The Mathematics Educator

2007, Vol. 17, No. 2, 7–14

A Problem With Problem Solving:

Problem solving theory and practice suggest that thinking is more important to solving problems than
knowledge and that it is possible to teach thinking in situations where little or no knowledge of the
problem is needed. Such an assumption has led problem solving advocates to champion content-less
heuristics as the primary element of problem solving while relegating the knowledge base and the
application of concepts or transfer to secondary status. In the following theoretical analysis, it will be
argued that the knowledge base and transfer of knowledge—not the content-less heuristic—are the
most essential elements of problem solving.

Problem solving theory and practice suggest that is to know the meaning of the term problem. This
thinking is more important in solving problems than theoretical framework uses the definition of problem
knowledge and that it is possible to teach thinking in presented by Stephen Krulik and Jesse Rudnick (1980)
situations where little or no knowledge of the problem in Problem Solving: A Handbook for Teachers. A
is needed. Such an assumption has led problem solving problem is “a situation, quantitative or otherwise, that
advocates to champion content-less heuristics as the confronts an individual or group of individuals, that
primary element of problem solving while relegating requires resolution, and for which the individual sees
the knowledge base and the transfer or application of no apparent or obvious means or path to obtaining a
conceptual knowledge to secondary status. Yet if one solution” (p. 3).
analyzes the meaning of problem solving, the
The Definition of Problem Solving
knowledge base and the transfer of that knowledge are
the most essential elements in solving problems. Krulik and Rudnick (1980) also define problem
solving as
Theoretical Framework
the means by which an individual uses previously
Problem solving is only one type of a larger acquired knowledge, skills, and understanding to
category of thinking skills that teachers use to teach satisfy the demands of an unfamiliar situation. The
students how to think. Other means of developing student must synthesize what he or she has learned,
thinking skills are problem-based learning, critical and apply it to a new and different situation. (p. 4)
thinking skills, creative thinking skills, decision This definition is similar to the definition of the
making, conceptualizing, and information processing eighth element of problem solving, transfer: “[w]hen
(Ellis, 2005). Although scholars and practitioners often learning in one situation facilitates learning or
imply different meanings by each of these terms, most performance in another situation” (Ormrod, 1999, p.
thinking skills programs share the same basic elements: 348).
(1) the definition of a problem, (2) the definition of
problem solving, (3) algorithms, (4) heuristics, (5) the Problem Solving is Not an Algorithm
relationship between theory and practice, (6) teaching One of the primary elements of this framework is
creativity, (7) a knowledge base, and (8) the transfer or that problem solving is not an algorithm. For example,
the application of conceptual knowledge. Krulik and Rudnick (1980) say,
The Definition of a Problem The existence of a problem implies that the
The first element of the theory of problem solving individual is confronted by something he or she
does not recognize, and to which he or she cannot
merely apply a model. A problem will no longer be
Dr. Jamin Carson is an assistant professor of curriculum and
considered a problem once it can easily be solved
instruction at East Carolina University. He teaches the theory
and practice of instruction as well as classroom management and by algorithms that have been previously learned.
discipline. His primary research interest is the epistemology of (p. 3)
curriculum and instruction.

Jamin Carson 7
Table 1
Types of Problem Solving
Stephen Krulik and
John Dewey (1933) George Polya (1988)
Jesse Rudnick (1980)

