Individual Differences in Cognitive and Social Problem-Solving Skills as a Function of Intelligence

Individual Differences in Cognitive and Social Problem-Solving Skills as a Function of Intelligence ELIZABETH J. SHORT DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY CLEVELAND, OHIO 44106

STEVEN W. EVANS WESTERN PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE AND CLINIC PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 15213

1.

INTRODUCTION

The study of problem solving and other higher order processes of human thought began despite powerful assertions that it could not be studied. Wilhelm Wundt suggested that the only psychological phenomena that could be reliably examined were basic physiological responses such as reflexes, sensation, and perception (Mayer, 1983). Partially due to this opinion, the study of problem solving, along with other higher order processes, did not truly get underway until the 20th century. Studies examining individual differences in problem-solving strategies and abilities between mentally retarded and nonretarded individuals did not begin until well into the second half of this century. Generally speaking, mentally retarded individuals do not perform as well as nonretarded individuals on all cognitive tasks (see Woodley-Zanthos & Ellis, 1989, for a noteworthy exception). While this main effect is not surprising, it provides us with very little information about the nature of the deficit in retarded individuals. Although there have been dramatic increases in the number of studies examining problem-solving differences in the past 20 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN MENTAL RETARDATION. Vol. 16

89

Copyright 0 1990 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

90

Elizabeth J . Short arid Strvrn W.E w n s

years, there has been only minimal progress toward understanding the causes underlying these differences. Progress in the field of problem solving has been limited for several reasons, including imprecise definitions of problem solving, imprecise specification of task parameters, and the lack of uniformity in assessment methodology. Definitions of problem solving have been quite varied. Most authors assume problem solving is a higher order skill that is largely dependent on the efficiency of lower order or basic cognitive processes, including perception, attention, working memory, and background knowledge. In addition, researchers and educators alike assume that problem solving involves an unknown route to a goal and the search process employed by the problem solver to achieve this goal (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989). Despite this consensus in the field, a point of contention has been where to place the primary emphasis of study. As seen in the definitions to follow, possible candidates have included the problem formulation, goal attainment, and strategy invention phases of problem solving. For example, Polya (1968, p. ix) defined problem solving as "finding a way out of a difficulty, a way around an obstacle, attaining an aim that was not immediately attainable." Implicit in Polya's definition of problem solving is both devising a method of solving a problem and the successful solution of the problem. In contrast, Belmont (1983) emphasized the removal process or method designed to eliminate barriers to goals, not the actual attainment of problem-solving goals. He stated, "a problem is a novel thing that establishes a barrier. Problem solving is not the removal of that barrier, but rather the process by which a method is devised to remove it" (p. 3). Finally, Chi and Bassock (1989) viewed problem solving as "the organization of a derivation of a set of actions which are guided by a general domain principle" (p. 254). Chi and Bassock's (1989) definition focuses our attention on the problem-formulation phase and argues for domain specificity in problem-solving skills. Since all three definitions are meritorious in their own right, this article presents research findings aimed at understanding deficits in all three phases of the problem-solving process. Besides inconsistencies in definitions. there appears to be lack of consensus regarding what tasks involve problem solving. Problem solving is an abstract concept that may encompass many cognitive and social events. A problem may vary greatly in terms of the demands it places on an individual. As a result, researchers studying problem solving have used a variety of tasks as stimuli. Cognitive tasks include such things as anagrams, Tower of Hanoi (Minsky, Spitz, & Bessellieu, 1985; Spitz, 1982), lock box (Tzuriel & Klein, 1983, math problems (Bilsky & Judd, 1986), balance scale (Hall & Day, 1982), and analogies (Short, Schatsch-

COGNITIVE A N D SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

91

neider, Cuddy e f d.,1990; Sternberg, 1982). Social tasks have included such things as means-end problem solving (Evans & Short, 1990). appreciation of humor (Basili & Short, 1988), making friends (Camp & Bash, 1981), and serving as a talk-show host (Donahue, Pearl, & Bryan, 1980). Despite this variety, however, few researchers have compared problem-solving performance across tasks within either the cognitive or social domain (Vernon & Strudensky. 1988), nor have many comparisons been made between the social and cognitive domains (Evans & Short, 1990). In an attempt to understand the variability of problem types and t h e demands inherent in these problems, researchers have begun to classify problems on a continuum from those that are well defined to those that are ill defined (Simon, 1974). In a well-defined problem, the initial state, goal state, and the rules designed to minimize the distance between the two states are clearly specified. By specifying the problem parameters completely. well-defined problems enable the problem solver to evaluate systematically the accuracy of his or her solution (Kahney, 1986). In contrast, ill-defined problems either lack clear-cut initial states, goal states. and/or rules to minimize the distance between the two states ( M a t h . 1989).Given the fuzzy nature of ill-defined problems, particularly the goal state, there appears to be no systematic way to evaluate the accuracy of one's solution (Reitman, 1964). Most problems are neither completely well defined nor completely ill defined, but rather have both well-defined and ill-defined elements. Given this variability in task demands among problem-solving tasks, it is not surprising that the conclusions regarding problem-solving capabilities of the mentally retarded have proved to be inconsistent. A third factor that has contributed to confusion regarding the specific nature of the problem-solving deficit in mentally retarded populations is the lack of consensus regarding the appropriate methodology for studying problem solving. Researchers have employed a variety of methodologies, including chronometric analysis, protocol analysis, error analysis, and observational analysis. The methodology employed in these studies often dictates which phase of the problem-solving process is emphasized. For example, the use of think-aloud protocols during problem solving focuses our attention on the process of inventing a strategy to overcome obstacles, whereas error analysis focuses our attention on goal attainment. While all four methodologies are useful for studying problem solving and will be discussed at some length later in this article, differences in results obtained should be interpreted in light of these methodological discrepancies. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of

92

Elizabeth J . Short

titid

Stetpen

W.Evtitis

problem-solving performance in mentally retarded individuals. We begin by presenting a brief overview of problem solving, from a theoretical and practical standpoint. This overview discusses several models of problem solving and their implications for mentally retarded individuals. The major portion of this article is devoted to individual differences in problem solving, methods of assessment, and remedial techniques. Finally, the limitations of current research and future directions are discussed. II.

MODELS OF COGNITIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

Theoretical models of cognitive development approach the study of problem solving from either a macroscopic level (i.e., Piaget and Vygotsky) or a microscopic level (i.e., Sternberg). Piaget and Vygotsky were concerned with developmental changes in cognitive structures and the global processing strategies employed by the learner. In contrast, Sternberg and other information-processing theorists are concerned with isolat”. ing basic cognitive skills responsible for differences in global problemsolving skills. All three points of view are briefly discussed as they pertain to mental retardation. Piagetian psychology has been based, in part, on the developmental study of problem-solving abilities. According to Piagetian theory, children initially solve problems using simple sensorimotor schemes, with problem-solving skills evolving to enable the use of concrete schemes, and eventually abstract schemes. Gallagher and Reid (1981) reviewed the work on mental retardation from a Piagetian perspective and suggested that mentally retarded children progress through the same stages as nonhandicapped children, but at a slower pace. In addition, mentally retarded individuals show more variability among domains of functioning. This developmental difference position has been long argued by Zigler ( 1969). From a Piagetian point of view, individual differences in problem solving and other mental abilities are often seen as stemming from “disturbances in the functioning of the central nervous system” which place limits on the ability of the organism to learn from interactions with the environment (Gallagher & Reid, 1981). Vygotsky, like Piaget, acknowledged a biological influence in problemsolving ability (especially in cases of mental retardation; Wertsch, 1985). The majority of his effort, however, was directed toward uncovering the influence of culture and language on higher order thinking. Societal influences were thought to provide the models for solving problems: strategies that begin on an interpsychological plane (external events) are gradually shifted to an intrapsychological plane where they become the basis of

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

93

higher level thought (i.e., problem solving). Such a transformation is accomplished through semiotic mediation and is reflected in changes not only in the intrapsychological plane but in the interpsychological plane as well. That is, language serves as a mediator between cognition and behavior. Vygotsky’s emphasis on the role of the environment and social interaction in problem-solving ability has had a significant impact on the education of retarded individuals. For example, Vygotsky suggested that one of the reasons retarded children demonstrate concrete and rigid problem solving is that their environment is deficient in modeling effective strategies for a variety of problem-solving situations. This point was reiterated by Feuerstein (1979), who remarked on the importance of mediated learning experiences; this notion, in fact, lies at the heart of his instrumental enrichment program (IEP) (Feuerstein, 1980). The assumption is that retarded children behave in a concrete and rigid fashion during problem solving largely because these are the strategies that have been modeled for them by teachers and parents. The process is a transactional one. The teacher and parent model concrete strategies because they believe that mentally retarded persons, given their limited cognitive capacity, cannot benefit from observing complex and flexible strategies. The mentally retarded student then engages in concrete strategic behavior because this is his or her only model for behaving. With limited expectations for strategic potential, few attempts are made to model a variety of task-appropriate strategies for mentally retarded persons. This vicious cycle dramatically affects the retarded student’s subsequent level of achievement. Given that inadequate models of strategy selection and application are presented, it is not surprising that mentally retarded individuals appear to be rigid and inflexible in their strategic approach. As noted by Haywood (l989), “the experience of being mentally retarded makes one more so.” Vygotsky further suggested that presenting adequate models for strategic behavior should encourage retarded children to solve more abstract problems (Vygotsky, 1978). Although useful from an educational standpoint, this macroscopic approach to the study of problem solving has not facilitated a clear delineation of the specific deficits responsible for poor performance. Cognitive psychologists, in contrast, approach the study of problem solving at a microscopic level. This microscopic approach has been quite useful for highlighting the basic cognitive processes responsible for differences in competence. An example of this approach can be drawn from Sternberg’s Triarchic theory. According to Sternberg ( 1985), intelligence comprises three information-processing components: knowledge acquisition components, performance components, and metacomponents. The

94

Elizabeth J . Short und StcwcJn W . E w n s

knowledge acquisition process involves the selective encoding, selective combination, and selective comparison of both new and known information. Intelligent people are typically successful problem solvers. They are quite adept at selectively attending to relevant information while ignoring irrelevant information (e.g., encoding). In addition, they are quite proticient at integrating new information in a meaningful way (e.g., combination) and relating new information to known information (e.g., comparison). According to the theory, the performance components are used to implement a decision to solve a problem (Siegler, 1986). Four performance components are typically employed during the problem-solving process, including encoding, inferring, mapping, and application. For example, in solving an analogy, the first step involves encoding or identifying the defining attributes of each term in the analogy (A:B::C:D). Step two involves inferring the relationship between the first (A) and second ( B ) terms in the analogy. The third step involves mapping the relationship between the first (A) and third terms (C). Finally, step four involves applying the relationship observed between the A:B pair to the C:D pair. Although novice and experts alike appear to use the same processes in their problem solving, individual differences in the amount of cognitive resources devoted to each performance component have been obtained (Sternberg & Rifkin, 1979; see section on individual differences in cognitive problem solving for a complete description). Expert problem solvers spend more time on the encoding phase of problem solving than do novices. Given that they have thoroughly represented the problem and have grasped its structure, experts proceed quickly through the subsequent steps of the problem-solving process. In contrast. novice problem solvers spend less time encoding the stimuli and more time on subsequent components in the problem-solving process (Sternberg & Rifkin, 1979). One explanation for this differential deployment of cognitive resources by experts and novices is that novices spend less time encoding in an attempt to minimize the initial processing load on memory. Unfortunately, this incomplete encoding lengthens the processing time devoted to other components and decreases the probability of successful problem solving. The orchestration of the performance and knowledge acquisition components of problem solving into goal-oriented processes is completed by the metacomponents. According to Sternberg (1983, the metacomponents serve the function of the higher order executive which directs the performance and knowledge acquisition components in the “how tos” of problem solving. With sufficient understanding about how to solve a problem, only the metacomponents and performance components are needed (Siegler. 1986). That is, the metacomponents determine which

COGNITIVE A N D SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

95

performance components are needed to perform the task and in which order to execute them, whereas the performance components are actually used to complete the task. Without sufficient knowledge to complete the task, all three components are employed. Under conditions of insufficient knowledge, the knowledge acquisition components are employed to obtain new information necessary for the metacomponents to construct a strategy. The utility of the Triarchic theory for understanding problem-solving performance in the mentally retarded is quite clear. Although all three components may be implicated in the inferior problem-solving performance of mentally retarded persons, Sternberg (1984) argues these deficits are thought to arise primarily from the inferior use of metacomponents. Three scenarios are possible. First, mentally retarded persons’ choice of which performance component and what knowledge acquisition component to use on a particular task may be inadequate due to their inferior metacomponents. Second, inferior metacomponents lead to faulty coordination of controlled and automatic problem-solving strategies. Finally, inferior metacomponents make the monitoring process tedious; therefore it becomes difficult to make corrections in processing strategies midstream. Experimental evidence in support of these three predictions is presented in the next section.

111.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

Gestalt psychologists identified a cognitive pattern of problem solving in the 1940s which decreased the likelihood of a successful solution. Characterized by repetition of past strategies to solve current problems without adapting to new stimuli or new task demands (Mayer, 1983), this pattern is commonly called cognitive rigidity and is frequently manifested by an inability to generalize. In the past, this inflexible pattern of problem solving has been called functional fixedness (Duncker, 1945), problemsolving set (Luchins, 1942), and negative transfer (Bartlett, 1958). Pertinent to our discussion is the observation that cognitive rigidity has been found in mentally retarded individuals (e.g., Bray, Goodman, & Justice, 1982; Ellis, Woodley-Zanthos, Dulaney, & Palmer, 1989; Ferretti & Butterfield, 1989). Despite the presence of a global problem-solving deficit in mentally retarded persons, few researchers have been able to pinpoint precisely the causes of the problem-solving difficulties encountered by the mentally retarded. Spirited debates have occurred between researchers arguing from the developmental difference perspective (Zigler, 1969) and those

96

Elizabeth J . Short m d Steven W . Eiwtis

championing the deficit position (Ellis, 1969; Ellis & Cavalier, 1982). As noted previously, the developmental difference approach assumes that mentally retarded individuals develop more slowly and reach a lower level of performance than their normally achieving counterparts. In contrast, the deficit position holds that intelligent behavior is based on a small set of cognitive processes, one or more of which are deficient in the retarded population (Detterman, 1987). Although these positions seem to be incompatible, Detterman (1987) has argued that the differences are largely a function of the type of measurement employed. Specifically, the former is based on molar measurement and the latter is based on molecular measurement. Most research on the problem-solving skills of the mentally retarded has used molecular measurement. The following review of intellectual differences in cognitive problem solving examines differences in both academic and experimental problem-solving skills among mentally retarded, learning disabled, and normally achieving children and adults. A.

Academic Problem Solving

The study of academic problem solving has focused largely on one area: the solving of mathematics problems (Bilsky & Judd, 1986; Judd & Bilsky, 1989; Mayer, 1989; Siegler. 1989). The study of mathematical problem solving has primarily centered on arithmetic computational problems, arithmetic word problems, and computer programming. The methodology employed by these mathematical problem solving studies has been quite diverse, ranging from chronometric analysis to protocol analysis (Mayer, 1989). Despite methodological diversity, all researchers studying mathematical problem solving have assumed a multidimensional perspective. The assumption is that problem-solving difficulties may result from a variety of dimensions, including person, task, and strategy variables (Flavell, 1979). While research on mathematical problem solving has been quite extensive to date, the data on mathematical problem solving by mentally retarded subjects has been specifically tied to verbal arithmetic problems. It has been suggested that the difficulties in verbal arithmetic performance experienced by mentally retarded individuals arise largely from problems in a variety of areas, including memory, logical structure, semantic structure, and syntactic structure (Nesher. 1982). Bilsky and Judd (1986) attempted to tease out the importance of these factors to the problem-solving performance of retarded adolescents and nonretarded 10 year olds using verbal arithmetic problems. The methodology employed was that of error analysis. The variable of logical structure was explored in two ways, by problem type (addition vs. subtraction)

COGNITIVE A N D SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

97

and by amount of extraneous information (present vs. absent). The semantic component was assessed by systematically varying the verbal content of the problem. Problems could either be viewed as dynamic and involving active change (i.e., you have three hamburgers on the grill and you take four out of the freezer and put them on the grill, how many hamburgers do you have?) or static and involving no active change (i.e., you have three hamburgers on the grill and you have four in the freezer, how many hamburgers do you have?). Finally, memory was also assessed in two ways: problems were presented once or twice and memory aids (i.e., number cards) were available or not. As expected, retarded subjects performed poorly on all arithmetic problems compared to their nonretarded counterparts. All groups performed better on addition than on subtraction problems. This difference was more pronounced for the retarded students than for the normally achieving students. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that retarded subjects had more trouble representing the problem space and appeared to adopt rote computational strategies (Goodstein, Cawley , Gordon, & Helfgott, 1971) in response to unfamiliar problems. This is consistent with Sternberg’s (1984) notion that mentally retarded subjects’ inferior metacomponents resulted in the improper orchestration of performance and knowledge acquisition components. Thus pattern recognition skills, strategic flexibility, and insufficient background knowledge could all be implicated as potential factors in the inferior performance of mentally retarded individuals on verbal arithmetic problems. Further support for both background knowledge and strategic flexibility as causal factors in the problem-solving difficulties experienced by mentally retarded individuals can be drawn from the problems varying in semantic structure. Mentally retarded subjects had more difficulty with static problems than with dynamic problems. One possible explanation for this can be drawn from the work of Briars and Larkin (1983). Their data suggest that skilled problem solvers are able to draw on their background knowledge in an attempt to re-represent the problem-solving task. In contrast, mentally retarded subjects appear to be bound to strategies that mimic the action of the problem. Given that the subsets of “cooked” and “frozen” were retained as separate entities in the static problem, the retarded students left them as such and therefore failed to solve the problem correctly. For all subjects, memory seemed to affect problem-solving performance in that two presentations of the problem yielded higher solution rates than did one presentation. I n addition, extraneous information had a deleterious effect on both retarded and nonretarded subjects’ performance. The authors conclude by suggesting that perhaps some of the dif-

98

Elizcibrtli J . Short arid S t t v c t i W . Eviitis

ficulties encountered by retarded students on arithmetic problem-solving tasks result from comprehension failures. These failures in turn make problem definition and representation unlikely, which dramatically limits the probability of selecting the appropriate strategy designed to accomplish the goals of the task. Thus, several basic cognitive skills appear to predispose the mentally retarded person to failure in mathematical problem solving. Even on well-defined arithmetic problems, mentally retarded students appeared to experience difficulties in pattern recognition, memory capacity, and strategic flexibility. 8.

Experimental Problem Solving

The experimental work in the area of problem solving has been conducted using well-defined tasks in which the initial and goal states of the problem are specified. Perhaps the classic experimental work on problem-solving skills and the mentally retarded has been done using the Tower of Hanoi task (Spitz, 1982; Spitz, Minsky & Bressellieu, 1985). The Tower of Hanoi problem is a transformation task involving size-graduated disks. Disks are arranged from smallest to largest on a peg board in some predetermined configuration. The subject’s task is to rearrange the disks on the peg board such that they conform to a second contiguration, with the stipulation that a larger disk may never be placed on a smaller disk. The level of difficulty in the Tower of Hanoi problems can be manipulated by changing the initial and/or goal states and the number of disks (Spitz, Webster, & Borys, 1982). In addition, successful solution of this task is dependent on planning and place-keeping operations (Spitz et al., 1982).Search capacity is typically measured in the number of nodes the subject transverses on the way to the goal state, while overall capacity is measured by increasing the difficulty of the problem until failure results. The results obtained for the mentally retarded on this well-defined task have been fairly consistent. Retarded children perform far below the expectations calculated for their mental age. In fact, lags of almost three years have been found (Borys, Spitz, & Dorans, 1982). Spitz et al. (1982) found that although retarded learners appear to behave strategically and to profit somewhat from practice on the task, their limited search skills predispose them to failure. A similar pattern of findings has been observed with young children; but they mature around the third grade and appear to overcome these limitations. These findings nicely complement both the developmental difference perspective (Zigler, 1969)and the deficit perspective (Ellis, 1969). In an attempt to improve the problem-solving performance of the men-

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

99

tally retarded on this task, Minsky et (11. (1985) developed a training procedure designed to encourage a more systematic search of the problem space. Training consisted of three parts. First, subjects were given assistance in representing the problem space: the “chunking hint” given was “you need to figure out how to get the large disk from this peg (pointing) to this peg (pointing)” (p. 192). This chunking hint was designed to facilitate the encoding phase of the problem-solving process. Second, if subjects failed to profit from the hint, the experimenter modeled the optimal solution for the subject. Modeling was designed to determine whether the subjects could exercise strategic flexibility. Finally, if the subjects still did not succeed after the demonstration, step-by-step assistance was provided in a collaborative fashion. This transactional approach capitalizes on mediated learning experiences and is the approach advocated by Vygotsky (1978) and Feuerstein (1979). Experimental subjects improved their problem-solving performance dramatically on the maintenance task, but were not capable of transferring this skill to a novel task. Although transfer of training was not obtained, mentally retarded subjects appeared to be more confident, more persistent, and less prone to rule violation than were control subjects. Training appeared to improve pattern recognition skills and strategic flexibility, while minimizing the demands placed on memory skills. Although the effects of training suggest some hope for remediating the poor problem-solving skills of the mentally retarded in a limited task situation, no attempt was made to tease out which aspect of training was responsible for changes in task performance. Another task commonly used to examine individual differences in problem-solving skills is analogies. Much of the credit for current interest in the analogy is owed to Sternberg and his componential method (Sternberg, 1977, 1984). Five processes are employed to solve analogy problems: encoding, inference, mapping, application, and preparation-response. Using a precueing procedure, separate estimates of each component can be obtained using the chronometric and error analysis approaches. The analogy is presented in two parts. Initially the subject is presented with zero to three components of the analogy as a precue for the upcoming analogy. The cue is immediately followed by the presentation of the full analogy in the second half of the problem. The assumption is that initial processing time will allow a corresponding reduction in processing time on the second preview. The analogy task employed is the People Pieces task which comprises four two-dimensional elements: height (tall-short), weight (fat-thin), sex (male-female), and color (redblue). McConaghy and Kirby (1987) were the first to explore problem-solving

differences between retarded and nonretarded subjects using this analogy task. Their results suggest that mentally retarded subjects took more time to solve the analogies. made more processing errors, spent less time encoding, and spent more time on other components than their nonretarded counterparts. In addition, McConaghy and Kirby found that mentally retarded and average-achieving subjects both adopted an exhaustive search strategy for the encoding and inference components, whereas they adopted a self-terminating search strategy for the mapping and application components. Despite similarities in search strategies adopted by average-achieving and mentally retarded subjects, little of the variance in problem-solving performance was accounted for by the models employed by the retarded subjects. The authors argue that one potential reason for the failure of this model to predict variance in problem-solving performance was that the retarded subjects seemed not to take advantage of the precued information. In order to assess this notion further, McConaghy and Kirby (1987) trained their subjects to make better use of the cued trial to aid them in their solution of the test analogies. Training consisted of an elaboration strategy which required subjects to specify verbally the dimensions that had been changed and those that had not on the A and B elements. After doing so, they were instructed to compare these verbalized changes and nonchanges from the A and B elements with those changes and nonchanges that were present on the C and D elements. Positive feedback and reinforcement were provided to the experimental group only. In all instances, both experimental and control subjects were instructed to make use of the precued items. Results indicated that trained subjects were less prone to make errors and were faster in their solution times than were nontrained subjects. More specifically, trained subjects spent more time encoding the stimuli than did nontrained subjects. Thus, like the expert problem solver, trained subjects spent more of their processing capacity on the initial step in the problem-solving process, in an attempt to speed u p further processing. Although extensive training appeared to encourage better representation of the problem, retarded subjects appeared to make less effective use of the precued information than had been shown by normally achieving students in previous studies (Sternberg, 1977).This finding again points to both their strategic inflexibility and their capacity limitations as potential factors responsible for their problem-solving difficulties. Individual differences in the ability to solve analogies were further explored by Short, Schatschneider, Cuddy et af. (1990) using both verbal and nonverbal analogies. Rather than adopting the componential method, Short, Schatschneider, Cuddy et al. (1990) used a protocol analysis ap-

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

101

proach. Bright, average achieving, learning disabled, and mentally retarded students completed verbal and nonverbal analogies on their own (IND) and while thinking aloud (TA). There were five types of analogies: simple matching, addition, subtraction, alteration, and progression. With the exception of simple matching, learning disabled and mentally retarded students were less able to solve all forms of analogies than their normally achieving counterparts. Protocol analysis revealed that mentally retarded students had trouble defining the problem and selecting the appropriate strategy designed to meet the task demands. That is, they were less able to differentiate among problem types than their normally achieving counterparts. As a result of their inability to represent the problem adequately. mentally retarded subjects appeared uncertain about the appropriate strategy for each problem. They often resorted to random guesses and simple matching strategies, regardless of the type of analogy presented. In contrast, learning disabled students were aware of the strategy designed for each task, but had difficulty defining the problem. Thinking aloud proved to be a formidable task for many of the mentally retarded and learning disabled students, with amount of adult prompting for verbalizations significantly elevated in both handicapped groups as compared to their normally achieving peers. In addition, mentally retarded students were deficient compared to normally achieving students in the lexical diversity observed in their verbal protocols. Taken together, these findings suggest protocol analysis is a useful vehicle for examining the factors responsible for differential problem-solving performance. Unfortunately, the protocol analysis did not reveal whether the deficit observed was a function of the mentally retarded person’s limited strategic repertoire or simply poor task analysis. C.

Scientific Problem Solving

Scientific problem solving is a third area of problem-solving research. Two tasks have been employed to examine problem-solving differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded subjects: the balance scale task and the inclined plane task. These tasks attempt to minimize the influence of verbal skills by sdopting the rule assessment method (Siegler, 1976, 1981). Strategies or binary decision rules are measured by administering problems that lend themselves to unique performance patterns dependent on the rule adopted (Ferretti & Butterfield, 1989). The assumption is that brighter students should adopt more sophisticated problem-solving strategies than their retarded counterparts. It is the implementation of these strategies that results in successful problem-solving performance.

I02

Elizdwtli J . Short arid Steven W . Ewim

In a recent study by Ferretti and Butterfield (1989), the scientific problem-solving skills of mentally retarded and gifted children were explored using both the balance scale and inclined plane task. Children were assumed to use one of five rules to solve both problems. Rule I involves prediction from a single dominant dimension (i.e., the weight or angle). Rule 2 involves prediction from a single dominant dimension, yet consideration is also given to the lesser dimension (i.e., distance from either the fulcrum or vertex). Rule 3 involves the simultaneous consideration of both dimensions. Rule 4 involves the integration of both dimensions and the adoption of the addition rule. Rule 5 involves the integration of both dimensions and the adoption of the multiplication rule. Although physical models for each task were initially presented to the subjects, Ferretti and Butterfield assessed the problem-solving skills of their 10-year-old subjects using a paper and pencil format. Results from the balance scale problem suggest that strategy usage was associated with intelligence. That is, mentally retarded children were more apt to rely on a single dimension (Rule 1) in this problem-solving task than were normally achieving or gifted students. I n addition. gifted children were more apt to integrate dimensions by addition (Rule 4)than were their mentally retarded or normally achieving counterparts. Although in general gifted children presented a pattern of more sophisticated rule usage than their mentally retarded counterparts, significant variability in rule use was observed within all groups. Gifted students were not only more sophisticated in their strategic approach to the task but were also more accurate than their normally achieving counterparts, who, in turn, were more accurate than their mentally retarded peers. Results from the inclined plane task suggest that strategy usage was also associated with intelligence. The findings on this task paralleled those obtained for the balance scale problem. Mentally retarded students were more apt to focus on a single dimension of the stimulus array in solving problems, whereas gifted students were more apt to integrate dimensions using addition. Again, variability in rule usage was the norm for these groups. It appears that mentally retarded subjects rarely consider multiple dimensions of the problem as they are solving it. Interestingly, within the mentally retarded group intelligence did not differentially predict rule usage on either task. The potential reasons behind their strategy deficits could be quite numerous, including problem definition, limited memory capacity, limited strategic repertoire, deficient background knowledge or familiarity, discrepant task definition, and motivational problems to name a few. Future research on these tasks should examine each factor systematically. More recently, Day and Hall (1988) attempted to examine how both

COGNITIVE A N D SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

103

background familiarity and task variables influenced performance on the balance scale problem. Their training study was designed to evaluate problem-solving performance in a dynamic fashion by employing the graduated prompt assessment approach. Pretest, training. and maintenance were assessed on a 4-peg balance scale, near transfer was assessed on a 10-peg balance scale, and far transfer was assessed using a doll-sized teeter-totter with a movable fulcrum. Four groups of subjects participated in this study: above average, average, and two groups of educable mentally retarded students. Two groups of retarded students were selected in order to examine the effects of extended training or increased task familiarity on performance. Similar findings to those obtained by Ferretti and Butterfield were obtained based on pretest performance. That is, mentally retarded children typically performed at a Rule I level, focusing on one dimension of the stimulus. Mentally retarded children needed more assistance or hints than did normally achieving children on the balance task. Even when mentally retarded children were trained to mastery, they differed from their nonretarded counterparts in their unaided maintenance and transfer. Above average children maintained what they were taught and demonstrated some spontaneous transfer of this skill. Average achievers maintained training but did not transfer. Finally, retarded children had difficulty maintaining the training. One interesting finding was that, after extended training, retarded subjects were able to re-achieve mastery with less assistance. Day and Hall argue that transfer propensity may be better achieved by equating retarded and nonretarded subjects on their familiarity and facility with the training task. Thus, their study highlights the important role of background knowledge in strategic performance. Static measures were useful for differentiating average from above average students, while dynamic measures were sensitive to posttraining differences. Both measures provide useful information about individual differences in problem-solving performance. D.

Summary

While there has been a conspicuous absence of models of cognitive problem solving to date, researchers have drawn heavily on models of intelligence to guide their research. The one exception to this statement is the model of problem solving proposed by Hayes (1989). This model draws heavily from information-processing theory and suggests that experts differ from novices in a variety of ways, including recognition of the problem, representation of the problem, planning of the solution, implementation of the plan, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan

(Hayes, 1989). This information-processing approach has been most useful for illuminating the possible causes of the mentally retarded person’s problem-solving inefficiency. A variety of methodologies designed to study cognitive problem solving point to differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded persons in three areas, including ( I ) the ability to represent the problem, (2) the flexible use of strategies, and (3) the utilization of background knowledge on well-defined tasks. To date, few training studies targeting cognitive problem solving have been conducted. The few noteworthy exceptions (Day & Hall, 1988; McConaghy & Kirby, 1987; Minsky rt id., 1985), while promising. have been primarily directed at remediating all three areas of deficits simultaneously. Systematic studies are needed to tease o u t how training directed at each component separately would affect the problem-solving process. Many questions remain unanswered at present. Would training in problem representation alone better enable problem solvers to select or construct appropriate strategies designed to achieve their task goals‘?Support for this contention can be derived from the memory strategy literature (Campione & Brown, 1978). Would training in specific strategies better enable the problem solver to represent the task adequately? The extensive strategy training literature would suggest that, while strategies designed to achieve specific task goals are teachable, their generalizability is quite limited (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Pressley. Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987).

IV.

MODELS OF SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

In contrast to the data presented on cognitive problem solving, the data obtained on social problem solving involves ill-defined tasks. Unlike the domain of cognitive problem solving, numerous models have been generated about social problem solving (Dodge. Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; D’Zurilla & Goldfried. 1971; Spivak & Shure, 1974). One of the most useful models of social problem solving has been proposed by D’Zurilla and Goldfried ( 1971). This prescriptive model delineates the way in which individuals should effectively solve problems in the world. According to the model, effective problem solving consists of five components: (a) problem orientation, (b) problem definition and formulation, (c) generation of alternative solutions, (d) decision making, and ( e ) solution implementation and verification. Although these five components are assumed to be orderly, the process is not always a unidirectional one. While D’Zurilla and Goldfield (197 I ) focused their model on problem

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I05

solving in social situations, the utility of this model for understanding cognitive problem solving is quite clear. Problem orientation is fundamental to effective problem solving. For every learner, problem orientation encompasses perception of the problem (i.e., recognition and labeling of the problem), attribution of causal responsibility for problem outcome, appraisal of the significance of the problem, feeling of personal control or self-efficiency (Bandura, 1977), and time/effort commitment (i.e., accurate time appraisal and recognition that effort pays off). Unless problem solvers are accurate in their recognition and labeling of the problem type, they will not successfully formulate or implement a strategy designed to solve the problem. I n addition, the realization that the learner has control over the problem outcome and that personal effort leads to successful solution is of paramount importance to effective problem solving. Problem definition and formulation are also essential factors in successful problem solving (Short, Schatschneider, Cuddy et al., 1990). As noted previously, both learning disabled and retarded learners have been shown to be deficient in these data-gathering skills. That is, they were deficient in the data-gathering process and therefore were not as capable of establishing problem-solving parameters. This failure to define and formulate the problem successfully has a dramatic impact on the third step in the problem-solving process-the ability to generate alternative task-appropriate strategies. Successful problem solvers must not only define the problem clearly but must also select from an extensive repertoire of strategies the one that is most apt to yield successful solution of the problem. Thus, the successful problem solver must first generate a list of possible strategies designed to achieve the task goal and must then make a decision about which strategy is most apt to lead to success. This decision-making skill is predicated on relational strategic knowledge (Pressley et al., 1987). The final step in the problem-solving sequence involves solution verification (i.e., monitoring). The ability to monitor solution outcome is central to our notion of intelligence (Pressley, in press). The ability to monitor strategic attempts is essential for the development of relational strategic knowledge. Successful monitoring enables the problem solver to broaden his or her strategic knowledge to include not only the strategy but knowledge concerning the types of tasks for which a strategy is appropriate. V.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

Despite the proliferation of models of the social problem-solving process, few systematic studies of social problem-solving skills in mentally

I06

Elizabeth

J.

Short

ond

Steven

W .E w n s

retarded individuals have been undertaken to date. When differences in social problem-solving skills have been considered, these differences have been explored in an attempt to understand differences in interpersonal competence (Herman & Shantz, 1983). Two studies have been selected to depict the diversity of problems presented and methodologies employed in the social problem-solving arena. According to Herman and Shantz (1983), “very little study of retarded children’s social knowledge and social reasoning” has been conducted compared to nonretarded children (p. 225). In an attempt to understand the social problem-solving skills of educable mentally retarded children better, Herman and Shantz ( 1983) examined mother-child interaction patterns in mentally retarded and nonretarded children. Social problem-solving skills were assessed using the Alternative Solutions to Problems Task (Spivak & Shure, 1974). Children are presented eight common social situations in which a conflict exists with either a peer, mother, or teacher. The child must generate as many solutions to resolve the conflict as possible. An example would be, What strategies might you use to remove a child from a swing so that you can have a turn? Possible solutions included asking for adult intervention, sharing, and hitting. The results on social problem-solving skills on ill-defined tasks are somewhat consistent with those obtained for cognitive problem-solving skills on well-defined tasks. Mentally retarded children generated fewer solutions to the problems than did their nonretarded counterparts. Although some evidence for diversity of strategy selection was observed within the retarded group, mentally retarded children were less flexible in their application of strategies than the nonretarded children. Herman and Shantz (1983) further demonstrated that social problem-solving skills were related to both the intellectual competence of the child and the directiveness of the mother. They argued the mothers of the mentally retarded children appeared to adopt a “moment-by-moment” monitoring style that did not encourage reflectivity in problem solving on the part of their child. Thus, the presentation of inappropriate strategic models is not specific to cognitive problem solving, but also appears to be common in social problem-solving situations as well. In both cases, these inappropriate models appear to discourage active self-monitoring of problem-solving skills by mentally retarded persons. While this study of social problem-solving differences between retarded and nonretarded children is consistent with the findings on cognitive problem solving, no attempt was made to tease out differences in problem representation. One might legitimately question whether educable mentally retarded children represented or defined the social problem-solving situation in the same manner as did their nonret arded peers.

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I07

In a second study designed to assess social problem-solving differences between mentally retarded and normally achieving elementary school children, Basili and Short (1988) explored the ability of mentally retarded and nonretarded children to appreciate and comprehend humor in nonverbal Ziggy cartoons. To assess appreciation of humor, children were asked to rate humorous and neutral cartoons on a four-point scale, from not funny at all to very, very funny. To assess comprehension of humor, children were asked to isolate what aspect of the cartoon results in the humor elicited. Striking differences emerged for both appreciation and comprehension of humor. Mentally retarded subjects appeared to be less sensitive to differences in types of cartoons than their nonretarded peers. That is, their ratings of humor were comparable across both the neutral and humorous cartoons. In addition, they were less able to indicate what aspect of the cartoon was responsible for eliciting the humorous response. The finding that mentally retarded children tend to be differentially less sensitive to cartoons than their normally achieving peers may provide important insights into their deficiencies in social problem-solving situations. In order to construe a cartoon as humorous, the perceiver must encounter an incongruity (punch linekaption) and then be motivated to resolve the incongruity, either by retrieval of information in the jokekartoon or from his or her own personal information. Several explanations can be offered for the appreciation and comprehension differences observed. First, mentally retarded subjects experienced more difficulty representing the problem than did their nonretarded counterparts. Second, mentally retarded subjects may have lacked the background knowledge to resolve the incongruity in the cartoons. Third, given that they were unable to recognize that some of the cartoons were funny while others were not, they uniformly or rigidly applied the strategy of moderute luughter across all situations. Finally, mentally retarded subjects may have been unmotivated to resolve the incongruity in the cartoons. These findings suggest an intimate connection exists between problem definition, background knowledge, strategic flexibility, and motivation in social problem solving. It should be noted that the social problem-solving task employed in this study was of a hypothetical nature. Naturalistic assessments of humor as a social problem-solving task should be conducted in future research. If one were to generalize these findings to social interactions with peers, deficiencies in social interactions may arise in part due their inappropriate shared affect. Perhaps their difficulties in social interactions in large part may be due to their deficiencies in social problemsolving skills. Although there has been relatively little research on the social problem-

