ArticlePDF Available

The Mechanism of Restructuring in Geometry

Authors:
Mn,
onr
0
NThe
Mechanism
of
Restructuring
; -
Geometry
Stellan
Ohisson
The
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center.
University
of
Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260
Technical Report
No.
KUL-90-04
May,
1990
LEARNING
RESEARCH
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CENTER
_DTIC
"
ELECTE
University
of
Pittsburgh
D1ISTR:BUrON
S-7AM
T]
Arr. ,- 114T
nu.;
c
relowwi
90
07
26
06W
The
Mechanism
of
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Stellan
Ohisson
The
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA
15260
Technical
Report
No.
KUL-90-04
May,
1990
To
appear
in
the
Proceedings
of
the
Twelfth
Annual
Conference
of
the
Cognitive
Science
Socie
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
July
25-28, 1990.
DTI
C
SE'
,. -'
JUL
3
0
1990!
Preparation
of
this
manuscript
was
supported,
in
part,
by
ONR
grant
N00014-89-J-1681.
Approved
for
public
release;
distribution
unlimited.
The
opinions
expressed
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
positions
of
the
sponsoring
agency,
and
no
endorsement
should
be
inferred.
This
report
is
a
substantially
rewritten
version
of
an
earlier
technical
report:
Ohlsson,
S. (1983).
Restructuring
revisited.
Iil.
Re-describing
the
problem
situation
as
a
heuristic
in
geometric
problem
solving
(Technical
Report
No.
353).
Uppsala,
Sweden:
Department
of Psychology,
University
of
Uppsala.
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF
THIS
PAGE
SForm Approved
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
OMBNo
0704-.088
la
REPORT
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
lb
RESTRICTIVE
MARKINGS
Uncl
assified
2a.
SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
AUTHORITY
3
DISTRIBUTION
/AVAILABILITY
OF
REPORT
Approved
for
public release;
2b.
DECLASSIFICATION/
DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
distribution
unl
imi
ted
4.
PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
REPORT
NUMBER(S)
S
MONITORING ORGANIZATION
REPORT
"*,,BEP(S)
UP
ITT/LRDC/ONR/KUL-90-04
6a.
NAM
OF
PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
6b
OFFICE
SYMBOL
7a.
NAME
OF
MONITORNG
ORGANI'ZAT;O%
Learning Research
&
Developmen"
(If
applicable)
Cognitive
Science
Program
Center, University
of
Pittsbur
h
Office
of
Naval
Research
(Code
1142CS)
6c.
ADDRESS
(City
State,
and
ZIP
Code)
7b
ADDRESS
(City,
State,
and
ZIP
Code)
3939 0'Hara
Street 800 North
Quincy
Street
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260
Arlington,
VA
22217-5000
8a.
NAME
OF
FUNDING/SPONSORING
8b
OFFICE
SYMBOL
9
PROCUREMENT
INS7RUMENT
D;_NT
FiCAI
OJ
NUMBER
ORGANIZATION
(If
applicable)
N00014-89-J-1681
8c. ADDRESS
(City,
State,
and
ZIP
Code)
10
SOURCE
OF
FuNDING
NUMBERS
PROGRAM
i
PROJECT
TASK
INORK
JNIT
ELEMENT NO
NO
NO
ACCESRS6ION
NO
61153N
RR04206
RR04206-01INR442a-523
11
TITLE
(Include Security
Classification)
The
Mechanism
of
Restructuring
in
Geometry
12.
PERSONAL
AUTHOR(S)
Stellan
Ohlsson
13a.
TYPE
OF
REPORT
13b
TIME
COVERED
14
DATE
OF
REPORT
(Year,Month
Day)
"
PAGE
CO
,NT
Technical
FROM
TO
May
1990
Nh
SUPPLEMENTARY.
NOTATIO
is
report
is a
substantially
rewritten version
of an
earlier
technical
report:
Ohlsson,
S.
(1983).
"Restructuring
revisited.
III.
Re-describing
the
problem
situation"
17
COSATI
CODES
18
SUBJECT
TERMS
(Conlnue
on
reverse
if
necessary
and
identify
by
block
numOer)
FIELD
GROUP
SUB-GROUP
Search;
Restructuring;
Function; Mechanism;
Heuristic;
05 02
Operators;
Path; Initial
state;
Goal
state;
Description
space.
19
ABSTRACT
(Continue
on
reverse
if
necessary
and
identify
by
block
number)
Restructuring
consists
of
a
change
in
the
representation
of
the
current
search
state,
a
process
which breaks
an
impasse
during
problem solving
by
opening
up
new
search
paths.
A
corpus
of
52
think-aloud
protocols
from
the
domain
of
geometry
was
scanned
for
evidence
of
restructuring.
The
data
suggest
that
restructuring
is
accomplished
by
re-parsing
the
geometric
diagram.
20
0ISTRIBUT!ONiAVA:LAB!LITY
CF
ABSTRACT
2;
ABSTRAC.
SECURir€
CLASS,
C":-
074
U3UNCLASSIF'EDUNLIMITED
0
SAME
AS
RPT -
DTIC
USERS
Unclassified
22a
NAME
OF
RESPONSIBLE
INDIVIDUAL
22J2EL)PH(NE
(Inclucje
Ae,
CcdeI
22(
-( '.
Susan
M.
Chipman
(202
696-4318
ONR 1142CS
DO
Form
1473,
JUN
86
Previous
editions
are
obsolete
SE_(_.'R IT -
C
' ,L__ (
,
-,-
S/N
0102-LF-014-6603
UNCLASSIFIED
O
hisson
2
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Knowledge
and
Understanding
in
Human
Learning
Knowledge
and
Understanding
in
Human
Learning
(KUL)
is
an
umbrella
term
for
a
loosely
connected
set
of
activities
lead
by
Stellan
Ohisson
at
the
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
The
aim
of
KUL
is
to
clarify
the
role of
world
knowledge in
human
thinking,
reasoning,
and
problem
solving.
World
knowledge
consists
of concepts
and principles,
and
contrasts
with
facts
(episodic
knowledge)
and
with
cognitive
skills
(procedural
knowledge).
The
long
term
goal
is
to
answer
six
questions:
How
can
the
concepts
and
principles
of
particular
domains
be
identified?
How
are
concepts
and
principles
acquired?
How
can
the
acquisition
of
concepts
and
principles
be
assessed?
How
are
concepts
and principles
encoded
in
the
mind?
How
are
concepts
and
principles
utilized
in
performance
and learning?
How
can
instruction
facilitate
the
acquisition
and
utilization
of
concepts
and
principles
(as
opposed
to
episodic
or
procedural
knowledge)?
Different methodologies
are
used
to
investigate
these
questions:
Psychological
experiments,
protocol
studies,
computer
simulations,
historical
studies,
semantic,
logical,
and
mathematical
analyses,
instructional intervention studies,
and
so
on.
A
list
of
KUL
reports
appear
at
the
back
of
this
report.
Aeoesslon
For
9TI"
TAB
0
Unranomce!
0
Jut
!flcntilcn
o
By
__ __ __
_
__Distri!,ution/
Avn1l.blltty
Codes
Av
tl
rr./;r
Dist
Special
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohisson
3
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Table of
Contents
Abstract
4
Introduction
5
Method
6
Results
7
Case
1:
Deliberate
restructuring
7
Case
2:
Goal-driven
restructuring
8
Case
3:
Hint-driven
restructuring
9
Discussion
10
References
11
List
of
KUL
reports
12
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohisson
4
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Abstract
Restructuring
consists
of
a
change
in the
representation
of
the
current
search
state,
a
process
which
breaks
an
impasse
during
problem
solving
by
opening
up
new
search
paths.
A
corpus
of
52
think-aloud
protocols
from
the
domain
of
geometry
was
scanned
for
evidence
of
restructuring.
The
data
suggest
that
restructuring
is
accomplished
by
re-parsing
the
geometric
diagram.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohlsson
5
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Introduction
A
wide
variety
of
problem solving
processes
have
been
analyzed in
terms
of
heuristic
search
(Newell
&
Simon,
1972).
For
example,
in
geometry
proofs
the
geometric
theorems (operators)
are
applied
to
the
mental
representation
of
the
diagram
(the
knowledge
state)
until
the
desired
proposition
(the
goal
state)
has
been
attained
(Anderson,
1981).
The stepwise
character
of
heuristic
search
contrasts
with
the
Gestalt
hypothesis
that
problem
solving
proceeds
through
(a)
an
initial,
unsuccessful,
attack
on
the
problem,
(b)
a
more
or
less
protracted
impasse,
and
(c)
a
restructuring
of
the
problem,
which
is
typically,
but
not
necessarily,
followed
by
insight
(Ohlsson,
1984a).
Several
attemptz
have
been made
to
reconcile
the
information
processing
and
Gestalt
hypotheses.
Simon
(1966)
proposed
that
it
helps
to
sleep
on
a
problem,
because
goal
tree information
is
forgotten
faster
than
problem
information.
After
a
pause,
a new
goal
tree
is
built
on
the basis
of more knowledge
about
the
problem.
Langley and
Jones
(1988)
interpret
an
impasse
as
a
failure
to
retrieve
the
relevant
problem solving
operator.
Insight
occurs
when
some
external
stimulus
causes
enough
activation
to
spread
to
that
operator
to
allow
its retrieval.
A
related
hypothesis
claims
that
insight
occurs
when
an
appropriate
analogy
is
retrieved
(Keane,
1988).
Both
the
differential
rate
of
forgetting
hypothesis
and
the spread
of
activation
hypothesis
require
that
the
problem solver
moves
attention
away
from
the
problem,
and
so
cannot explain
insight
during
ongoing
problem
solving.
Greeno
and
Berger
(1987)
have
proposed
that
insights
occur
when
a
problem solver
breaks
an
impasse
by
constructing
new
functional
knowledge,
i.
e.,
new
problem
solving
operators.
A
new
operator
is
constructed
by
inferring
that
an
object
can
fulfill
a
particular
function,
e.
g.,
that
a
screwdriver
can
be
used
to
complete
an electric
circuit. This
follows
from
the
fact
that
the
screwdriver
is made of
metal,
in
conjunction
with
the
general
principle
that
metallic
objects
conduct
electricity.
Several
researchers
have
proposed
that
problem
representations
can
be
improved
by
the
construction
of
macro-operators
(Amarel,
1968;
Korf,
1985).
Koedinger and Anderson
(in
press)
have
proposed
the
related
idea
that
geometry
experts
combine
geometric
theorems into
larger
inference
schemas,
called
diagram
configuration
schemas,
which
allow
them
to
find
a
proof
without
step-by-step
search
of
the
proof
space.
The
macro-operator
and
diagram
configuration hypotheses explain
expert
performance,
but
they
do
not
explain
insights
by
novices.
All
of
these
hypotheses
locate
restructuring
in
the
processes
of
problem
solving.
In
contrast,
I
have
proposed
that
restructuring
involves
a
change
in the
mental
representation
of
the
current
search
state
(Ohlsson,
1984b).
A
change
in
the
representation
implies
that
objects,
relations,
and
properties
which
initially
are
seen
as
instances
of
certain
concepts
are
being
re-encoded
as
instances
of
other
concepts.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohisson
6
Restructuring
in
Geometry
For
example, an
object
which is
initially
encoded
as
a
hammer
might
in
the
course
of
problem
solving
become
re-encoded
as
a
pendulum
weight,
a
line
may
be
re-encoded
as
a
triangle
side,
and
so
on.
Re-encoding
a
search
state
changes
the
set
of
operators
which
are
applicable
in
that
state,
and
thus
breaks
an impasse
by
opening
up
new
search
paths.
A
similar
theory has
been
proposed
by
Kaplan
and
Simon
(in press)
to
explain
restructuring
in
the
Mutilated
Checker
Board
Problem. The
critique
by
Montgomery
(1988)
does
not
touch
those
aspects
of
the
theory
that
are
of
main
concern in
this
paper.
The
purpose
of
the
present
paper
is
to
provide evidence
for
re-encoding
from
the
domain
of
geometry,
and
to
propose
a
mechanism
for
re-encoding
in
that
domain.
Table
1.
Geometric
theorems
acquired
by
the
subjects.
Theorem
1.
Supplementary
angles are
congruent.
Theorem
2.
Vertical
angles
are
congruent.
Theorem
3.
The
supplementary
angle
of
a
right
angle
is
a
right
angle.
I
Theorem
4.
If
two
angles and
their
common
side
in
one
triangle
are
congruent
to
the
corresponding
angles
and
their
common
side
in
another
triangle,
then
the
two
triangles
are
congruent.
Theorem
5.
If
two
sides
in a
triangle
are congruent,
then
their
opposite
angles
are
congruent;
and
vice
versa.
Method
Three
undergraduate
psychology
students
participated
in
an
experimental
course
in
elementary
geometry.
The
experimenter
saw each
subject
individually
in
sessions
that
lasted
approximately
one
hour
each.
The subjects
learned
basic
theorems
of
plane
geometry,
the
first
five
of
which
are
shown
in
Table
1.
A
typical
session
began
with
free
recall of
previously
learned
theorems,
continued
with
the
introduction
of
new
theorems,
and
ended
with
problem
solving practice.
The
subjects
had the
theorems
available
during
problem solving, and
they
were
instructed
to
think
aloud.
The
data
consist
of
52
think-aloud
protocols,
representing
a
total
of
approximately nine
hours
of
problem
solving
effort.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohisson
7
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Results
The
protocols
were
scanned
for
the
occurrence
of
restructuring
events.
Ten
such
events
were
found.
The
three
most
informative
events
will
be
analyzed
below.
They
illustrate
deliberate
restructuring,
goal
driven
restructuring,
and
restructuring
in
response
to
a
hint.
Case
1:
Deliberate
restructuring.
Subject
S3
was
given
the
problem
in
Figure
1
after
she
had
studied
Theorems
1-5
(see
Table
1).
She
began
by
proving
that
triangles
AED
and
BEC
are
congruent,
and
then
entered
an
impasse.
In
fragments
F65-F67
(see
Table
2)
she
deliberately
sets
out
to
see
the
problem
from
many
viewpoints.
The
process
of
restructuring
proceeds
through
three
steps.
First,
she
mentally
cuts
the
figure
along
the diagonal
CA,
forming
the
triangles
CDA
and
CBA
(F68-F70). She
then
mentally
cuts
the
figure
along
the
other
diagonal, forming
the
triangles
DCB
and
DBA
(F71-F74).
Finally,
she
keeps
one
triangle
from
each
pair,
as
it
were,
and
sets
herself
the
task
of
proving
them
congruent
(F75-F77).
Figure
2
gives
a
diagrammatic analysis
of
the
process. The
geometric
objects
perceived
by
the
subject
are
drawn
in
bold
lines,
while
the
rest
of
the
diagram
is
drawn
in
broken
lines.
Restructuring
was
not
followed
by
insight
in
this
case.
The
subject
worked
on
the
problem
for
twelve
minutes
without
solving
it.
.....................................................................................................................
Table
2.
Protocol
excerpt
from
Subject
S3.
F65.
but
perhaps
one
can
see
this
in
some
other
way
also
F66.
one
can
perhaps
see
this
from
many
viewpoints
here
F67.
now
we
shall
see
F68.
one
can
see
it
as
F69.
CDA
and
CBA
F70.
triangles
F71. one
can
see
it
on
F72.
DCB
and
DBA
instead
F73.
yes
exactly
yes
F74.
those
two
F75.
well
F76.
now
I
can
see
this
in
another
way
F77.
CDB
and
CAD
ought
to be
congruent
here
in
some
way
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohisson
8
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Case
2:
Goal-driven
restructuring.