Confront Problem Understanding the Problem Read

Steps in Diagnose or Define Problem Devising a Plan Explore

Conjecture Consequences of
Looking Back Solve
Solutions

Test Consequences Review and Extend

Additionally, advocates of problem solving imply one large long table. How many of these small
that algorithms are inferior models of thinking because tables are needed to seat all 24 people? (Krulik &
they do not require thought on a high level, nor do they Rudnick, 1987, pp. 29–31)
require deep understanding of the concept or problem.
The first step, Read, is when one identifies the
Algorithms only require memory and routine
problem. The problem solver does this by noting key
application. Further, they are not useful for solving
words, asking oneself what is being asked in the
new problems (Krulik & Rudnick, 1980).
problem, or restating the problem in language that he
Problem Solving is a Heuristic or she can understand more easily. The key words of
Advocates of problem solving argue that educators the problem are small square tables, twelve couples,
need to teach a method of thought that does not pertain one large table, and 24 people.
to specific or pre-solved problems or to any specific The second step, Explore, is when one looks for
content or knowledge. A heuristic is this kind of patterns or attempts to determine the concept or
method. It is a process or a set of guidelines that a principle at play within the problem. This is essentially
person applies to various situations. Heuristics do not a higher form of step one in which the student
guarantee success as an algorithm does (Krulik & identifies what the problem is and represents it in a
Rudnick, 1980; Ormrod, 1999), but what is lost in way that is easier to understand. In this step, however,
effectiveness is gained in utility. the student is really asking, “What is this problem
Three examples of a problem solving heuristic are like?” He or she is connecting the new problem to prior
presented in Table 1. The first belongs to John Dewey, knowledge. The student might draw a picture of what
who explicated a method of problem solving in How the situation would look like for one table, two tables,
We Think (1933). The second is George Polya’s, whose three tables, and so on. After drawing the tables, the
method is mostly associated with problem solving in student would note patterns in a chart. (See below.)
mathematics. The last is a more contemporary version The third step, Select a Strategy, is where one
developed by Krulik and Rudnick, in which they draws a conclusion or makes a hypothesis about how to
explicate what should occur in each stage of problem solve the problem based on the what he or she found in
solving. I will explain the last one because it is the steps one and two. One experiments, looks for a
more recently developed. However, the three are simpler problem, and then conjectures, guesses, forms
fundamentally the same. a tentative hypothesis, and assumes a solution.
The following is an example of how the heuristic is The fourth step is Solve the Problem. Once the
applied to a problem. method has been selected the student applies it to the
problem. In this instance, one could simply continue
Problem: Twelve couples have been invited to a the chart in step three until one reached 24 guests.
party. The couples will be seated at a series of
small square tables, placed end to end so as to form
8 Problem Solving
 Step 2: Explore. The final step, Review and Extend, is where the
student verifies his or her answer and looks for
Draw a diagram to represent the problem.
variations in the method of solving the problem; e.g.,
n "2
t= , where represents the number of tables. Or we
2
could ask for a formula to determine how many guests
we can seat given the number of tables. For example, n
= 2t + 2 or n = 2(t + 1).
!
Problem Solving Connects Theory and Practice
A perennial charge brought against education is
that it fails to prepare students for the real world. It
teaches theory but not practice. Problem solving
connects theory and practice. In a sense this element is
the same as the definitions of problem solving and
transfer, only it specifically relates to applying abstract
Make a chart, record the data, and look for patterns. school knowledge to concrete real world experiences
(Krulik & Rudnick, 1980).
Number of Problem Solving Teaches Creativity
1 2 3 4 . . .
tables
Real world situations require creativity. However,
Number of it has often been claimed that traditional classrooms or
4 6 8 10 . . .
guests teaching approaches do not focus on developing the
creative faculty of students. Advocates of problem
Pattern: As we add a table, the number of guests that solving, by contrast, claim that problem solving
can be seated increases by 2. develops the students’ creative capacities (Frederiksen,
1984; Slavin, 1997).
Successful Problem Solvers Have a Complete and
Step 3: Select a Strategy. Organized Knowledge Base
A knowledge base consists of all of the specific
Number of knowledge a student has that he or she can use to solve
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tables a given problem. For example, in order to solve
algebraic problems, one not only needs to know
Number of
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 information about numbers and how to add, subtract,
guests
multiply, and divide, but one must also possess the
knowledge that goes beyond basic arithmetic. A
Form a tentative hypothesis. Since the pattern seems to knowledge base is what must accompany the teaching
be holding true for 16 guests, we can continue to add 1 of a heuristic for successful problem solving to occur.
table for every additional guest until we reach 24.
Therefore, we add 4 additional tables for the additional Problem Solving Teaches Transfer or How to Apply
