Experiment 4 and Its Contribution to the Study of Problem-Solving - Essay Example

? Experiment 4 and its Contribution to the Study of Problem Solving Several theories about problems solving and decision making has been put forward by different scholars. The aim of these theories is to understand how people arrive to certain solutions and what factors affects this process. Among these theories is analogical problem solving theory that was created by Gick and Holyoak. They conducted several experiment to understand how having prior experience information about a certain problem affects how they arrive to a solution. In experiment 4, Gick and Holyoak replicate the previous three experiments where they give the subjects a story and the subjects are then given a radiation problem to solve. The solution to the problem was contained in the story. In experiment 1, 2 and 3, the subjects were given the hint of using the story to solve the problem and this produced systematic results when the experiment was repeated. In experiment 4 where the hint was omitted the there was a lower percentage of the subject succeeding in solving the problem. It was thus concluded that the hint was a crucial point in solving of the radiation problem. From this experiment, Gick and Holyoak discovered the conditions that are necessary in creating positive transfers of the story analogue used in solving radiation problems. When the experimental subjects were given analogue and were required to compare the similarities between the two analogs before being given the radiation problem, there was positive transfer from the story analogs to the solving of the radiation problem (Marshall 1995). Comparing two analogs assisted the subject in creating a solid schema that was used in solving new problems (Gick and Holyoak 1980). This paper gives a description of experiment 4 and the contributions it has made to the study of problem solving. Description of Experiment 4 In this experiment, the entire subject was given two story analogs. Four different stories were used where the subjects were either given two stories from the same domain either the fire fighter or the military domain. They could also be from different domains. The conditions that all the subjects were subjected were similar. The subjects were required to describe the analogs similarities. It was however discovered that there was no correlation between the analog similarities and solutions frequencies. The descriptions of the subjects were also studied for schema quality. It was observed that the subjects said that the diagrams that had been presented to them illustrated a similarity between the analogs (Runco & Pritzker 1999). These subjects were labeled as having goof schemas (Mandl & Levin 1989). It was observed that people who had been given interpretive diagrams of the analogs had a higher score in creating good schemas compared to those who did not receive any diagrams. It was observed that in cases of dissimilar analogs where the subjects were given tree diagrams, there was a high tendency to create good schemas. The creations of good schema correlated with higher frequencies in problems solving (Davidson 2003). This was not the same to similar analogs where good schema did not translate to high frequency of solutions. Gick and Holyoak contribution to the study of problem solving Gick and Holyoak studies showed that analogical reasoning is a process where knowledge is mapped from the source domain to the problem situations. Solving of the radiation problem required that the subjects draw some similarities and create a schema that relates the source and the target domain. The result from this experiment showed that analogical reasoning is dependent on two factors. One is the ability of recognize the problem situation such as in the case of creating a convergence schema. The other condition is creating a well arranged schema depending on prior knowledge (Gick and Holyoak 1980). It is thus seen that the prior knowledge that a person has about a certain problem is crucial in developing a working solution. People would have a pot of problem in developing solutions to problems in which they have no prior knowledge of. The experiment thus shows problem solving as a way through which previous knowledge is applied to a schema. 10% of the subjects in Gick and Holyoak were observed to solve the radiation problem without being taught how to develop a convergence schema. These results imply that it is possible for spontaneous learning to take place outside the context of having prior knowledge in a certain area (Bejar, Chaffin & Embretson1991). However, the study generally concluded that in a classroom setting or outside, it is possible to solve problems without having certain well constructed knowledge schemas (Gick and Holyoak 1980). The study of analogical reasoning can thus be used to get deeper insight into the issue of problems solving without the constraints of well developed knowledge schemas. Article Analysis: Individual Differences in Analogical Problems Solving This article is a report about five experiments that was conducted to determine which factors affect the transfer of analogical transfer of knowledge from a story to the target problem. The subjects of this study were undergraduate students (Antonietti & Gioletta 1994). The factors that were studied include student ability, gender, cognitive style and academic curricula. This experiment used the principle followed by Gick and Holyoak that getting a solution to a target problem is influenced by having knowledge about the topic in the past which is labeled as the source. The subjects were given a story which they were supposed to study and develop inferences. They were then given the target