed in an individual? How do instructional designers and others acquire and master the relevant set of complex problem-solving skills? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to develop a theoretically grounded and empirically justified framework for assessing the progressive development of argumentation, critical reasoning, and problem solving.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Problem solving from a behavioral perspective: implications for behavior analysts and educators.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory. A proposed system and its control processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic.
Braine, M. D. S. (1990). The natural logic approach to reasoning. In W. Overton (Ed.), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives (pp. 133–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Brem, S., & Rips, L. (2000). Evidence and explanation in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24 , 573–604.
Article Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. (1991). Learning style and program design in interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 41–48.
Clark, R. C. (2008). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance improvement (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörner, D. (1996). Politischer mythos und symbilische politik . Reinbek, Germany: Rowohlt.
Dörner, D., & Wearing, A. (1995). Complex problem solving: Toward a (computer-simulated) theory. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 65–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Farnham-Diggory, S. (1972). Cognitive processes in education: A psychological preparation for teaching and curriculum development . New York: Harper & Row.
Friedman, M. (2002). Kuhn, and the rationality of science. Philosophy of Science, 69 , 171–190.
Funke, J. (1991). Solving complex problems: Exploration and control of complex systems. In R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 185–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Funke, J., & Frensch, P. A. (1995). Complex problem solving research in North America and Europe: An integrative review. Foreign Psychology, 5 , 42–47.
Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and the theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yecovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper-Collins.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7 , 155–170.
Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S. (1987). Toward a cognitive theory for the measurement of achievement. In R. R. Ronning, J. Glover, J. C. Conoley, & J. C. Witt (Eds.), The influence of cognitive psychology on testing and measurement (pp. 41–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Complex information processing (pp. 285–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hale, C. R., & Barsalou, L. W. (1995). Explanation content and construction during system learning and troubleshooting. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (4), 385–436.
Halpern, D. F. (1989). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hambrick, D., & Engle, R. (2003). The role of working memory in problem solving. In J. Davidson & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 176–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efficiency: Applications in learning and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 45 , 1–10.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Mental models. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 469–499). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48 (4), 63–85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2 (2), 6–28.
Kafai, Y. B., & Ching, C. C. (2004). Children as instructional designers: Apprenticing, questioning, and evaluating in the Learning Science by Design project. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans and processes of instructional design: International perspectives . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karplus, R. (1969). Introductory physics: A model approach . New York, NY: Benjamins.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach . New York, NY: Springer.
Book Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, and problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 , 75–86.
Klaczynski, P. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71 , 1347–1366.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2004). Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans and processes of instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 89–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77 (3), 319–337.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 16–26.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245–1260.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59 (1), 14–19.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50 (3), 43–59.
Milrad, M., Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2003). Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 13–27). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 , 345–359.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46 (2), 84–106.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concept of argument and arguing. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 , 117–175.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibrium of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development (T. Brown & K. L. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1975).
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. 2, pp. 5–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates.
Rips, L. J. (1984). Reasoning as a central ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 105–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science guided by an apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13 , 73–128.
Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & The PDP research group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Psychological and biological models, Vol. 2, pp. 7–57). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding . Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum Assoc.
Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32 (1), 102–119.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). Mathematics thinking and problem solving . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 245–264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Seel, N. M. (1999). Educational diagnosis of mental models: Assessment problems and technology-based solutions. Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14 (2), 153–185.
Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 1 (1), 59–85.
Seel, N. M., Al-Diban, S., & Blumschein, P. (2000). Mental models and instructional planning. In M. Spector & T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 129–158). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726–764). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Spector, J. M. (2001). A philosophy of instructional design for the 21st century? Journal of Structural Learning and Intelligent Systems, 14 (4), 307–318.
Spector, J. M. (2010). Mental representations and their analysis: An epistemological perspective. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-dummer, & N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 17–40). New York, NY: Springer.
Spector, J. M. (2011). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives . New York, NY: Routledge.
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375–383). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine modelltheorie . Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. Systems Dynamics Review, 10 (2–3), 291–330.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 , 257–285.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Developments in argumentation theory. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Espéret, J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Studies in writing (Foundations of argumentative text processing, Vol. 5). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
van Lehn, K. (1988). Student modeling. In M. C. Polson & J. J. Richardson (Eds.), Foundations of intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 55–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design theory . New York, NY: Routledge.
Walton, D. N. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123 , 327–346.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
University of North Texas in Denton, Denton, TX, USA
J. Michael Spector & S. Won Park
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to J. Michael Spector .
Editors and affiliations.
