solve me

Several theories have been put forward to try and explain human problem solving and in particular insight.
Gestalt theories suggest that failure to solve a problem comes from functional fixedness or einstellung (mental set).
Representational change theory predicts that relaxation of constraints or changing the mental representation of a problem allows for a block to be overcome.
Computation theories of problem solving employ heuristics to reach a problem solving goal in problem solving space.
Progress monitoring theory proposes that criterion failure leads to a change in heuristics allowing for problems to be solved.
Jones (2003) suggests that progress monitoring theory predicts when insight might occur & representational change theory predicts how insight occurs.

Section A

Question: What does cognitive psychological research tell us about how humans solve problems?

Introduction: Cognitive Psychology is an approach that aims to understand human cognition by the study of behaviour. It is concerned with the internal processes involved in making sense of the environment and deciding what action might be appropriate. Once such internal process that cognitive psychological research is involved in, is Problem Solving, which refers to the cognitive activity that involves moving from the recognition that there is a problem through a series of steps to the solution. Research shows that there are a number of theories that reflect how humans solve problems. In this essay, three of them will be highlighted, those being through the Gestalt approach, through Representational theory and through Computational theories.

Argument 1: Through the use of the Gestalt theory of problem solving, cognitive psychological research has shown problem solving through the early but still occurring methods of trial-and-error and insight.

Theory: Some early research was carried out by Thorndike (1898), who looked at cat learning and discussed trial-and-error learning. However, German psychologists (Gestaltists) argued that the situation used in Thorndike’s research was unfair due to the arbitrary nature of the task to be learned.

Research Evidence: Köhler (1925) studied an ape called Sultan and looked at productive problem solving. He suggested that the ape showed insight – a sudden restructuring of a problem, often accompanied by the “ah-ha experience”. However, Birch (1945) found that apes raised in captivity showed little evidence of insightful problem solving. He argued that the apparent insight may have been due to a slow learning process.

Critical Evaluation: The difference between Thorndike’s approach and that of the Gestaltists is captured in the distinction between reproductive thinking which involves the re-use of previous experiences (focus of Thorndike’s research) and productive thinking which involves a novel restructuring of the problem and is more complex that reproductive thinking. The Gestalt psychologists argued that problems often require insight, and past experience sometimes disrupts current problem solving. However, restructuring and insight are ill-defined and difficult to measure.

Argument 2: The Representational change theory is another theory that shows how humans solve problems. It emphasizes on using the role of insight in problem solving except that it is more detailed than the Gestalt theory.

Theory: Ohlsson (1992) incorporated key aspects of the Gestalt approach into his representational change theory based on several key assumptions which include the mental representation of a problem that allows the retrieval of related knowledge and retrieval based on spreading activation among concepts or items of knowledge in long-term memory. Also, the occurrence of a block when the way a problem is represented does not permit retrieval of the necessary operators or possible actions as well as block overcome when mental representation changed allowing for retrieval of necessary information to solve problem (insight). Representation can be changed by addition of new information or relaxing constraints of a problem.

Research Evidence: Spreading activation from initial unsuccessful problem-solving attempts facilitates later recognition of relevant information (Yaniv and Meyer, 1987).

Critical Evaluation: Evidence indicates that constraint relaxation help solve insight problems and specifies underlying processes in problem-solving.  However, for some problems, constraint relaxation does not facilitate problem solving.

Argument 3: Lastly, Computational theories include Neiwell and Simon (1972)’s General Problem Solver.

Theory: Newell and Simon (1972) argued that it is possible to produce systematic computer simulations of human problem solving. They suggested the “General Problem Solver” with the assumptions that information processing is serial, people possess limited short-term memory capacity and relevant information from long-term memory can be retrieved. Problems are represented as a problem space, which consists of the initial state of the problem, the goal state, all of the possible mental operators, and all intermediate states of the problem.

Research Evidence: The Tower of Hanoi problem illustrates this where the initial state of the problem consists of up to five discs piled in decreasing size on the first of the three pegs. When all the discs are piled in the same order on the last peg, the goal state has been reached. The rules state that only one disk can be moved at a time and a larger disc cannot be placed on top of a smaller disc.

Critical Evaluation: In Tower of Hanoi problem, participants begin with domain-independent heuristics which allow later learning of domain-dependent heuristics in Tower of Hanoi problem. Evaluation of this theory shows that evidence indicates that the theory is useful in a number of problems and is consistent with knowledge about information processing. However, it shows differences to problem solving and doesn’t explain problems that occur with insight.

Conclusion: I’m not very good with conclusions

Section B:

Question: What does cognitive psychological research tell us about how humans solve problems?

OR

Question: How do humans solve problems?

Argument 1: There are a number of theories that reflect how humans solve problems. Gestalt theory of problem solving has shown problem solving through the methods of trial-and-error and insight.

Theory: Some early research was carried out by Thorndike (1898), who looked at cat learning and discussed trial-and-error learning. However, German psychologists (Gestaltists) argued that the situation used in Thorndike’s research was unfair due to the arbitrary nature of the task to be learned.

Research Evidence: Köhler (1925) studied an ape called Sultan and looked at productive problem solving. He suggested that the ape showed insight – a sudden restructuring of a problem, often accompanied by the “ah-ha experience”.

Critical Evaluation: However, Birch (1945) found that apes raised in captivity showed little evidence of insightful problem solving. He argued that the apparent insight may have been due to a slow learning process.

Argument 2: There are a number of theories that reflect how humans solve problems. The Representational change theory emphasizes on using the role of insight in problem solving except that it is more detailed than the Gestalt theory.

Theory: Ohlsson (1992) incorporated key aspects of the Gestalt approach into his representational change theory based on several key assumptions he used to explain insight.

Research Evidence: Spreading activation from initial unsuccessful problem-solving attempts facilitates later recognition of relevant information (Yaniv and Meyer, 1987).

Critical Evaluation: Evidence indicates that constraint relaxation (one of the assumptions) help solve insight problems and specifies underlying processes in problem-solving.  However, for some problems, constraint relaxation does not facilitate problem solving

Argument 3: There are a number of theories that reflect how humans solve problems. Computational theories include Neiwell and Simon (1972)’s General Problem Solver.

Theory: Newell and Simon (1972) argued that it is possible to produce systematic computer simulations of human problem solving. They suggested the “General Problem Solver” with the assumptions that information processing is serial, people possess limited short-term memory capacity and relevant information from long-term memory can be retrieved.

Research Evidence: The Tower of Hanoi problem illustrates this where the initial state of the problem consists of up to five discs piled in decreasing size on the first of the three pegs. When all the discs are piled in the same order on the last peg, the goal state has been reached. The rules state that only one disk can be moved at a time and a larger disc cannot be placed on top of a smaller disc.

Critical Evaluation: In Tower of Hanoi problem, participants begin with domain-independent heuristics which allow later learning of domain-dependent heuristics in Tower of Hanoi problem. Evaluation of this theory shows that evidence indicates that the theory is useful in a number of problems and is consistent with knowledge about information processing. However, it shows differences to problem solving and doesn’t explain problems that occur with insight.

say something