guests (16 + 8 = 24). Hypothesis: It will take 11 tables Conceptual Knowledge
to accommodate 24 guests. Transfer, or the application of conceptual
knowledge, is the connecting of two or more real-life
Step 4: Solve the Problem problems or situations together because they share the
same concept or principle. Transfer or the application
Number of conceptual knowledge helps students see similarities
of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 and patterns among seemingly different problems that
tables are in fact the same, or similar, on the conceptual level.
Some research about problem solving claim that it
Number is more effective than traditional instruction (Lunyk-
of 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Child, et al., 2001; Stepien, Gallagher, & Workman,
guests 1993), that it results in better long-term retention than
Jamin Carson 9
traditional instruction (Norman & Schmidt, 1992), and successful. Heuristic is a method of thought that does
that it promotes the development of effective thinking not pertain to any specific problems or content. The
skills (Gallagher, Stepien, & Rosenthal, 1994; Hmelo element is problematic because it contradicts three
& Ferrari, 1997). other elements within the theory: the definition of
On the other hand, in Research on Educational problem solving, successful problem solving requires a
Innovations, Arthur Ellis (2005) notes that the research knowledge base, and problem solving enables learners
base on problem solving lacks definition, possesses to transfer knowledge. Each of these three elements
measurement validity problems and questionable implies that previously learned knowledge of the
causality, and it fails to answer the claim that problem is necessary to solving the problem, whereas
successful problem solvers must have a wealth of use of a heuristic assumes no knowledge is necessary.
content-specific knowledge. Ellis further notes that I argue, like Peikoff (1985), that there is no way to
there is “no generally agreed-on set of definitions of separate thinking or problem solving from knowledge.
terms” (p. 109), that thinking skills are notoriously Just like instruction and curriculum, these concepts
difficult to measure, and that given these first two imply one another and cannot be discussed separately
problems, it is impossible to trace cause back to any for long. Likewise, to acquire knowledge, one must
specific set of curricular instances. Ellis states, think. This is not to say that students cannot construct
[t]he idea that thinking skills are content specific
knowledge as they solve a given problem, only to say
and cannot be taught generically must be seriously that often the problems they are presented only require
entertained until it is discredited. We don’t think them to apply existing knowledge. From this
that will happen. And if this is so, how does one perspective, it must be assumed that students do not
construct content-free tests to measure thinking construct all of the knowledge in a given curriculum.
skills? (pp. 109–110) Yet problem solving as a heuristic is the most
The conclusions of Ellis and other research studies cherished aspect of problem solving because it is
I will cite later state that it would be impossible to content-less. For example, in the preface to
reinvent solutions to every problem that develops Mathematical Discovery, George Polya (1962), one of
without recourse to past knowledge. This recourse to the foremost thinkers on problem solving says,
past knowledge is evidence, in itself, that one must not I wish to call heuristic the study that the present
completely construct reality. One must apply work attempts, the study of means and methods of
knowledge that has already been formed by others and problem solving. The term heuristic, which was
understand that knowledge, or else not solve the used by some philosophers in the past, is half-
problem. It is this critique that I will invoke in the forgotten and half-discredited nowadays, but I am
following treatment of problem solving. What I hope to not afraid to use it.
show is that the heuristic for problem solving cannot be In fact, most of the time the present work
successful if one holds strongly to the theoretical offers a down-to-earth practical aspect of heuristic.
framework in which it is often situated. Rather, one (p. vi)
must accept that already formed knowledge is essential Instructional textbooks sometimes play off this
to problem solving. In fact, the meanings of problem process versus content dichotomy: a teacher can either
solving found in articles and textbooks often convey teach students to be critical thinkers and problem
this contradiction. On the one hand, it is argued that solvers or she can teach students more content
problem solving is the antithesis of a content-centered knowledge. The authors of one textbook say,
curriculum. On the other hand, a successful problem
solver must possess a strong knowledge base of Too often children are taught in school as though
the answers to all the important questions were in
specific information, not merely a generalizeable
textbooks. In reality, most of the problems faced by
heuristic that can be applied across several different individuals have no easy answers. There are no
situations. reference books in which one can find the solution
The Problem With Problem Solving to life’s perplexing problems. (Gunter, Estes, &
Schwab, 2003, pp. 128–129)
The main problem with problem solving lies in the
The dichotomy implies that thinking and knowledge
fourth element listed above: problem solving is a
are mutually exclusive, when in fact critical thinking
heuristic. Recall that a heuristic is a guideline that may
and problem solving require a great deal of specific
or may not yield success but, unlike an algorithm, it
content knowledge.
does not depend on knowledge of the problem to be