problem and were expected to use the information from the story to come up with a solution. The first experiment sought to investigate whether ability affects the transference of analog knowledge to target problem solving. The subjects were 40 undergraduate students with different IQ levels with some who had labeled as gifted being included. They students who participated in the research were 28 males and 15 females. The subjects were given two tests, the A-B-C-D PM38 that test matrix skills and analogical problem solving skills. The responses from the subjects were classified into two groups, the analogical solutions and not analogical solutions. The subjects were given the same APS problem. The examiners who marked the test results were unaware of the subjects’ gender or theirPM38 scores. The results showed that there was no relation between the APS tests and general analogical reasoning (Antonietti & Gioletta 1994). The difference could be as a result of the two tests being of different natures. In analogical reasoning, one uses one strategy of solving the target solution by analogy. Other aptitude tests on the other hand can be solved using a wide range of strategies which are arrived at through a several varied processes. Study number two sought to determine the influence of cognitive style in analogical reasoning. The subjects were 75 university students consisting of 29 females and 47 males within the age of 19-27 from different disciplines. The subjects were given two tests which measured the analogical problems solving and group embedded figure tests (Antonietti & Gioletta 1994). There was no correlation found between the APS and gender. In terms of field dependency, it was found that the field independent subjects were good in APS while field dependent had lower score on APS. Experiment three sought to investigate whether there existed a relationship between the analogical reasoning and verbal-visual style and right-left styles of thinking. The subjects were 50 undergraduate, 27 females and 23 males of different disciplines. The material used to test APS in the previous experiments was used together with Your Style of Learning and Thinking Questionnaire was administered. There was no correlation between the thinking style and APS. The fourth experiment sought to establish the relationship between APS and being an innovator or an adaptor. The subjects consisted of 52 students: 27 females and 22 males. APS test material used in the previous study was administered together with Kirton Adaptation-innovation Inventory. The adaptors were seen to have a higher score than the innovators. This is because adaptors are more inclined to user the existing material or experience to improve what is already available. Innovators on the other hand seeks o create something unique and different from what is available and may thus ignore past experiences. Study five investigated the effect of gender on analogical problems solving. The subjects were from both humanities and biomedical disciplines (Antonietti & Gioletta 1994). It was observed that the frequency of analogical solutions in males was greater than in females. The five experiments that individual differences affects the ability of people analogical problem solving. Cognitive style has been identified to influence APS ability and not cognitive ability (Goldstein 2007). Cognitive styles such as adaptor-innovator and field dependence/ independence affects the solving of analogical problems. What is the article’s Take on Gick and Holyoak This article bases its study on the experiments carried out by Gick and Holyoak. The study actually employs the experiment conducted by Gick and Holyoak in investigating analogical problems solving. The authors assert that although Gick and Holyoak did make major contributions in the study of problem solving, this research did not take into account individual differences. The authors use the same target problem of solving Dunker’s radiation problem is assessing the analogous problems solving skills in the subjects (Veloso 1994). The study thus seeks conduct the experiment on individual differences on problems solving to add on to the existing information from previous studies. In conclusion, it can be observed that Gick and Holyoak made major contribution is the investigation of the issue of problems solving. Their finding that having prior experiences affects the solving of analogous problem has been used as a basis for other studies in the same field. An example of such study is the one conducted by Antonietti & Gioletta (1994) that seeks to understand whether individual differences influence analogous problems solving. This research concluded that cognitive style and not cognitive ability influences analogous problem solving. References Antonietti, Allesandro & Gioletta Maria, A. (1994). Individual Differences in Analogical Problem Solving. Bejar, I. I., Chaffin, R., & Embretson, S. E. (1991). Cognitive and psychometric analysis of analogical problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355. Goldstein, E. B. (2007). Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth. Mandl, H., & Levin, J. R. (1989). Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge, Angleterre: Cambridge University Press. Runco, M. A. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publ. Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity. San Diego, Calif: Academic Press. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. (Cognitive Load Theory.) New York, NY: Springer New York. Veloso, M. M. (1994). Planning and learning by analogical reasoning. Berlin [etc.: Springer-Verlag. Vosniadou, S., Ortony, A., & Workshop on Similarity and Analogy. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More