I08

Elizrrbetli J . Short orid S t e w n W . Ewins

solving skills of mentally retarded individuals, training programs have proliferated nonetheless. Social problem-solving training has focused largely on both problem-solving skills and social skills. Problem-solving skills help us to decide what the most appropriate response is in a given situation and social skills enable us to deliver an effective response (Castles & Glass, 1986). Mentally retarded persons have been shown to be deficient in both areas (Matson, Kazdin, & Esveldt-Dawson, 1980). Given this fact, both problem-solving and social skills have been targeted for intervention. Most successful training studies have been done in experimental settings. In a recent naturalistic study, Castles and Glass (1986) examined whether the poor community adjustment of mentally retarded adults was simply a function of social skills or whether it was also a function of poor problem-solving skills. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups: social skills training only, problem-solving training only, both social skills and problem-solving training, or a no-treatment control. Problem-solving training was conducted in small groups and involved the role-playing of the following four steps: (a) generation of alternative solutions, (b) evaluation of possible consequences, (c) selection of best alternatives, and (d) enumeration of means to implement a solution. Social skills training involved the therapist modeling a predetermined solution to a problem, with group members practicing the solution. Examples of social problemsolving situations included refusing unreasonable requests, handling disagreements, and dealing with criticism. The results indicated that mentally retarded subjects profited from the problem-solving training, but not from the teaching of specific solutions to the problem. That is, problem-solving training increased the likelihood of the mentally retarded subjects generating multiple solutions to a problem. As with cognitive problem solving, mentally retarded students often perform inadequately in social problem-solving situations due to strategic inflexibility and inadequate problem representation or encoding. As a result of these difficulties, hasty solutions are executed in an unsystematic manner. Summary Models of social problem solving have been quite useful for elucidating the potential problems experienced by mentally retarded individuals in social situations. These models are only now beginning to be systematically tested. To date, the general findings from research on social problem-solving skills in mentally retarded individuals suggest that deficiencies exist in strategic flexibility, with potential reasons for this difference

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

109

due to poor problem representation, underdeveloped background knowledge, and unutilized background knowledge. Thus the picture for social problem solving and cognitive problem solving seems somewhat consistent, despite the fact that few studies have systematically compared the two domains. The relationship between social problem solving and general measures of intelligence remains unclear. There is evidence for a close connection between social and cognitive problem-solving skills (Evans & Short, 1990). This research suggests that individual differences in means-end problem solving may in large part be attributable to differences in intelligence. The relationship between intelligence and social problem solving, while not surprising, has been largely overlooked in the literature. Despite this apparent link, why is it that few studies have systematically compared cognitive and social problem-solving skills? One reason for this failure may be because most studies of cognitive problem solving employ well-defined tasks, whereas most studies of social problem solving employ ill-defined tasks. To better understand how one might draw important conclusions across domains of problem solving, it would be helpful to examine specifically the methods of assessment available to date and the information gleaned from each.

VI.

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

During the last decade, much debate has centered around pinpointing the most effective means of examining problem-solving differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped learners. Traditional or static assessment methods have been the norm for the past century. Static assessment techniques, involving measurement of subjects’ decontextualized knowledge, are important for establishing current levels of knowledge and performance that typically reflect past learning goals. For example, the vocabulary subtest of the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) requires children to define words in the absence of a sentence context and without adult assistance. While they are effective for assessing demonstratable competence, static techniques fall short in isolating the cognitive processes responsible for differences in competence. For this reason, educators and researchers have turned to more dynamic methods of assessment, particularly with handicapped populations (Vye, Burns, DelClos, & Bransford, 1987). According to Sattler ( 1988). traditional assessment and dynamic assessment both focus on the evaluation of cognitive functions, however dynamic assessment also addresses their modifiability. Researchers and

110

Elizabeth J . Short m d S t w e n W .Evcins

practitioners who argue for dynamic assessment of mentally retarded students’ performance contend that the demonstrated level of competence obtained from static assessment (i.e.. the observed performance) is not always predictive of potential for learning (Tzuriel & Klein, 1985). Rather than measuring existing skill level and predicting future learning potential. the dynamic approach focuses on the individual’s ability to profit from instruction. Whether dynamic assessment is any better at predicting learning potential than static assessment is an empirical question that has not yet been resolved. Dynamic assessment adopts a process approach to the measurement of problem solving. The assumption is that simply failing to solve a problem may not always indicate the same deficit. Coming close to the solution of a problem represents greater skill than does producing a totally irrelevant response, yet both would be scored as wrong under the static assessment method. Methods have been developed to quantify the steps a person takes to solve a problem and to look for differences between individuals of varying mental ability (Brown et u l . , 1983; Short, Cuddy, Friebert. & Schatschneider, 1990). Unfortunately. these studies often rely on selfreport measures which may be influenced by language ability, motivation, and introspective skills (Short & Weissberg-Benchell, 1989). Nonetheless, such studies hold promise for isolating critical problem-solving differences among handicapped groups. Two approaches have been taken with regard to dynamic assessment: the mediational approach (Feuerstein, 1979; Vye et d., 1987) and the graduated prompt approach (Brown et al., 1983; Campione, Brown, & Ferrara. 1982). Both methods argue for the importance of assessing the modifiability of cognition and hold that individual differences in response to instruction provide important diagnostic information. The purposes of the graduated prompt and mediation approaches, however, are somewhat different. The mediational approach was developed as an educational intervention technique, while the graduated prompt approach arose as an alternative assessment technique in research. Each approach is briefly described. The mediational approach assumes that cognitive functions are impaired or deficient due to “the absence, paucity, or ineffectiveness of the adult-child interaction that produce in the child an enhanced capacity to become modified, that is to learn” (Feuerstein, 1979, p. 70). Possible impairments are proposed to occur at the input phase, the elaboration phase, and/or t h e output phase of learning. Proponents of the mediational approach hypothesize an interactional relationship between an intentioned adult and a novice child. Functioning as an intermediary between the child and the outside world, the adult serves to highlight appropriate

COGNITIVE A N D SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

111

information from the environment such that learning takes place. The aim of this approach is to follow a train-test-train-test model to change the child’s level of knowledge through mediated experiences. The support that the child receives is dependent on his or her level of previously demonstrated knowledge, and assessments occur only after training so as to avoid the mind-set of failure. The graduated prompt approach begins by assessing the student’s independent performance in a static fashion prior to the initiation of the prompting procedure. After a baseline level of performance is established, the graduated prompting procedure is instituted. This procedure involves test items which have all undergone extensive task analysis. Based on this analysis, a set of prompts varying in explicitness is generated. When failure occurs on an item, the experimenter delivers the scripted prompts in order from least explicit to most explicit until successful performance is achieved. Using this approach, it is possible to assess not only the current performance level of the subject, but also ease of learning or learning speed (i.e., number of prompts to criterion). In addition to dynamic assessment, protocol analysis has also been seen as a useful way to obtain information about the cognitive processes responsible for differences in cognitive competence (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). The key component of protocol analysis that offers great promise for elucidating the problem-solving difficulties of mentally retarded individuals is the “think-aloud” technique (Short, Cuddy, Friebert, & Schatschneider, 1990). As the name implies, this technique requires learners to verbalize their thoughts, feelings, and actions while solving the problem. Thus, the protocol provides a window to their covert cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational approaches to the task (Ericsson & Simon, 1985; Short & Weissberg-Benchell, 1989). Thus it should be clear that focusing on the static outcome-that is, the correctness or incorrectness of an answer-may be quite uninformative. The problems with this approach were noted in Bray and Turner’s (1987) discussion of “production anomalies and strategic competence.” Rather than identifying static deficits, Bray and Turner argue that we should place the emphasis on the range of task conditions that enable the learner to use a strategy and those conditions that do not. When problem-solving strategies vary with task variables, such as memory load or task complexity, poor performance represents a production anomaly, not a static deficit. This concept of production anomaly thus argues for a n examination of the relationship between strategic flexibility and task conditions or the point at which the learners’ orchestration of strategies is facilitated or impeded. Dynamic assessment and protocol analysis offer two methodologies that would enable such an examination across both cognitive and

I12

Elizabeth J . Short rind Slewti W . E w m

social problem-solving situations. Further refinement in the area of assessment of problem-solving skills is certainly needed, especially in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve problem-solving performance.

VII.