Washington and Jefferson College, 60 South Lincoln St., Washington, 15301, Pennsylvania, USA
Samuel B. Fee
Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, 84322, Utah, USA
Brian R. Belland
Reprints and permissions
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Spector, J.M., Park, S.W. (2012). Argumentation, Critical Reasoning, and Problem Solving. In: Fee, S., Belland, B. (eds) The Role of Criticism in Understanding Problem Solving. Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies, vol 5. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3540-2_2
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3540-2_2
Published : 24 April 2012
Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-1051-5
Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3540-2
eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)
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
Policies and ethics
Closing the attainment gap and helping every child reach their potential using questioning skills to develop oracy, metacognition, critical thinking, and self-regulation in a collaborative classroom from EYFS to A Level.
Together with Teaching Times The Philosophy Foundation has developed this online course for schools to help develop thinking skills in the classroom.
You can purchase the programme and find out more about the National Thinking Classroom Programme on the Teaching Times Thinking Classroom page or contact Tina Leonardi at Teaching Times: [email protected]
Doing this programme can lead your school towards becoming a National Thinking Classroom Award School.
The Education Endowment Foundation’s research into classroom pedagogies that impact learning, particularly for pupil-premium children, has Metacognition and Self-Regulation at the top – with 7 months additional progress for this intervention in primary and secondary schools – making it one of the best things you can do in the classroom to help pupil learning and development. Also in the top 5 interventions researched, Oral Language Development (in Early Years this is Communication and Language approaches) and Collaborative Learning approaches have an additional 6 and 5 months respectively. This course will help your teachers develop strategies to use these interventions in the classroom – and in particular to teach students how to learn and become resilient in their thinking (metacognition and self-regulation).
Creating a Thinking Classroom where young people can think well together and communicate their ideas, reflect, re-evaluate and reason through a wide range of ideas and subject matter can also help with mental health and emotional regulation – which in turn can impact positively on classroom behaviour and learning.
Creative and Critical Thinking are also key components of this course and of a Thinking Classroom. Ofsted’s new Inspection Framework emphasises the need for creativity in teaching and learning and the Word Economic Forum’s The Future of Job’s Report noted in the top 10 skills required for future jobs include:
But above all this course will give you the skills to be able to enable students to think well for themselves, to help them guard themselves against fake news, propaganda, and the influence of others. It provides a ‘space to think’ for pupils in a busy, instrumental, content and test-led curriculum, a place to use their voice and to learn to use it responsibly, it allows them to practice thinking well and to develop critical thinking skills to help them do so, but mostly, it gives pupils permission to think for the sake of thinking.
© 2024 The Philosophy Foundation | RO 21-27 Lamb’s Conduit Street, London WC1N 3GS | Company number: 7416912 | Registered charity number 1140338
Website by on-IDLE
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Creative problem-solving, traditionally seen as a hallmark of human intelligence, is undergoing a profound transformation. Generative AI, once believed to be just a statistical tool for word patterns, has now become a new battlefield in this arena. Anthropic, once an underdog in this arena, is now starting to dominate the technology giants, including OpenAI, Google, and Meta. This development was made as Anthropic introduces Claude 3.5 Sonnet , an upgraded model in its lineup of multimodal generative AI systems. The model has demonstrated exceptional problem-solving abilities, outshining competitors such as ChatGPT-4o , Gemini 1.5 , and Llama 3 in areas like graduate-level reasoning, undergraduate-level knowledge proficiency, and coding skills. Anthropic divides its models into three segments : small ( Claude Haiku ), medium (Claude Sonnet), and large ( Claude Opus ). An upgraded version of medium-sized Claude Sonnet has been recently launched, with plans to release the additional variants, Claude Haiku and Claude Opus, later this year. It's crucial for Claude users to note that Claude 3.5 Sonnet not only exceeds its large predecessor Claude 3 Opus in capabilities but also in speed. Beyond the excitement surrounding its features , this article takes a practical look at Claude 3.5 Sonnet as a foundational tool for AI problem solving. It's essential for developers to understand the specific strengths of this model to assess its suitability for their projects. We delve into Sonnet's performance across various benchmark tasks to gauge where it excels compared to others in the field. Based on these benchmark performances, we have formulated various use cases of the model.