10 Problem Solving
 Problem solving and heuristics cannot be content- same as the old in principle. For example, the principle
less and still be effective. Critical thinking, problem of addition a student would use to solve the problem 1
solving, and heuristics must include a knowledge base + 2 = 3 is essentially the same principle one would
(Fredricksen, 1984; Ormrod, 1999). Including the apply to 1 + x = 3. The form may be different but
knowledge base enables the principle cognitive ultimately the same principle is used to solve both
function of problem solving—the application of problems. If this is the case, then a more proper
conceptual knowledge, or transfer—to occur (Peikoff, element of problem solving would be number eight, the
1985). However, the degree to which Dewey and Polya transfer of knowledge or application of conceptual
actually believed that a heuristic could be completely knowledge.
content-less and still be effective is not clear. Further, The third and fourth elements algorithms and
many instructional textbooks actually stress the heuristics are problematic. Krulik and Rudnick (1980)
importance of content knowledge in solving problems distinguish between algorithms and heuristics. Unlike
(Henson, 2004; Kauchak & Eggen, 2007; Lang & employing an algorithm, using a heuristic requires the
Evans, 2006). problem solver to think on the highest level and fully
understand the problem. Krulik and Rudnick also
The Elements of Problem Solving Revised
prefer heuristics to algorithms because the latter only
Each of the above elements of problem solving applies to specific situations, whereas a heuristic
will be reviewed again in light of the relationship applies to many as yet undiscovered problems.
between thinking and knowledge and the research base However, an algorithm requires more than mere
on problem solving. Element one, the definition of a memorization; it requires deep thinking too. First, in
problem, implies that one must have some knowledge order to apply an algorithm, the student must have
of the problem to solve it. How can one solve a sufficient information about the problem to know
problem without first knowing what the problem is? In which algorithm to apply. This would only be possible
fact, identification of the problem is what is called for if the student possessed a conceptual understanding of
in the first two steps, Read and Explore, of the the subject matter. Further, even if a student could
heuristic. In this step, the student first becomes aware somehow memorize when to apply certain algorithms,
of the problem and then seeks to define what it is or it does not follow that he or she would also be able to
what the problem requires for its solution. Awareness memorize how to apply it (Hu, 2006; Hundhausen &
and definition comprise the knowledge that is essential Brown, 2008; Johanning, 2006; Rusch, 2005).
to solving the problem. Consider the effectiveness of Second, algorithms and problem solving are
students relative to their respective experiences with a related to one another. Algorithms are the product of
given problem. The student more familiar with the successful problem solving and to be a successful
problem will probably be better able to solve it. In problem solver one often must have knowledge of
contrast, the student new to the problem, who has only algorithms (Hu, 2006; Hundhausen & Brown, 2008;
studied the heuristic, would have to re-invent the Johanning, 2006; Rusch, 2005). Algorithms exist to
solution to the problem. eliminate needless thought, and in this sense, they
So the first two steps of the heuristic imply that actually are the end product of heuristics. The necessity
one needs a great deal of knowledge about the problem to teach heuristics exists, but heuristics and algorithms
to be an effective problem solver. In fact, if one wants should not be divided and set against one another.
to solve the problem for the long term, one would want Rather, teachers should explain their relationship and
to thoroughly study the problem until some kind of how both are used in solving problems.
principles were developed with regard to it. The final A secondary problem that results from this flawed
outcome of such an inquiry, ironically, would yield the dichotomy between algorithms and heuristics is that
construction of an algorithm. advocates of problem solving prefer heuristics because
The second element, the definition of problem algorithms only apply to specific situations, whereas
solving, also implies a connection between thinking heuristics do not pertain to any specific knowledge. If
and knowledge. It says that problem solving is one reflects upon the steps of problem solving listed
essentially applying old knowledge to a new situation above one will see that they require one to know the
(Krulik & Rudnick, 1987). However, if knowledge or a problem to be successful at solving it..
problem is genuinely new, then the old knowledge Consider the sample problem above to which the
would not apply to it in any way. Ormrod (1999) heuristic was applied. If one knows the heuristic
suggests that the so-called new situation is really the process and possesses no background knowledge of