METHODS OF FOSTERING EFFECTIVE COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

Although the study of both cognitive and social problem-solving performance in the mentally retarded is still in its infancy, interventions are currently being developed quite rapidly. Several techniques have been shown to be quite effective for improving the problem-solving skills of mentally retardcd individuals, as well as of their normally achieving counterparts. These methods include self-instructional techniques, self-questioning techniques, reciprocal teaching, and thinking aloud. The method that has received the most attention to date is the selfinstructional technique (Meichenbaum, 1977; Whitman. 1987). Effectiveness of the self-instructional method has been documented in the following areas with diverse populations: attention with both learning disabled and normally achieving children (Loper, Hallahan, & Ianna. 1982). handwriting with learning disabled children (Robin, Armel, & O’Leary. 1975), reading with poor readers (Bommarito & Meichenbaum, 1978; Short & Ryan, 1984), mathematics with mentally retarded children (Johnston. Whitman, & Johnson, 1980), impulsivity with preschoolers and elementary schoolers (Bornstein & Quevillon, 1976; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971), list recall with mentally retarded children (Brown & Barclay, 1976), and social skills with mentally retarded adults (Castles & Glass, 1986). The self-instructional method has not only been effective for increasing thc target behaviors but has also been successful at promoting some transfer of training across situations and tasks (Whitman. 1987). The assumption is that by employing self-verbalizations, the learner will become more active and self-regulated in the problem-solving process (Ryan, Short, & Weed, 1986). Although self-instructional training techniques are quite diverse in terms of content, a common focus and set of key elements are normally retained. Self-instructional approaches usually focus on problem identification, solution strategies, and support strategies. That is, the self-instructional package usually enables the learner to target a problem for solution, to identify a strategy for solving the problem, and to use strategies for maintaining attention and motivation to perform the task. Key elements of self-instructional packages include verbal directions, model-

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I I3

ing, feedback, prompts, systematic fading, and often physical demonstrations. Through the interaction with skilled others, the student gains control over his or her learning. Despite the widely accepted notion that self instructions greatly improve the problem-solving skills of the learner, few studies have explored systematically the way individual difference variables influence the efficacy of self-instructional training. Whitman (1987) notes that relationship of individual difference variables to the self-instructional process, with special attention devoted to concerns for mentally retarded individuals. Two variables thought to impact directly on the usefulness of self-instructional training were knowledge base and linguistic ability of the learners. A second method designed to place the locus of control for feedback and learning in the hands of the student is the self-questioning technique (Wong, 1985), which is a variant on the self-instructional theme. This approach was designed to promote active strategic learning through the use of self-verbalizations (Meichenbaum, 1977). Students can be taught to employ self- or experimenter-generated questions as a means of monitoring their own comprehension (Miller, 1985, 1987; Miller, Giovenco, & Rentiers. 1987; Short & Ryan, 1984; Wong &Jones, 1982). By employing the self-questioning techniques, students are able to assess first-hand the quality of their understanding of new material. Students profit from the self-generated feedback obtained from testing their comprehension in that they recognize either test-readiness or need for further study. An alternative to the self-instructional and self-questioning approaches is the socioinstructional method (Belmont, 1989). The two underlying assumptions of the socioinstructional approach are that strategy instruction should be social in nature and that the ultimate goal of training should be the trunsfer ofresponsibility from the other to the self. A recent example of a strategy based on the socioinstructional approach is reciprocal teaching (Brown & Palincsar, 1982). Reciprocal teaching has been quite successful for delivering process feedback, increasing monitoring skills, and promoting strategic problem solving for diverse populations, including poor readers, normally achieving elementary students, and learning disabled students. The reciprocal teaching technique (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) alters the nature of the teaching relationship. The technique capitalizes on the method of Socratic dialogue for the acquisition of strategic problem solving. In a 20-day training program, four strategies designed to promote self-regulated learning are presented, including summarization, prediction, question generation, and clarification. Initially, the teaching technique is other regulated in that it is modeled by the teacher. Eventually, students assume both the role of the learner and the role of the teacher

I I4

Elizabeth J . Short irnd S t i w ~ nW . t?wm

during the teaching process, and therefore the process becomes self-regulated. Teaching segments of the text to the class provides learners with clear feedback about the depth of their understanding. If students encounter difficulty teaching the lesson, the point at which comprehension difficulties exist becomes readily apparent to both the teacher and the learners. Although monitoring skills were not formally evaluated by Palincsar and Brown (1984) in their reciprocal teaching studies, these skills are critical to teaching effectiveness. Unless an evaluation of the quality of the message occurs, no corrective action can be taken. Reciprocal teaching techniques have been shown to be effective for improving the comprehension performance of less skilled learners. Broadly construed, reciprocal teaching can be thought of as a problem-solving task. Future studies should evaluate whether reciprocal teaching techniques improve problem-solving performance of retarded learners. Finally, thinking aloud has been recently shown to be quite effective for improving the problem-solving performance of normally achieving, learning disabled, and mentally retarded elementary school students (Short, Schatschneidcr, Cuddy ct al., 1990; Short, Evans, Friebert, & Schatschneider, 1990). By requiring subjects to verbalize their thoughts as they solve problems, attention appears to be focused on the task at hand. Thinking aloud thus seems to encourage a more thorough task analysis on the part of the learner. The major use of the think-aloud training technique in social problems has been conducted with aggressive boys by Camp and her colleagues (Camp & Bash, 1981; Camp, Blom, Hebert. & van Doorninck, 1977). Effective social problem-solving skills have been taught by Bash and Camp (1985) through a program of 30 lessons covering such topics as making friends, predicting consequences, and recognizing different perspectives. The think-aloud technique is employed as a vehicle to model effective strategies with young aggressive boys. Their studies have been very effective in reducing aggression and improving prosocial behaviors of kindergarten through third grade males. These studies suggest that thinking aloud during problem solving improves not only academic performance but social skills as well. All four methods of training are designed to enhance learners’ self-regulation or self-control. To date, these four methods of self-control training have proved effective in improving the problem-solving performance of skilled, learning disabled, and mentally retarded learners, as well as their specific memory, attention, and language skills. As has been noted repeatedly in the literature, these newly acquired skills have limited generalizability for all three populations (Brown rt al., 1983). Efforts must be made to teach students how to generalize their skills to a variety of con-

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I I5

texts and tasks (Borkowski & Cavanaugh, 1979; Brown et ul., 1983). Clearly, it is important to train flexible application of newly acquired strategies, but students also need to be taught to analyze both the task and the environment to glean information about where and when to apply which strategies. In order to foster optimal strategy selection by learners, educators should build in relational metacognitive knowledge (Borkowski, Weyhing, & Turner, 1986). Learners need to recognize that some strategies are more effective at improving specific performances than are others (Clifford, 1984; Pressley et ul., 1987). Through extensive practice and the provision of explicit performance feedback, children will learn to recognize which strategies are more effective and to employ the better ones objectively (Pressley, Borkowski, & O’Sullivan, 1984). VIII.

LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT RESEARCH

Perhaps the most serious limitation of the problem-solving research to date is that studies are limited in scope. That is, there are not only few controlled studies on problem-solving skills in the mentally retarded, but in addition many of these studies are of questionable ecological validity. Specifically, cognitive problem solving has been somewhat limited to a small set of obscure experimental tasks, while social problem solving has typically employed hypothetical situations to assess performance. A second limitation of the problem-solving literature is the failure to acknowledge the heterogeneity of mentally retarded populations. Most researchers assume that mentally retarded learners are uniformly deficient. Again, as noted by Bray and Turner (l987), researchers interested in problem-solving performance should set out in search of production anomalies. In particular, they should be looking for situations that foster problem-solving competence and situations that result in problem-solving failures. To assume that all retarded learners are operating at a uniform deficiency level in all situations is misleading. A third limitation of this research is the failure to employ common methodologies across studies. As noted previously, both static and dynamic methods of assessment are critical for understanding the cognitive competence of learners in particular task situations and the processes responsible for differences in competence. Finally, although training studies have shown some promise for improving both the cognitive and social problem-solving skills of mentally retarded individuals, the generalizability of treatment effects has been sorely lacking (Brown et d . , 1983). This finding is not surprising, given that generalizability of treatment effects has been difficult to achieve in

I I6

Elizabeth J . Short (ind Steven W . Ewns

skilled populations as well. Nonetheless, if our understanding of problemsolving skills is to be enhanced, more carefully controlled experimental and educational studies must be conducted with precisely defined populations using a multidimensional approach. The multidimensional approach has been conspicuously absent in most studies of problem solving. Problem-solving performance, while perhaps largely dependent on cognitive factors, has been shown to be dependent on metacognitive. motivational, and emotional factors as well.

IX.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This multidimensional approach was recently employed by Short and Weissbcrg-Benchell (1989) in their Triple Alliance Model. This modcl appears to be useful for illustrating why individual differences in problem solving and learning may arise. They argue that successful problem solving and academic learning are largely dependent on the formation of an effective alliance between the cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational skills of the learner. That is, expert problem solvers delicately balance and/or coordinate their cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational skills such that goals become easily attainable. By definition, an alliance is “a formal pact or confederation of nations in a common cause.’’ If one substitutes the word skills for nations, it becomes clear that these three skills (i.e., cognition, metacognition, and motivation) are designed to fortify one’s position toward a common goal. Consistent with this multidimensional view, ineffective problem solving by mentally retarded students would result from the formation of a faulty alliance between one or more of the three domains of functioning. For example, failure of mentally retarded persons in cognitive problem solving may result from faulty motivational skills. The research on attributional profiles of the mentally retarded addresses this issue. The perception of lack of control over outcome of performance engenders in the learner feelings of helplessness and reduces the probability of building new cognitive skills (Kanfer & Hagerman, 1981). Metacognitive processes are also important to cognitive skill development. Faulty alliances between cognitive and metacognitive domains may develop as well. On the one hand, given limited cognitive capacity, mentally retarded persons may have difficulty devoting additional cognitive resources to higher order metacognitive planning (see Merrill, this volume). On the other hand, given limited metacognitive knowledge and strategic inflexibility, mentally retarded persons may have difficulty utilizing their cognitive resources. According to Brown (1987). effective