In this section, we explore the benchmarks where Claude 3.5 Sonnet stands out, demonstrating its impressive capabilities. We also look at how these strengths can be applied in real-world scenarios, showcasing the model's potential in various use cases.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is redefining the frontiers of AI problem-solving with its advanced capabilities in reasoning, knowledge proficiency, and coding. Anthropic's latest model not only surpasses its predecessor in speed and performance but also outshines leading competitors in key benchmarks. For developers and AI enthusiasts, understanding Sonnet's specific strengths and potential use cases is crucial for leveraging its full potential. Whether it's for educational purposes, software development, complex text analysis, or creative problem-solving, Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers a versatile and powerful tool that stands out in the evolving landscape of generative AI.
Oracle’s HeatWave GenAI: The Future of AI-Powered Databases
Dr. Tehseen Zia is a Tenured Associate Professor at COMSATS University Islamabad, holding a PhD in AI from Vienna University of Technology, Austria. Specializing in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Data Science, and Computer Vision, he has made significant contributions with publications in reputable scientific journals. Dr. Tehseen has also led various industrial projects as the Principal Investigator and served as an AI Consultant.
10 Things to Know About Claude 3.5 Sonnet
The AI Mind Unveiled: How Anthropic is Demystifying the Inner Workings of LLMs
Amazon Invests Billions in Anthropic as Claude 3 Outperforms GPT-4
The Battle of Open Source vs Closed Source Language Models: A Technical Analysis
ChatGPT Meets Its Match: The Rise of Anthropic Claude Language Model
Google’s Strategic Expansion in AI: A $2 Billion Bet on Anthropic
The most rigorous math program you've never heard of.
Math-M-addicts students eagerly dive into complex math problems, preparing for the toughest high ... [+] school and college math competitions.
In the building of the Speyer Legacy School in New York City, a revolutionary math program is quietly producing some of the city's most gifted young problem solvers and logical thinkers. Founded in 2005 by two former math prodigies, Math-M-Addicts has grown into an elite academy developing the skills and mindset that traditional schooling often lacks.
"We wanted to establish the most advanced math program in New York," explains Ruvim Breydo, co-founder of Math-M-Addicts. "The curriculum focuses not just on mathematical knowledge, but on developing a mastery of problem-solving through a proof-based approach aligned with prestigious competitions like the International Mathematical Olympiad."
From its inception, Math-M-Addicts took an unconventional path. What began as an attempt to attract only the highest caliber high school students soon expanded to offer multiple curriculum levels. "We realized we couldn't find enough kids at the most advanced levels," says Breydo. "So we decided to develop that talent from an earlier age."
The program's approach centers on rigor. At each of the 7 levels, the coursework comprises just a handful of fiendishly difficult proof-based math problems every week. "On average, we expect them to get about 50% of the solutions right," explains instructor Natalia Lukina. "The problems take hours and require grappling with sophisticated mathematical concepts."
But it's about more than just the content. Class sizes are small, with two instructors for every 15-20 students. One instructor leads the session, while the other teacher coordinates the presentation of the homework solutions by students. The teachers also provide customized feedback by meticulously reviewing each student's solutions. "I spend as much time analyzing their thought processes as I do teaching new material," admits instructor Bobby Lee.
Netflix’s best new show has a perfect 100% critic score, dana white says former champion just had ‘his last fight’.
Lee and the Math-M-Addicts faculty embrace an unconventional pedagogy focused on developing logic, creativity, and a tenacious problem-solving mindset over procedures. "We don't dumb it down for them," says Breydo. "We use technical math language and allow students to struggle through the challenges because that's where real learning happens."
Impressive results of Math-M-addicts students in selective math competitions highlight their ... [+] preparation and dedication.
For the Math-M-Addicts team, finding the right teachers is as essential as shaping brilliant students. Prospective instructors go through a rigorous multi-stage vetting process. "We seek passionate mathematical problem solvers first," says program director Sonali Jasuja. "Teaching experience is great, but first and foremost, we need people who deeply understand and enjoy the reasoning behind mathematics."
Even exceptional instructors undergo extensive training by co-teaching for at least a year alongside veteran Math-M-Addicts faculty before taking the lead role. "Our approach is different from how most US teachers learned mathematics," explains instructor Tanya Gross, the director of Girls Adventures in Math (GAIM) competition. "We immerse them in our unique math culture, which focuses on the 'why' instead of the 'how,' empowering a paradigm shift."
That culture extends to the students as well. In addition to the tools and strategies imparted in class, Math-M-Addicts alumni speak of an unshakable confidence and camaraderie that comes from up to several thousands of hours grappling with mathematics at the highest levels alongside peers facing the same challenges.
As Math-M-Addicts ramps up efforts to expand access through online classes and global partnerships, the founders remain devoted to their core mission. "Math education should not obsess with speed and memorization of math concepts," argues Breydo. "This is not what mathematics is about. To unlock human potential, we must refocus on cognitive reasoning and problem-solving skills. We are seeking to raise young people unafraid to tackle any complex challenge they face"
One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.
Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.
In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.
Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:
User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:
So, how can you be a power user?
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.
The rapid growth in the areas of language generation and reasoning has been significantly facilitated by the availability of user-friendly libraries wrapped around large language models. These solutions often rely on the Seq2Seq paradigm, treating all problems as text-to-text transformations. While convenient, this approach faces limitations in practical deployments: brittleness when handling complex problems, the absence of feedback mechanisms, and an inherent black-box nature hindering model interpretability.
This thesis presents techniques to address these limitations by integrating structured elements into the design and operation of language models. Structure, in this context, is defined as the organization and representation of data in systematic, hierarchical, or relational ways, along with incorporating structural constraints into the learning and reasoning processes. These elements are integrated at different model development and deployment stages: training, inference, and post-inference. During training, we present techniques for training a graph-assisted question?answering model, and discovering orders that help in effectively generating sets as sequences. In the inference stage, we present techniques for incorporating structure by leveraging code as an intermediate representation. For the post-inference stage, we introduce methods that integrate a memory to allow the model to leverage feedback without additional training.
Together, these techniques demonstrate that conventional text-in-text-out solutions may fail to leverage beneficial structural properties apparent to model stakeholders. Incorporating structures in the model development process requires a careful look at the problem setup, but often relatively straightforward implementation can pay significant dividends—a little structure goes a long way.
We conclude by positing that the next generation of AI systems will treat LLMs as powerful kernels upon which flexible inference procedures can be built to enhance complex reasoning. This approach, driven by the concept of inference-time compute, has the potential to significantly improve the problem-solving capabilities of AI.
Advertisement
Supported by
A group of neuroscientists argue that our words are primarily for communicating, not for reasoning.
By Carl Zimmer
For thousands of years, philosophers have argued about the purpose of language. Plato believed it was essential for thinking. Thought “is a silent inner conversation of the soul with itself,” he wrote.
Many modern scholars have advanced similar views. Starting in the 1960s, Noam Chomsky, a linguist at M.I.T., argued that we use language for reasoning and other forms of thought. “If there is a severe deficit of language, there will be severe deficit of thought,” he wrote .
As an undergraduate, Evelina Fedorenko took Dr. Chomsky’s class and heard him describe his theory. “I really liked the idea,” she recalled. But she was puzzled by the lack of evidence. “A lot of things he was saying were just stated as if they were facts — the truth,” she said.
Dr. Fedorenko went on to become a cognitive neuroscientist at M.I.T., using brain scanning to investigate how the brain produces language. And after 15 years, her research has led her to a startling conclusion: We don’t need language to think.
“When you start evaluating it, you just don’t find support for this role of language in thinking,” she said.
When Dr. Fedorenko began this work in 2009, studies had found that the same brain regions required for language were also active when people reasoned or carried out arithmetic.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Reasoning means the ability to proceed from hypothesis to conclusion in a logical and sensible way. The skills needed in problem-solving in turn help solve problems quickly and effectively. Problem-solving requires both an ability to correctly define a problem and finding a solution to it. Ideation in turn is often regarded as creativity, the ...
Module 7: Thinking, Reasoning, and Problem-Solving. This module is about how a solid working knowledge of psychological principles can help you to think more effectively, so you can succeed in school and life. You might be inclined to believe that—because you have been thinking for as long as you can remember, because you are able to figure ...
10. Bodystorm. The bodystorming technique asks individuals to act out situations. Ideation contributes to the design thinking process, which focuses on user needs, and physically taking the place of your potential user can help you think about the problem in a more empathetic way.
This requires generating ideas and manipulating information in problem-solving as well as having quantitative abilities, We need to learn to provide context ...
Critical thinking and analysis. Complex problem-solving. Leadership and social influence. Emotional intelligence. Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation. Systems analysis and evaluation. It's interesting that at least 7 of the top 10 hinge on one or more forms of thinking mentioned above.
We'll outline that process here and then follow with techniques you can use to explore and work on that step of the problem solving process with a group. The seven-step problem solving process is: 1. Problem identification. The first stage of any problem solving process is to identify the problem (s) you need to solve.
1,245. Ideation is the process where you generate ideas and solutions through sessions such as Sketching, Prototyping, Brainstorming, Cheatstorming, Brainwriting, Worst Possible Idea, and a wealth of other ideation techniques. Ideation is also the third stage in the Design Thinking process. Although many people might have experienced a ...
