Samenvatting
Summary 2.1 Problem 8: Problem-Solving & Creativity
- Vak
- FSWP2-014-A
- Instelling
- Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
Notes (summary + class notes) of problem 8 from course 2.1: Thinking & Remembering.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 11 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 11 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
2.1 Problem 8: Problem-Solving & CreativityMatlin: Ch11
Problem-Solving Strategies
Algorithm = always produces solution to a problem, but process can sometimes be
inefficient
E.g., exhaustive search = you try out all possible answers using a specified system
- Algorithms are often inefficient & unsophisticated
Heuristics
If you use heuristic strategy to solve a problem, you would ignore some alternatives and
explore only those alternatives that seem likely to produce a solution
- Algorithms always guarantee a solution. Heuristics don’t guarantee a correct solution,
but they are faster than using algorithm
The Analogy Approach
- When you use analogy approach when problem solving, you employ a solution to a
similar, earlier problem to help you solve a new problem
Structure of the Analogy Approach
- Major challenge for people who use analogy strategy is to determine the real problem;
the abstract puzzle underneath all the details. Problem solvers must look past
irrelevant, superficial details in order to reach core of the problem.
Problem isomorphs = set of problems that have the same underlying structures &
solutions, but different specific details
- But people tend to pay attention to obvious surface features, e.g., objects/terms used
in the question. They focus less on structural features, the underlying core that must
be understood to solve the problem correctly
- People often fail to see analogy between a problem they have solved & a new
problem isomorph that has same structural features
- People have trouble solving same problem in a new setting; they fail to transfer
knowledge. Also have trouble solving problem when it is ‘dressed up’ with a
superficially different cover story
- People w/limited problem-solving skills & limited metacognitive ability are likely to
have difficulty using analogies
Research on Analogy Approach:
Gick & Holyoak: only one of the analogy hints was successful. Providing a diagram
(analogy-plus-diagram condition) or statement of the general principle underlying the
problem (analogy-plus-general-principle condition) didn’t help participants to
spontaneously recognise and use the analogy. But when participants read & related 2
analogous stories (analogy-plus-another-analogous-problem condition), they were
able to use the knowledge in the new problem – this is bc participants could map the
connections between the 2 different problems. Enactment > sketch & verbal
Mapping process is a defining feature of analogical reasoning. Mapping process =
schema induction
Steps that are necessary for analogies to succeed as problem-solving techniques:
noticing, mapping, and schema development
, 1) Problem solver must notice that a relationship exists between the 2
problems in question
2) Solver must be able to map the key elements of the 2 problems
3) Solver must arrive at a general schema underlying the problems that
will allow for the solution of the target problem
First stage (noticing) is a major culprit for the failures in analogical problem solving,
bc of failure of memory; the current problem fails to trigger the memory of other
problems that may be helpful. A hint (retrieval cue) helps them solve problem. But in
everyday cases of problem solving, there’s no hints provided about other analogous
problems
Our ability to notice, map and develop schema depends on type of similarity.
Surface features vs. structural features of a problem – if 2 problems share similar
surface features, the problems look similar. If 2 problems have similar structural
features, they might look like different problems on the surface, but are actually
similar
Lane & Schooler: effects of verbalising on apprehension & retrieval of analogies
Unexpected; verbalising actually didn’t help see past surface/superficial level, they
actually only saw surface level, didn’t see deeper, structural level. Could be bc talking
about it out loud makes them focus on surface similarities because these are easier to
talk about – so verbalisation doesn’t help
When making own analogies to solve target problems, the analogies of different
participants shared structural similarity, rather than surface similarity – so, people in
everyday circumstances may be more sensitive to structural similarity than we
thought
Markman et al.: people more sensitive to structural relationships among problems in
the case of spoken presentation (listening to problem). E.g., anaphoric reference –
people comprehend anaphor more efficiently when listening (spoken form) than when
reading (writing form). When cue proverb & original proverb share structural
features, participants more likely to remember original proverb in listening than in
reading condition. When they shared superficial (surface) features, there was no
difference between listening & reading conditions.
Catrombone et al.: kinaesthetic information – info that arises from body movement
– could play key role in encoding structural features of a problem, setting the stage for
later analogical retrieval. Enacting problem is effective for analogical transfer, and
therefore, solving problems.
Enactment condition was best – participants most likely to solve problem in second
phase even when they weren’t told to connect the problems (use solution from first
problem to solve later problem). Most participants eventually came up with solution
in third phase after they had been told to connect the problems
Factors that Encourage Appropriate Use of Analogies
1. The Means-Ends Heuristic
First, divide problem into number of subproblems, then try to reduce the
difference between initial state & goal state for each of the subproblems, e.g.,
1) identify object that could fix hem of skirt (stapler), 2) locate this object
You identify the ‘ends’ (final result) that you want, then figure out the ‘means’
or methods that you’ll use to reach those ends
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper akiestudholme. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 64438 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen