Creating a positive life: The role of problem-solving appraisal.

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-124
Author(s):  
Puncky Paul Heppner ◽  
Mary J. Heppner ◽  
Yu-Wei Wang ◽  
Dong-Gwi Lee
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving

Improving the questions we ask, with Psychology and Cognitive Conflict.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Buttliere
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Cognitive Conflict ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Science In Society

Over the last decade, there have been many suggestions to improve how scientists answer their questions, but far fewer attempt to improve the questions scientists are asking in the first place. The goal of the paper is then to examine and summarize synthesize the evidence on how to ask the best questions possible. First is a brief review of the philosophical and empirical literature on how the best science is done, which implicitly but not explicitly mentions the role of psychology and especially cognitive conflict. Then we more closely focus on the psychology of the scientist, finding that they are humans, engaged in a meaning making process, and that cognitive conflict is a necessary input for any learning or change in the system. The scientific method is, of course, a specialized meaning making process. We present evidence for this central role of cognitive conflict in science by examining the most discussed scientific papers between 2013 and 2017, which are, in general, controversial and about big problems (e.g., whether vaccines cause autism, how often doctors kill us with their mistakes). Toward the end we discuss the role of science in society, suggesting science itself is an uncertainty reducing and problem solving enterprise. From this basis we encourage scientists to take riskier stances on bigger topics, for the good of themselves and society generally.

The Science of Wisdom in a Polarized World: Knowns and Unknowns

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Grossmann ◽  
Nic M. Weststrate ◽  
Monika Ardelt ◽  
Justin Peter Brienza ◽  
Mengxi Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Cognitive Sciences ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
The Common ◽  
Empirical Approaches ◽  
And Training ◽  
Contextual Differences

Interest in wisdom in the cognitive sciences, psychology, and education has been paralleled by conceptual confusions about its nature and assessment. To clarify these issues and promote consensus in the field, wisdom researchers met in Toronto in July of 2019, resolving disputes through discussion. Guided by a survey of scientists who study wisdom-related constructs, we established a common wisdom model, observing that empirical approaches to wisdom converge on the morally-grounded application of metacognition to reasoning and problem-solving. After outlining the function of relevant metacognitive and moral processes, we critically evaluate existing empirical approaches to measurement and offer recommendations for best practices. In the subsequent sections, we use the common wisdom model to selectively review evidence about the role of individual differences for development and manifestation of wisdom, approaches to wisdom development and training, as well as cultural, subcultural, and social-contextual differences. We conclude by discussing wisdom’s conceptual overlap with a host of other constructs and outline unresolved conceptual and methodological challenges.

The role of emotion in problem solving

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Guntz ◽  
James L. Crowley ◽  
Dominique Vaufreydaz ◽  
Raffaella Balzarini ◽  
Philippe Dessus
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving

The Rhetorical Case: Its Roman Precedent and the Current Debate

1989 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Mendelson
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Technical Writing ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Case Study Method ◽  
Full Spectrum ◽  
Problem Solving Skills ◽  
Early Case ◽  
New Phase

Because of the recent emphasis on rhetorical context in business and technical writing (BTW) instruction, the problem-solving case has become a staple in BTW classrooms. However, a number of critics have voiced concerns about the use of the rhetorical case. These concerns recall an ancient debate among Roman rhetoricians over an early case-study method called declamation. For contemporary theorists, the debate over case study revolves around its value as a stimulant to problem-solving skills, its ability to imitate the realistic circumstances of professional BTW, and its emphasis on persona and audience along with its deemphasis of the teacher. A full spectrum of arguments on these and other issues in the case-study debate indicates that the discipline is entering a new phase in its deliberations over the role of problem-solving and pragmatics in the BTW classroom.

scholarly journals The Role of Mental Effort in Fostering Self-Regulated Learning with Problem-Solving Tasks

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1055-1072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara van Gog ◽  
Vincent Hoogerheide ◽  
Milou van Harsel
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Mental Effort ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Task Sequence ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Self Regulated Learning ◽  
Regulated Learning ◽  
And Mathematics

Abstract Problem-solving tasks form the backbone of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) curricula. Yet, how to improve self-monitoring and self-regulation when learning to solve problems has received relatively little attention in the self-regulated learning literature (as compared with, for instance, learning lists of items or learning from expository texts). Here, we review research on fostering self-regulated learning of problem-solving tasks, in which mental effort plays an important role. First, we review research showing that having students engage in effortful, generative learning activities while learning to solve problems can provide them with cues that help them improve self-monitoring and self-regulation at an item level (i.e., determining whether or not a certain type of problem needs further study/practice). Second, we turn to self-monitoring and self-regulation at the task sequence level (i.e., determining what an appropriate next problem-solving task would be given the current level of understanding/performance). We review research showing that teaching students to regulate their learning process by taking into account not only their performance but also their invested mental effort on a prior task when selecting a new task improves self-regulated learning outcomes (i.e., performance on a knowledge test in the domain of the study). Important directions for future research on the role of mental effort in (improving) self-monitoring and self-regulation at the item and task selection levels are discussed after the respective sections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document