Better Brainstorming. Focus on questions, not answers, for breakthrough insights. Summary. Great innovators have long known that the secret to unlocking a better answer is to ask a better question ...
Divergent Thinking: 5 Divergent Thinking Strategies. Written by MasterClass. Last updated: Feb 17, 2022 • 2 min read. Divergent thinking can be a valuable skill for problem-solving and creative ideation. Learn more about this type of thinking and how to use this method to find creative ideas.
Here is a breakdown of how you might use problem-solving and analysis to make high-quality, innovative decisions based on real problems. 1. Identify the problem. 2. Structure the problem: list the ...
Problem-solving: Problem-solving is perhaps the most important skill that critical thinkers can possess. The ability to solve issues and bounce back from conflict is what helps you succeed, be a leader, and effect change. One way to properly solve problems is to first recognize there's a problem that needs solving.
7 idea generating techniques to try with your team. Depending on your objectives, here are seven idea generation methods to tease innovative concepts out of your team. 1. Mind mapping. Mind mapping is more than just a visual outlining method. It's a structured approach to organizing complex information and concepts.
The overlap between reasoning, problem-solving and ideation is no coincidence - all three require recognizing patterns, making connections, grasping complexity. As hiring managers take on the products of increasingly automated education systems and job histories, targeting these transferable higher-order thinking abilities promises to shape ...
Edward De Bono's six thinking hats is a decision-making and problem-solving method that encourages parallel thinking ... This enables them to consider perspectives based on logical reasoning rather than personal biases. 6. Increased productivity . The six hats process provides a structured and organized approach to brainstorming, ideation, ...
Balance divergent and convergent thinking. Ask problems as questions. Defer or suspend judgement. Focus on "Yes, and…" rather than "No, but…". According to Carella, "Creative problem solving is the mental process used for generating innovative and imaginative ideas as a solution to a problem or a challenge.
8 The Role of Domain Knowledge in Creative Problem Solving; 9 Creative Thinking and Reasoning: Can You Have One Without the Other? 10 From Alexithymia, Borne of Trauma and Oppression, ... Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an I/O research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human ...
3. A solution to the nine dot problem. Starting with the pencil in the top left corner, draw a line to the right through and beyond the top row. Then diagonally down through two dots, back to the top corner through the left hand column, and down diagonally through the remaining two dots. Open in new tab Download slide.
This requires generating ideas and manipulating information in problem-solving as well as having quantitative abilities, We need to learn to provide context ...
This structured thinking method originated in the Arthur D. Little Invention Design Unit in the 1950s. It is a comprehensive creative problem-solving process, which addresses all stages of the creative process and emphasizes differentiation between idea generation and idea evaluation.
More recently, psychologists have turned an investigative eye to the nature of cognition, including reasoning and problem solving. More fundamentally, most people come to think about their own reasoning processes from time to time. The focus in this chapter is on a combination of these traditions with regard to reasoning and problem solving.
Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation (critical and creative thinking) But above all this course will give you the skills to be able to enable students to think well for themselves, to help them guard themselves against fake news, propaganda, and the influence of others. It provides a 'space to think' for pupils in a busy, instrumental ...
Abstract. This chapter provides a revised review of the psychological literature on reasoning and problem solving. Four classes of deductive reasoning are presented, including rule (mental logic) theories, semantic (mental model) theories, evolutionary theories, and heuristic theories. Major developments in the study of reasoning are also ...
Abstract This article addresses gaps about abductive reasoning—widely considered key to design-thinking but rarely detailed in design-thinking and innovation literatures ... Contrasting with the deductive and inductive approaches that dominant problem-solving, we distinguish and elucidate explanatory abduction and innovative abduction in ...
Discover how Anthropic's Claude 3.5 Sonnet is transforming AI problem-solving with its exceptional capabilities in reasoning, coding, and knowledge proficiency. This article explores Sonnet's dominance over leading models and highlights its potential use cases for developers and AI enthusiasts.
Ruvim Breydo, founder of Math-M-Addicts, advocates for math education focused on cognitive reasoning and problem-solving to nurture fearless, challenge-ready students.
The rapid growth in the areas of language generation and reasoning has been significantly facilitated by the availability of user-friendly libraries wrapped around large language models. These solutions often rely on the Seq2Seq paradigm, treating all problems as text-to-text transformations. While convenient, this approach faces limitations in practical deployments: brittleness when handling ...
Starting in the 1960s, Noam Chomsky, a linguist at M.I.T., argued that we use language for reasoning and other forms of thought. "If there is a severe deficit of language, there will be severe ...