COGNITIVE A N D SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I17

learners/problem solvers need to adjust and fine tune their cognitive actions continuously using their metacognitive knowledge. This adjustment and fine-tuning process are at the heart of the self-regulation issue (Whitman, 1990). As noted by Whitman (1990), self-regulation is a complex response system comprising such skills as self-reinforcement, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Self-regulated learners must form effective alliances between their cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational skills such that successful problem solving occurs (Short & Weissberg-Benchell, 1989). An attempt to examine the utility of the Triple Alliance Model for explaining individual differences in problem-solving performance of normally achieving and mentally retarded students was undertaken by Short, Schatschneider, Basili, and Evans (1989). Using a regression model, they examined whether metacognitve and motivational skills improved the prediction of problem-solving performance (i.e., verbal and nonverbal analogies) above and beyond the prediction obtained from cognitive ability alone (i.e., the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Mental Processing Composite Score). Their data indicate quite clearly that the relationships formed between these three domains of functioning are especially important for handicapped learners. That is, individual differences in problem-solving performance within the handicapped group were best explained by an examination of both the cognitive and metacognitive data. Prediction of problem-solving performance by mentally retarded subjects appeared to be minimal using only the mental processing component of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. However, when the self-regulation component (i.e., strategic awareness) was added to the equation, prediction was dramatically improved for the handicapped learners. Thus, the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive domains appeared to be especially important for mentally retarded students. Individual differences in problem-solving performance for normally achieving students appeared to be largely a function of cognitive ability. Motivational skills did not factor into the prediction of problemsolving performance in these data. What insights can be offered to researchers interested in problem solving from the Triple Alliance Model and the literature on self-regulated learning'? Both viewpoints argue strongly for a more dynamic view of problem solving. Problem solving should not be seen as a static entity, but rather as an evolving process. Self-regulated problem solvers must make decisions about which skills to employ in which situations. This complex process involves an examination of the task at hand, an examination of their strategic repertoire, a construction of a working plan of action, the execution of the plan, and an evaluation and revision of the

I18

Elizuhcth J . Short ctnd S t e ~ w iW . Evnris

plan if necessary. Not only must mentally retarded subjects be given the opportunity to engage in self-regulated learning so that effective alliances can be formed, but also opportunities must be presented so that their selfregulatory skills can be gradually shaped in order to ensure that faulty alliances do not develop. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Preparation of this article was supported by the Research Incentive Fund from Western Reserve College. Special thanks are extended to Dr. Jane Kessler. Sarah Friebert. and Patty McKinney for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

REFERENCES Bandura. A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bartlett, F. C . (1958). 7hinkitrg. London: Allen & Unwin. 1958. Bash. M. A., & Camp, B. W. (1985). Think ciloiid: Incwcising soc~irileind co,gnirit*t,skillsA problem solving progrunr J)r c-hikefren. Champaign, 1L: Research Press. Basili. L. A.. & Short. E. J. ( 1988). Sociul prr,blon-.soli'ing .skills in the rnerrtdly retcirded. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Gatlinburg Conference on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. Gatlinburg. TN. Belmont. J . M. ( 1983). Concerning Hunt's new way of assessing intelligence. Intc~lli,gc~nc~c~, I, 1-7. Belmont. J . M. ( 1989). Cognitive strategies and strategic learning: The socio-instructional approach. Amuriccin Psychologis/, 44, 142-148. Bereiter. C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. I n L. B. Resnick (Ed.). K n o t t i n g . lecirning. und instruction: Essuvs in honor c?f'RobertGlciser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Bilsky. I,. H.. & Judd. T. (1986). Sources of difficulty in the solution of verbal arithmetic problems by mentally retarded and nonretarded individuals. American Journul of Merrreil Deficiency. 90, 395-402. Bommarito, J., & Meichenbaum, D. (1978). Enhuncing reading compreliensiorr by tirentis of .sc,/flirtstrirc,tional training. Unpublished manuscript, University of Waterloo, Ontario. Borkowski, J. G . , & Cavanaugh, J. (1979). Maintenance and generalization of skills and strategies by the retarded. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental dc,ficiencv: Psychologicul theory und ruseorch (pp. 120-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Borkowski, J. G . , Weyhing. R. S.. & Turner, L. A. (1986). Attribution retraining and the teaching of strategies. Excvprionul Children. 53, 130-137. Bornstein, P., & Quevillon, R. (1976). The effects of a self-instructional package on overactive preschool boys. Journul of Applied Behuvior Anal.vsis. 9, 179-188. Borys. S. V., Spitz, H. H.. & D o r m s , B. A. (1982). Tower of Hanoi performance of retarded young adults and nonretarded children as a function of solution length and goal state. Journal of Experinrental Child Psyctrology. 33, 87-1 10. Bray, N.. Goodman, M. A,, &Justice, E. M. (1982).'l'ask instructions and strategy transfer in the directed forgetting performance of mentally retarded adolescents. Intelligence. 6, 187-200.

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

I I9

Bray, N. W., & Turner, 1.. A. (1987). Production anomalies (not strategic deficiencies) in mentally retarded individuals. Intelligence, 11, 49-60. Briars, D. J . , & Larkin. J. H . (1983). An integruted model of skill in solving c4einentur~~~ word problems. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal. Brown. A. L. (1987). Metacognition. executive control, self-regulation, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Klewe (Eds.), Mefircognition. m o t i w t i o n . und understunding (pp. 65-1 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brown, A. L.. & Barclay, C. R. (1976). The effects of training specific mnemonics on the metamnemonic efficiency of retarded children. Child Development, 47, 7 1-80. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrdra, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Hundbook ofc/iildp.syc/lology: Cognitive diw4opment (Vol. 3, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley. Brown. A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed. self-control training. Topics in Leurning und Leurning Disabilities. 2, Iin. Camp. B. W., & Bash. M. A. S. (1981). Think ulortd: Increusing sociulund ~ ~ ~ g n i t i ~ ~ ~ ~ . s k i l l . s A problem-sohing progrum for cliildren (Primury level). Champaign, IL: Research Press. Camp, B. W.. Blom, G. E., Hebert. F., & van Doorninck. W. J. (1977). Think aloud: A program for developing self-control in young aggressive boys. Joumul of Ahnorinul Child Psvi~liology.5, 157-169. Campione J. C.. & Brown, A. L. (1978). Toward a theory of intelligence: Contributions from research with retarded children. Intelligence. 2, 279-304. Campione, J. C.. Brown, A. L., & Ferrara, R. A. (1982). MR and intelligence. In R. J . Sternberg (Ed.), Hundbook qfliumun intelligence (pp. 392-490). London & New York: Cambridge University Press. Castles. E. E., & Glass, C. R. (1986). Training in social and interpersonal problem-solving skills for mildly and moderately mentally retarded adults. Amerirun Journd of Mentul Dqficii~ncy,91, 3 5 4 2 . Chi. M. T. H.. & Bassock. M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing. learning. und instruction: Essuys in honor of Robert Gluser (pp. 251-282). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Clifford, M. M. ( 1984). Thoughts o n a theory of constructive failure. Educutionul Psychologist. 19, 108-120. Day, J. D., & Hall, L. K . (1988). Intelligence-related differences in learning and transfer and enhancement of transfer among mentally retarded persons. Americun Jourriul of Mentol Returdution. 93, 125-137. Detterman, D. K. (1987). Theoretical notions of intelligence and mental retardation. Americun Jorrrnul of Mentul Dejiciency. 92, 2-1 I . Dodge, K . A., Pettit. G . S.. McClaskey. C. L., & Brown, M. M . (1986). Social competence in children. Monogruphs oftlie Socirtyfiir Reseurch in Child Development. 51(2. Serial NO. 213), 1-85. Donahue, M.. Pearl, R., & Bryan, T. (1980). Learning disabled children’s conversational competence: Responses to inadequate messages. Applied P.~yrho/ingrri.stic.s.1, 387403. Duncker. K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monogruphs. 58(5, Whole No. 270). D’Zurilla. T. J.. & Goldfried, M. R. (1971). Problem solving and behavior modification. Journol o j A hnormul Psychology. 78, 107- 126. Ellis, N . R. (1969). A behavioral research strategy in mental retardation: Defense and critique. American Journul of Mental Dejiciency, 73, 557-567.

I20

Elizabeth J .

Short rind S t i v , n

W .Evrrns

Ellis, N. R.. & Cavalier. A. R. (1982). Research perspectives in mental retardation. In E . Zigler & D. Bailer (Eds.). Mentul returdution: Tlie dervlopmi~ntuld$fi.renc.e controversy (pp. 121-152). Hillsdale. NJ: Earlbaum. Ellis. N. R., Woodley-Zanthos, P.. Dulaney, C. L., & Palmer, R. L. (1989). Automaticeffortful processing and cognitive inertia in persons with mental retardation. Americrrri Journul of Mentul Returdution, 93, 412423. Ericsson, K. A,, & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psycliologic~erlRiwicw. 87, 215-25 I . Ericsson, K. A,, & Simon, H. A. (198s). Protocol analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.). Hirndbook ofdiscoitr.se crncr1y.si.s (Vol. 2). London: Academic Press. Evans, S., & Short, E. J. (1990). Individrrul d8ference.s in tnennslend probleni sol,'Ing us 11 .fiinc.tion of irggression irnd intc~lligc~ncx~. Manuscript submitted for publication. Ferretti. R. P., & Butterfield, E. C. (1989). Intelligence as a correlate of children's problem solving. Americun Jortrnul of Mentul Returdution. 93, 424-433. Feuerstein, R. ( 1979). The dynriinic nssessnient of retarded perfi)riners: The lecrrriirig potenl i d iissesstnent device. theory, instruments, und techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Feuerstein. R. ( 1980). Instrrtmentul enriclimmt: An intervention progruin for cognitiiv m i d ifiuhilitv. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. Americirn Psvc/iologi.st. 34, '

9obYII.