Jamin Carson 11
similar problems, one would not be able to solve the problem. The only ones who could solve it would be
problem. For example, in the first step of the heuristic those who use an algorithm. Even if a teacher taught
one is supposed to Read the problem, identify the the heuristic to students, he or she would essentially be
problem, and list key facts of the problem. Without a teaching an algorithm.
great deal of specific content knowledge how will the Advocates of problem solving are not solely to
student know what the teacher means by “problem,” blame for the misconception between thinking and
“key facts,” and so on? The teacher will probably have knowledge and between heuristics and algorithms. The
to engage the student in several problems. Without misconception is likely due to teachers that have over-
extensive knowledge of facts, how does the student used algorithms and never shown students how they
know what mathematical facts are, and how they apply are formed, that they come from heuristics, and that
to word problems, for example? one should have a conceptual understanding of when
In the second step, Explore, the problem solver they should be used, not merely a memorized
looks for a pattern or identifies the principle or understanding of them.
concept. Again, how can one identify the pattern, The fundamentally flawed dichotomy within
principle, or concept without already possessing problem solving probably stems from thinking in terms
several stored patterns, principles, and concepts? of “either-ors.” One side defines appropriate education
Indeed, to a student with very little mathematical as teaching algorithms by having students memorize
knowledge, this problem would be extremely difficult when to use them but not why. The other side, by
to solve. The heuristic would be of little help. contrast, emphasizes that thinking for understanding is
The heuristic says to draw a diagram, presumably preferable to simply memorized knowledge. Perhaps
to make the problem more concrete and therefore more what has happened in the shift from the former to the
accessible to the student, but without already knowing latter practices is the instructional emphasis has shifted
what the concept the problem exhibits this would very from content to thinking so much that the knowledge
difficult, if not impossible. Using the chart with the base has been wiped out in the process. Ironically,
data as an example, it would require previous eliminating knowledge from the equation also
knowledge in mathematics to be able to construct it. It eliminates the effectiveness of problem solving.
seems that the heuristic in this problem is in reality just The dichotomy between knowledge and thinking
another algorithm that the teacher will have to teach as has also affected elements five and six. Number five
directly and as repetitively until the students learn how states that problem solving connects theory and
and when to apply it, which is the very opposite of practice. At the core of this element is yet another
what advocates of problem solving want. The same is flawed dichotomy. Many educators hold that education
also true of step five, Review and Extend. Presumably should prepare students for the real world by focusing
if a student could represent this problem in algebraic less on theory and more on practice. However, dividing
form, he or she should also be able to solve the same the two into separate cognitive domains that are
problem without recourse to drawing diagrams, mutually exclusive is not possible. Thinking is actually
recording data, etc. One could simply solve the the integration of theory and practice, the abstract and
problem right after step one. the concrete, the conceptual and the particular.
The sample problem illustrates what scientists have Theories are actually only general principles based on
discovered about novices and experts. In studies that several practical instances. Likewise, abstract concepts
examined expert and novice chess players, researchers are only general ideas based on several concrete
found that their respective memories were no different particulars. Dividing the two is not possible because
in relation to random arrangements of chess pieces. each implies the other (Lang & Evans, 2006).
When the pieces were arranged in ways that would Effective instruction combines both theory and
make sense in a chess game, the experts’ memories practice in specific ways. When effective teachers
were much better. The theory is that an expert chess introduce a new concept, they first present a
player is not a better problem solver, he or she just has perceptual, concrete example of it to the student. By
a more extensive knowledge base than a novice player. presenting several concrete examples to the student,
He or she is past the rudimentary hypothesis testing the concept is better understood because this is in fact
stage of learning, past the problem solving heuristic the sequence of how humans form concepts (Bruner,
stage and is now simply applying algorithms to Goodnow, & Austin, 1956; Cone 1969; Ormrod, 1999;
already-solved problems (Ross, 2006). The same could Peikoff, 1993). They begin with two or more concrete
be said for students applying a heuristic to the above particulars and abstract from them the essential