S1
was given
the
problem
in
Figure
1
as
his
first
problem
after studying
Theorems
1-5
(see
Table
1).
S1
misunderstood
the
goal
of
the
problem
to
be
to
prove
that
angle
ADC
is
congruent
to
angle
BCD.
When
the
protocol
excerpt
in
Table
3
begins,
he
has
proved
that
angles
EDA
and
ECB
are
congruent
by
proving
them
corresponding
parts
of
the
congruent
triangles
EDA
and
ECB.
He
then
sets himself
the
goal
of
proving
that
the
remaining
parts,
i.
e.,
angles
EDC
and
ECD,
are
equal
(F43).
His
plan
is
to
prove
that
they
are
equal
by
proving
that
the
sides
of
the
triangle
EDC
are equal
(F42-F45).
Table
3.
Protocol
excerpt
from
Subject
S1.
F42.
yes
now
I
am
thinking
about
whether
one
can
prove
that
these
two
sides
[DE,
EC]
are
equally
long
F43.
because
if
they
are
then
those
two
angles
[EDC,
ECD]
which
are
just
the
remaining
parts
of
those
angles
which
I
want
to
get
[ADE,
BCD]
must
be
equally
long
F44.
so
then
this
and
that
angle
[ADE,
BCD]
must
be
equally
big
F45.
and
then
the
problem is
solved
F46.
so
it
is
now
a
question
of
proving
that
it
is
isosceles
F47.
that
triangle
[EDC]
F48.
and
that
I
cannot
F49.
but
perhaps
one
can
do
it
in
some
other
way
(What
are
you
thinking?)
F50.
well now
I
am
thinking
F51.
well
it
is
the
same
problem
F52.
but
from
another
angle
F53.
yes
if this
one
F54.
is those
two
lines
[ED,
EC]
are
equally
long
F55.
I
am
thinking
F56.
yes
but
they
must
be
F57.
since
they
are
parts
of
F58.
it
is
congruent
F59.
these
two
here
are
congruent
[triangles
EDA,
ECB]
F60.
and
it
is
[ED,
EC]
corresponding
sides
in
the
triangles
[EDA, ECB]
F61.
therefore these
two
sides
[ED,
EC]
are
equally
long
This
goal
is
reformulated
as
proving
that
the
triangle
EDC
is
isosceles
(F46-F47).
This
view
of
the
problem
leads
to
an impasse
(F48-F49).
Prompted
by
the
experimenter
to
continue
to
think-aloud,
he
states
that
he
is
thinking
about
the
same
May
KUL-90-04
1990
OhIsson
Restructuring
in
Geometry
D C C
D G
A
B
A
B
Prove angles
ECD
and CDE
congruent.
Prove
line
segments
AG
and
BD
congruent.
Figure
1.
Problem
1.
Figure
4.
Problem
2.
C
C
>E lop / E<
A
B
A
B
Figure
5.
Analysis
of
S2's
re-encoding
process.
Perceived geometric
figures
are
drawn
in
bold
lines,
the
rest
of
the
figures
in
broken
lines.
OhLsson
9
Restructuring
in
Geometry
problem
but
from
another
angle
(F50-F52):
he
has
re-encoded
ED
and
EC
as
lines
(F54).
The
goal
is
still
to
prove
them congruent
(F53-F55).
He
suddenly
realizes
that
ED
and
EC
are corresponding
sides
of
the
two
triangles
EDA
and
ECB,
which
he
has
already
proved
congruent
(F56-F61).
Figure
3
shows
a
diagrammatic
analysis
of
the
process
with
perceived
geometric
objects
in
bold
lines
and
the
rest
of
the
diagram--the
background--in
broken
lines.
The
subject quickly
completed
the
correct
solution.
Case
3:
Hint-driven restructuring.
S2
attempted
Problem
2
(see
Figure
4)
after
having
learned
the
five
theorems
in
Table
1,
plus
four
others.
She
decided
to
prove
triangles
AED
and
BEG
congruent
and
quickly
reached an
impasse.
The
protocol
excerpt
in
Table
4
begins
Table
4.
