{"id":2354,"date":"2017-09-23T08:00:37","date_gmt":"2017-09-23T08:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/blog\/?p=2354"},"modified":"2017-12-08T02:25:25","modified_gmt":"2017-12-08T02:25:25","slug":"decisions-decisions-helping-students-with-complex-reasoning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.braindevs.net\/blog\/decisions-decisions-helping-students-with-complex-reasoning\/","title":{"rendered":"Decisions, Decisions: Helping Students with Complex Reasoning"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"AdobeStock_116366760_Credit\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Most of us have heard the adage about the two ways that someone can get into a swimming pool: jump right in, or enter slowly to acclimate to the temperature a few inches at a time.<\/span><\/p>\n

Most of us have probably also witnessed (or experienced) the varied ways that someone might approach an assignment: one could start and finish it right away; work on it in small chunks over an extended period of time; or wait until the last moment to start, likely rushing to finish.<\/span><\/p>\n

And for those that are keeping an eye on back-to-school sales events, there are of course different ways to shop: one could impulse purchase an item, or do some research beforehand to get the best possible deal.<\/span><\/p>\n

The common thread in all of those scenarios is that different methods, strategies, and thought processes can be employed to solve problems or complete tasks. And each has its own time and place. So how do we decide exactly which ones to use in a given situation?<\/span><\/p>\n

Algorithms and heuristics<\/b><\/p>\n

The science behind problem solving and decision-making comprises a robust portion of cognitive research and involves the study of both conscious and unconscious thought.<\/span><\/p>\n

Overall, there are two primary ways that a problem can be tackled: with <\/span>algorithms<\/span><\/i> or with <\/span>heuristics<\/span><\/i>. [1] An algorithmic approach refers to a series of steps that are more or less guaranteed to yield the solution. While this approach is most easily thought of in the context of mathematics (e.g., following a mathematical formula), an algorithmic approach also refers to such procedures as following a recipe or backtracking your steps to find a lost object.<\/span><\/p>\n

Heuristics, on the other hand, are associative strategies that don\u2019t <\/span>necessarily<\/span><\/i> lead to a solution, but are generally pretty successful in getting you there. These include conscious strategies (such as solving a maze by making sure your path stays in the general direction of the end point) and unconscious strategies (such as emotional instincts). Because heuristics are more subjective and less systematic than an algorithmic approach, they tend to be more prone to error.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the classroom, solving problems with an algorithmic approach is fairly straight-forward: students can learn the needed procedural steps for a task and identify any places where they might have gone wrong, such as a miscalculation or a typo.<\/span><\/p>\n

Heuristics are more complicated, however, and much of the research on problem solving aims to understand how children and adults solve problems in complex, confusing, or murky situations. One question of particular interest involves <\/span>transfer<\/b>: <\/span>how do children apply, or transfer, their knowledge and skills from one problem-solving scenario to another<\/span><\/i>? <\/span><\/p>\n

Six of one, half-dozen of the other<\/b><\/p>\n

Research suggests that students tend to have trouble transferring knowledge between problems that share <\/span>only<\/b> the same <\/span>deep structure<\/span><\/i>. For example, two puzzles that can be solved with the same logic, but that have different numbers, settings, or characters, are tricky. <\/span><\/p>\n

In contrast, problems that share <\/span>both <\/b>their <\/span>deep structure<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>shallow structure<\/span><\/i> can be solved with relative ease.<\/span><\/p>\n

A seminal study that illustrates the challenges of transfer asked students to solve <\/span>the<\/span><\/i> Radiation Dilemma<\/span><\/i>: a medical puzzle of how to destroy a tumor with laser beams. [2] Some of the students were first told to read T<\/em><\/span>he General<\/span><\/i>: a puzzle (and its solution) based on the common military strategy of surrounding an enemy and attacking from all sides. The solution to the Radiation Dilemma was analogous to the solution for The General: radiation beams should target the tumor from all sides until destroyed.<\/span><\/p>\n

The researchers found that the students who first read the solution to The General successfully solved the Radiation Dilemma more often than those who did not.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, students who received a <\/span>hint<\/span><\/i> that the solution to The General problem would help them solve the Radiation Problem were actually more successful in solving it than those who read both problems but received no hint.<\/span><\/p>\n

This finding suggests that analogies can certainly be a helpful guide when children (or adults) are trying to make sense of a problem or find similarities between different contexts. But, they can also be confusing. Presumably, \u00a0people become distracted by or hyper-focused on <\/span>shallow structural features<\/span><\/i> (e.g., reading the Radiation Dilemma and trying to remember what medical strategy was used on a TV drama) and thus overlook the deep structure similarities that are present.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, when we ask students to make connections between two problems, scenarios, or stories that have surface-level differences, a little hint may just go a long way.<\/span><\/p>\n

The less the merrier?<\/b><\/p>\n

In addition to better understanding <\/span>how<\/span><\/i> to make decisions or think about problems, researchers also aim to understand <\/span>how much<\/span><\/i> we should think about them. And, contrary to popular thought, it appears that reasoned and evaluative thinking may not always be best.<\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, there is evidence for the <\/span>deliberation-without-attention<\/span><\/i> effect: some problem-solving situations seem to benefit more from <\/span>unconscious<\/span><\/i> cognitive processing. To investigate this, scholars at the University of Amsterdam set out to <\/span>determine whether better decisions result from unconscious or conscious thought. <\/span>[3]<\/span><\/p>\n

In their experiment:<\/span><\/p>\n