12 Problem Solving
defining characteristics into a concept. For example, example, changed the foundational assumptions of
after experiencing several actual tables a human physics, but it was developed in concert with ideas that
eventually abstracts the concept a piece of furniture already existed. There may be no such thing as pure
with legs and a top (Lang & Evans, 2006). creativity, making something from nothing. What
On the other hand, learning is not complete if one seems like creativity is more properly transfer or the
can only match the concept with the particular example application of concepts, recognizing that what appears
of it that the teacher has supplied. A successful student like two different things are really the same thing in
is one who can match the concept to the as yet unseen principle.
examples or present an example that the teacher has On the other hand, it is possible to provide an
not presented. Using the table as an example, the environment that is conducive to creativity. Many
student would be able to generate an example of a new problem-solving theorists have argued correctly for the
table that the teacher has not exhibited or discussed. inclusion of such an atmosphere in classrooms (Christy
This is an example of principle eight, the transfer of & Lima, 2007; Krulik & Rudnick, 1980; Slavin, 1997;
knowledge or applying conceptual knowledge. Sriraman, 2001). I only object to the claim that
The dichotomy between theory and practice also problem solving teaches creativity defined as creating
seems to stem from the dichotomous relationship the new. It can, however, teach creativity defined as
between the teaching for content-knowledge and the application of previously learned principles to new
teaching for thinking. The former is typically situations.
characterized as teaching concepts out of context, Element seven, problem solving requires a
without a particular concrete example to experience knowledge base, although not problematic is only
through the five senses. The latter, however, is often neglected within the theory of problem solving. This is
characterized as being too concrete. Effective ironic given how important it is. Jeanne Ormrod (1999)
instruction integrates both the concrete and abstract but says, “Successful (expert) problem solvers have a more
in a specific sequence. First, new learning requires complete and better organized knowledge base for the
specific real problems. Second, from these concrete problems they solve” (p. 370). She also relates how
problems, the learner forms an abstract principle or one research inquiry that studied the practice of
concept. Finally, the student then attempts to apply that problem solving in a high school physics class
conceptual knowledge to a new, never before observed that the high achievers had “better organized
experienced problem (Bruner, Goodnow, & Austin, information about concepts related to electricity” (p.
1956; Cone, 1969; Ormrod, 1999; Peikoff, 1993). 370). Not only was it better organized, the students
The theory vs. practice debate is related to problem were also aware of “the particular relationships that
solving because problem solving is often marketed as different concepts had with one another” (Cochran,
the integration of theory and practice. I argue, 1988, p. 101). Norman (1980) also says,
however, it leaves out too much theory in its effort to I do not believe we yet know enough to make
be practical. That is, it leaves out the application of strong statements about what ought to be or ought
conceptual knowledge and its requisite knowledge not to be included in a course on general problem
base. solving methods. Although there are some general
Element six, problem solving teaches creativity, is methods that could be of use…I suspect that in
also problematic. To create is to generate the new, so most real situations it is…specific knowledge that
one must ask how someone can teach another to is most important. (p. 101)
generate something new. Are there specific processes Finally, element eight, problem solving is the
within a human mind that lead to creative output that application of concepts or transfer, is also not
can also be taught? The answer would depend at least problematic; it too is only neglected within the theory
in part on the definition of create. When an artist of problem solving. Norman Frederiksen (1984) says,
creates, he or she is actually re-creating reality for example, “the ability to formulate abstract concepts
according to his or her philosophical viewpoint, but is an ability that underlies the acquisition of
much, if not all, of what is included in the creation is knowledge. [Teaching how to conceptualize] accounts
not a creation at all but an integration or an arranging for generality or transfer to new situations” (p. 379).
of already existing things or ideas. So in one sense, no According to this passage, it is the application of
one creates; one only integrates or applies previously conceptual knowledge and not the heuristic alone that
learned knowledge. No idea is entirely new; it relates as Frederiksen says, “accounts for generality or
to other ideas or things. The theory of relativity, for