Gallagher. J. M., & Reid, D. K. (1981). The Ieurning theory i f f i u g e t uridInlielder. Austin. TX: Pro-Ed. Goodstein, H. A.. Cawley. J. F.. Gordon, S., & Helfgott, J. (1971). Verbal problem solving among educably mentally retarded children. Americun Joitrncrl of Mc,ntul Delficicwc.y. 76, 238-24 I . Hall, L. K., & Day. J. D. (1982). A cwnpurison o f t h e ziine of proxitnul dcvelopn~rntin leurning disublc,d, educuble mcwtully retarded, und norniul children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York. Hayes. J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Haywood. H. C. (1989). Multidimensional treatment of mental retardation. Psychology in Mental Rcturdution und L)cveli~pmc~ntul Disuh

Herman, M. S . . & Shantz, C. U. (1983). Social problem-solving and mother-child interace~ifcrl tions of educable mentally retarded children. Journirl of Applied D e ~ i ~ ~ l o i p ~ ~ iPsychology, 4, 217-226. Johnston, M. B., Whitman, T. L., & Johnson, M. (1980). Teaching addition and subtraction to mentally retarded children: A self-instructional program. Applied Re.seurc/i in Matitul Retardution, 1, 141-160. Judd, T. P., & Bilsky, L. H. (1989). Comprehension and memory in the solution of verbal arithmetic problems by mentally retarded and nonretarded individuals. Jotrrncrl ofEditcutionul Psychology, 81, 541-546. Kahney, H. (1986). froblern solving: A cognitive upprouch. Milton Keynes. England: Open University Press. Kanfer, F. H., & Hagerman, S. (1981). The role of self-regulation. In L. P. Rehm (Ed.). Behavior therapy for depression: Present status andfittitre directions. New York: Academic Press. Loper, A. B., Hallahan. D. B., & lanna, S . 0. (1982). Metaattention in learning disabled and normal students. Lrurning Disubilitirs Quurterly, 5, 29-36. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving. fsychologicul Monogruphs. 54(6. Whole No. 248). M a t h . M. W. (1989). Cognition. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

121

Matson. J. L.. Kazdin, A. E., & Esveldt-Dawson, K. (1980). Training interpersonal skills among mentally retarded and socially dysfunctional children. Behuviour Reseurch und Therupy, 18, 4 1 9 4 2 7 . Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W. H. Freeman. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Introduction to the special section: Cognition and instruction in mathematics. Jorrrnol of Educational Psvc'hology. 81, 4 5 2 4 5 6 . McConaghy, J., & Kirby, N. H. (1987). Using the componential method to train mentally retarded individuals to solve analogies. American Journul of Mental Deficiency. 92, 12-23, Meichenbaum. D . M. ( 1977). Cognitive behavior modificution: An integrutive upprouch. New York: Plenum Press. Meichenbaum, D. M.. & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormul Psychology. 77, 115126. Miller, G. E. (1985). The effects of general and specific self-instruction training on children's comprehension monitoring performances during reading. Reuding Reseurch Quurterlv. 20, 616-628. Miller, G. E. (1987). Influence of self-instructions on the comprehension monitoring performance of average and above average readers. Journul of Reading Behavior. 19, 303316. Miller, G . E., Giovenco, A.. & Rentiers, K. A. (1987). Fostering comprehension monitoring in below average readers through self-instructional training. Journal of Reuding Behuvior. 19, 379-393. Minsky. S. K., Spitz. H. H., & Bessellieu, C. L. (1985). Maintenance and transfer of training by mentally retarded young adults on the Tower of Hanoi problem. Americun Journu/ of Mentul Deficiency, 90, 190-197. Nesher, P. (1982). Levels of description in the analysis of addition and subtraction ard problems. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.). Addition, crnd subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognirion und Instruction. I, 117-175. Polya, G. ( 1968). Mathetnaticul discovery. Volume 11: On understunding, leurning, und reaching problem solving. New York: Wiley. Pressley, M. (in press). Can learning disabled children become good strategy users'?: How can we find out? In L. Feagans, E. J. Short, & L. Meltzer (Eds.), Subrypes of leurning disubilities. New York: Erlbaum. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G.. & O'Sullivan, J. T. (1984). Memory strategy instruction is made of this: Metamemory and durable strategy use. Educutionul Psychologist. 19, 94-107. Pressley, M., Borkowski. J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta & G. Whitehurst (Eds.), Annuls of child development (Vol. 4, pp. 89-129). Greenwich, CT: JAl Press. Reitman. W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments und oprimulity. New York: Wiley. Robin, A., Armel, S., & O'Leary, K. D. (1975). The effects of self-instructions on writing deficiency. Behuvior Therupy. 6 , 178-187. Ryan. E. B., Short, E. J . . & Weed, K. A. (1986). The role of cognitive strategy training in improving the academic performance of learning disabled children. Journal oflearning Disabilities. 19, 52 1-529. Sattler, J. M. (1989). Assessment of children (3rd ed). San Diego: Jerome Sattler.

I22

Elizuheth J . Short und Steven W .E w n s

Short, E. J.. Cuddy, C. L., Friebert, S. E., & Schatschneider, C. W. (1990). The diagnostic and educational utility of thinking aloud during problem solving. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Leiirning disubilities: l%eoreticuI irnd reseurch is.site.s (pp. 93-109). Hillsdale. N J : Erlbaum. Short, E. J., Evans. S. W.. Friebert, S. E., & Schatschneider, C. W. (1990). Thinking uloitd during problem solving: Fucilitution effects. Manuscript submitted for publication. Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attributional training. Journal of Edurutionul Psyclrology. 16, 225-235. Short. E. J.. Schatschneider, C. W., Basili, L. A., & Evans, S. W. (1989).I n d i v i d r r d d ~ f i ~ r ences in problem-solving performance: The compensutory role of metucognitive trnd motiiwtionul prrformirnce. Paper presented at the E n d Annual Gatlinburg Conference on Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities, Gatlinburg, TN. Short, E. J.. Schatschneider, C. W., Cuddy. C. L.. Evans, S. W., Dellick, D. M.. & Basili, L. A. (1990). Individrrul dgyerences in problem solving us ufunction of thinking ulorrd. Manuscript submitted for publication. Short, E. J., & Weissberg-Benchell, J. (1989). The triple alliance for learning: Cognition. metacognition, & motivation. In C. McCormick. G. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strutegv reseorch: 1mplicution.s f b r the curriculum (pp. 33-63). New York: Springer-Verlag. Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology. 4, 481-520. Siegler, K . S. (1981). Developmental sequences within and between concepts. Monogruphs oftlre Society Jhr Reseurch in Child Development. 4 6 ( 2 , Serial No. 189). Siegler, R. S. (1986). Cliildren’s thinking. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Siegler. R. S. ( 1989). Hazards of mental chronometry: An example from children’s subtraction. Jortrniil of Educirtionul Psychology. 81, 497-506. Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk’? Science, 183, 482-488. Spitz. H. H . (1982). Intellectual extremes. mental age, and the nature of human intelligence. Mrrrill-Pulmer Qiturter1.y. 28, 167- 192. Spitz. H. H.. Minsky, S. K.,& Bressellieu. C. L. (1985). Influence of planning time and first move strategy on Tower of Hanoi problem solving performance of retarded young adults and nonretarded children. American Journul of Mentnl Deficiency. 90, 46-56. Spitz, H. H . , Webster. N. A.. & Borys. S. V. (1982). Further studies of the Tower of Hanoi problem-solving of retarded young adults and nonretarded children. Dei~elopmetrtd Psyrliology, 18, 922-930. Spivack, G., & Shure. M. €3. (1974). Social udjustmcnt of young children: A cognitive upprouch to solving red-life problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sternberg, R. J. ( 1977). Intelligence, irformution processing. und unulogicul riwsoninp. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Reasoning, problem solving, and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Hutidbook of humun intc4igence. London: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. ( 1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development: A componential approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechonisms ofcognitive development. New York: Freeman. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Bevond IQ: A triurchic theory of intelligence. London: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Kifkin, B. (1979). The development of analogical reasoning processes. Journal of Experimentul Child Psychology. 27, 195-232. Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. S. (1985). The assessment of analogical thinking modifiability among regular, special education. disadvantaged, and mentally retarded children. Journu1 of Ahnormul Child Psychology, 13, 539-552.

COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL PROBLEM SOLVING

123

Vernon, P. A , , & Strudensky, S. ( 1988). Relationships between problem-solving and intelligence. Intelligence. 12, 4 3 5 4 5 3 . Vye, N. J.. Burns. M. S., DelClos. V. R., & Bransford, J. (1987). A comprehensive approach to assessing intellectually handicapped children. In C. Schneider-Lidz (Ed.), Dynutnic ussessment: A n intertrctionul iipprouch to evuluuting learning porenriul. New York: Guilford. Vygotsky. L. S. (1978). Mind in society: l h e development of higher psychologicul processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wechsler. D. ( 1974). Mtrnrtul ,for the Wechsler Inrelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vvgotskv und the socicrl~irtncrrionof mind. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Whitman. T. L. (1987). Self-instruction, individual differences, and mental retardation. Americun Jorirnul qf Mentiil Deficiency. 92, 213-223. Whitman, T. 1,. ( 1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. Americun Journul ofMi.titu1 Retardution. 94, 347-362. Wong. B. Y. (1985). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.). Merucognition. cognition, und hrrmun petjbrtnunce (Vol 2, pp. 137-180). New York: Academic Press. Wong, B. Y. L.. & Jones. W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Lrurning Disuhi1it.v Quurrerlv. 5 , 228-240. Woodley-Zanthos, P.. & Ellis, N . R. (1989). Memory for frequency of occurrence: Intelligence level and retrieval cues. Intelligence. 13, 53-62. Zigler. E. (1969). Developmental vs. difference theories of mental retardation and the problem of motivation. A m e r i c m Journal c!fMentul Dejiciencv. 73, 5 3 6 5 5 6 .