Skip to main content
Log in

The Structure of Ill-Structured (and Well-Structured) Problems Revisited

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In his 1973 article The Structure of ill structured problems, Herbert Simon proposed that solving ill-structured problems could be modeled within the same information-processing framework developed for solving well-structured problems. This claim is reexamined within the context of over 40 years of subsequent research and theoretical development. Well-structured (puzzle) problems can be represented by a problem space consisting of well-defined initial and goal states that are connected by legal moves. In contrast, the initial, goal, and intermediate states of ill-structured (design) problems are incompletely specified. This article analyzes the similarities and differences among puzzles, insight puzzles, classroom problems, and design problems within Gick’s (Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120, 1986) theoretical framework consisting of representation construction, schema activation, and heuristic search. The analysis supports Simon’s (Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201, 1973) claim that information-processing principles apply to all problems but apply differently as problems become more ill structured.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48, 87–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: an individual-differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, M. E., & Polson, P. (1976). A process model for water jug problems. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 191–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, M.E., Polson, P.G., Jeffries, R., & Ramsey, H.R. (1978). Planning as a process of synthesis. Retrieved from Englewood, CO.

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. J. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413–432). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and function of schemas. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 119–160). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., Thomas, J. C., & Malhotra, A. (1980). Presentation and representation in design problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R. (1995). Aiding subgoal learning: effects on transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1147–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Vol. 1, pp. 7–75). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interaction of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, A. (2007). Program proves that checkers, perfectly played, is a no-win situation. Science, 317, 308–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: a call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110, 412–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo approach to cognition: the case of analogy. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5, Whole No. 270).

  • Egan, D. E., & Greeno, J. G. (1974). Theory of rule induction: knowledge acquired in concept learning, serial pattern learning, and problem solving. In L. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition. Erlbaum: Mahwah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: a situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 451–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke, R. A. (1990). Creative imagery: discoveries and inventions in visualization. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., Lowenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: analogical encoding supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33, 1343–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilhooly, K. J., Georgiou, G., & Devery, U. (2013). Incubation and creativity: do something different. Thinking & Reasoning, 19, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Jaworski, B., Rischal, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). What brains are for: action, meaning, and reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 221–240). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V. (2014). Creative brains: designing in the real world. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(241), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1976). Indefinite goals in well-structured problems. Psychological Review, 83, 479–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1978). Natures of problem solving abilities. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognition (Vol. 5). Hillsdale: Elbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99–167). Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassin, R. R. (2013). Yes it can: on the functional abilities of the human unconscious. Perspectives on Cognitive Science, 8, 195–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1966). Memory, goals, and problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: research, method, and theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). Psychological differences among problem isomorphs. In N. J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni, & G. R. Potts (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 2, pp. 21–41). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helie, S., & Sun, R. (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: a unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117, 994–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, T. T., Todd, P. M., Lazer, D., Redish, A. D., Couzin, I. D., & the Cognitive Search Research Group (2015). Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 46–54.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. (2003). Testing two cognitive theories of insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1017–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Study of scientific discovery: complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 25, 1534–1555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, W. (1947). Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, J. (2012). The actor-oriented transfer perspective and its consequences to educational research and practice. Educational Psychologist, 47, 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, J. N., Ormerod, T. C., & Chronicle, E. P. (2001). Information processing and insight: a process model of performance on the nine-dot and related problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 176–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, T. (2012). Innovation relies on the obscure: a key to overcoming the classic problem of functional fixedness. Psychological Science, 23, 215–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, P. S. (2002). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, O. A. R. (1923). The administration of a fighting service. Journal of Public Administration, 1, 216–217.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Mestre, J. P. (2013). Toward a model of transfer as sense-making. Educational Psychologist, 48, 184–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, T. C., MacGregor, J. N., & Chronicle, E. P. (2002). Dynamics and constraints in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 791–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patsenko, E. G., & Altmann, E. M. (2010). How planful is routine behavior? A selective-attention model of planning in the Tower of Hanoi. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory and cognition, 13, 124–139.

  • Reed, S. K. (2010). Thinking Visually. New York: Taylor & Francis.

  • Reed, S. K. (2012). Learning by mapping across situations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 353–398.

  • Reed, S. K. (2015). Problem Solving. In S. Chipman (Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford Chapters Online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S. K., & Abramson, A. (1976). Effect of the problem space on subgoal facilitation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 243–246.

  • Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R. (1974). The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S. K., & Johnsen, J. A. (1977). Memory for problem solutions. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 161–201). New York: Academic Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, J. E., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Comparing four instructional techniques for promoting robust knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 181–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. (1981). Recall of mathematical problem information: solving related problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1975). The functional equivalence of problem solving skills. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 268–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., & Reed, S. K. (1976). Modeling strategy shifts in a problem-solving task. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 86–97.

  • Sio, U. T., & Ormerod, T. C. (2009). Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 94–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effect of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition, 21, 837–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, R., & Zhang, X. (2006). Accounting for a variety of reasoning data within a cognitive architecture. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 18, 169–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Ward, M. R. (1983). Development of expertise in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 639–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: the perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65, 262–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Tonder, G. J., & Vishwanath, D. (2015). Design insights: Gestalt, bauhaus, and Japanese gardens. In J. Wagemans (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 526–579). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., & Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, R. W. (2009). On “out-of-the-box” thinking in creativity. In A. B. Markman & K. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation (pp. 23–47). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wickelgren, W. A. (1974). How to solve problems: elements of a theory of problems and problem solving. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 258–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, R., Gu, N., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Comparing designers' behavior in responding to unexpected discoveries in parametric design and geometry modeling environments. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 11, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedelius, C. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). Mind wanderig "Ahas" versus mindful reasoning: alternative routes to creative solutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Work on this manuscript occurred while the author was a visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University and at the Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego. I thank anonymous reviewers for their many helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen K. Reed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reed, S.K. The Structure of Ill-Structured (and Well-Structured) Problems Revisited. Educ Psychol Rev 28, 691–716 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1

Keywords

Navigation