Jamin Carson 13
transfer,” (p. 379) which the advocates of problem Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2008). Designing, visualizing,
solving so desire. and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An
empirical study. Computers & Education, 50, 301–326.
Conclusion Johanning, D. (2006). Benchmarks and estimation: A critical
element in supporting students as they develop fraction
Problem solving would be more effective if the algorithms. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A.
knowledge base and the application of that knowledge Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the
were the primary principles of the theory and practice. North American Chapter of the International Group for the
Currently, it seems that a content-less heuristic is the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 384–386). Mérida,
Mexico: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
primary principle, which, as I have argued, is
problematic because it dichotomizes thinking and Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (2007). Learning and teaching:
Research-based methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
knowledge into two mutually exclusive domains. In
Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J. A. (1987). Problem solving: A handbook
fact, in the course of solving any problem one will find for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
themselves learning of all things not a heuristic, but an
Lang, H. R., & Evans, D. N. (2006). Models, strategies, and
algorithm. In other words, teachers must not only teach methods for effective teaching. Boston: Pearson Education.
students the heuristic and set their students free upon Lunyk-Child, O. L., Crooks, D., Ellis, P. J., Ofosu, C., O'Mara, L.,
the problems of everyday life. Rather, teachers must, in & Rideout, E. (2001). Self-directed learning: Faculty and
addition to teaching students sound thinking skills, student perceptions. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 116–
teach them what knowledge in the past has been 123.
successful at solving the problems and why. Norman, D. A. (1980). Cognitive engineering and education. In D.
T. Tuma & F. Reif (Eds.), Problem solving and education:
References Issues in teaching and research (pp. 97–107). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-
specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis
Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404. of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence.
Academic Medicine, 67, 557–565.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G.(1956). A study of thinking.
New York: Wiley. Ormrod, J. (1999). Human learning (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Christy, A. D., & Lima, M. (2007). Developing creativity and
multidisciplinary approaches in teaching Engineering Peikoff, L. (1985). The philosophy of education [CD Lecture
problem-solving. International Journal of Engineering Series]. Irvine, CA: Second Renaissance.
Education, 23, 636–644. Peikoff, L. (1993). Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. New
Cochran, K. (1988). Cognitive structure representation in physics. York: Meridian.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Vol. 1.
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ:
Cone, E. D. (1969). Audiovisual methods in teaching (3 rd ed.). New Princeton University Press.
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Polya, G. (1962). Mathematical discovery: On understanding,
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath. learning, and teaching problem solving, Vol. 1. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed.).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Polya, G. (1988). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical
method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fredriksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for
instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Ross, P. E. (2006, August). The expert mind. Scientific American,
Research, 54, 363–407. 64–71.
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1994). The Rusch, T. L. (2005). Step one for developing a great mathematics
effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted lesson plan: Understand the mathematics. Ohio Journal of
Child Quarterly, 36, 195–200. School Mathematics, 51, 25–34.
Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. (2003). Instruction: A Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: Theory and practice
models approach (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Henson, K. T. (2004). Constructivist teaching strategies for diverse Sriraman, B. (2004). Understanding mathematical creativity: A
middle-level classrooms. Boston: Pearson Education. framework for assessment in the high school classroom. In D.
E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th
Hmelo, C. E., & Ferrari, M. (1997). The problem-based learning
Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
tutorial: Cultivating higher order thinking skills. Journal for
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
the Education of the Gifted, 20, 401–422.
Education (pp. 350–352). Toronto, Canada: OISE/UT.
Hu, C. (2006). It’s mathematical after all—the nature of Stepien, W. J., Gallagher, S. A., & Workman, D. (1993). Problem-
learning computer programming. Education & Information based learning for traditional and interdisciplinary classrooms.
Technologies, 11, 83–92. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 338–357.

14 Problem Solving