Protocol
excerpt
from
Subject
S2.
(What
other
triangles
could
be
congruent?)
F109.
what others
Fl10
could
there
be
others
which
are congruent
F1ll.
huh
(That
could
be.
You
have
now
been
working
the
hypothesis
that
the
whole
point
is to
prove
that
those
two
triangles
[AED,
BEG]
are congruent.)
F112.
yes
(And
just
now
you
reached
the
conclusion
that
you
cannot
do
that
with
the
information
you
have.
Can
you
find
two
other
triangles
which
one
can
find
which
one
could
believe
could
be
congruent?)
F113.
congruent
exactly
alike
F114.
no
that
is
impossible
there
are
no
others
F115.
it
cannot
be
F116.
there
are
only
one
other
F117.
also
hypothetically
then
this
line
here
F118.
then
there
are
two
here
F119.
and
those
two
here
can
surely
never
be
congruent
F120.
these
two
here
can
surely
never
be
congruent
F121.
no
I
do
not
understand
that
F122.
but
F123.
now
I
see
it
F124.
I
have
forgotten
this
one
here
[AGB
or
BDA]
May
KUL-90-04
1990
OhIsson
Restructuring
in
Geometry
% %
% IU
%
% %%%4.
I Ir
a4. a I I
* 0
O
hisson
10
Restructuring
in
Geometry
when
the
experimenter
gives
her
the
hint
that
there
are
other
pairs
of
triangles
in
the
figure
that
might
be
congruent.
She
first
rejects
this
suggestion
(F113-F115).
She
then
runs
through
the
triangles
in
the
figure
(F113-F121),
and
concludes
that
there
are
no
other
congruent
triangles
in
the
figure
(F121).
She
then
suddenly
sees
the
triangles
AEG
and
BDA
(F123-F124).
Figure
5
shows
a
diagrammatic analysis
of
the
process
with
perceived
geometric
objects
drawn
in
bold
lines
and
the
rest
of
the
diagram
drawn
in
broken
lines.
In spite
of
this
restructuring,
the
subject
failed
to
solve
the
problem.
Discussion
The
restructuring
process
revealed
in
these
three
protocol
excerpts consists
in
re-encoding
the
given
figure.
The
diagram--the
set
of
lines
on
the
paper--contains
within
it
a
large
number
of
different
geometric
objects
(angles,
sides,
triangles,
etc.).
Only
some
of
those
geometric
objects
are
perceived
at
any
one
time.
The
others
recede
into
the background.
In
particular,
if
a
line
configuration
is
perceived
in
one
way,
then
alternative
encodings of
that
same
line
configuration
recede
into
the
background.
Restructuring
consists
of
switching
to
one
of
the
alternative
encodings.
How
does
the
switching
mechanism
work?
The
data
suggest
that
re-encoding is
done
by
re-parsing
the diagram.
During
initial
problem perception
complex
objects
(e.
g.,
triangles)
are
constructed
out
of
simpler
objects
(e.
g.,
lines).
This
process
is
a
search
through
a
description
space
(Ohlsson,
1984b).
Alternative
interpretations
of
the
perceptual information
are
possible,
so
some
choices
are
made,
resulting
in
a
particular
encoding
of
the
given
diagram.
When
an
impasse
forces
the
problem
solver
to
re-encode
the
problem, he/she
backs
up
in
the
description
space,
dismantles
his/her
previous encoding, and
traverses another
path through
the description
space.
This
process
breaks
an
impasse
by
allowing
other
operators
(geometric
theorems)
to
apply
to
the
current
state.
Restructuring
is
a
rare
event:
There
was
approximately
one
restructuring
event
per
hour
of
problem
solving
effort
in
the
present
study.
Restructuring
does
not
necessarily
lead
to
insight:
In
two
of
the
three
excerpts
presented
above,
the
subject
failed
to
solve
the
problem.
This
study
supports
the
idea
that
diagram
parsing
is
central
in
geometry
(Koedinger
&
Anderson, in
press),
but
the
validity
of
the re-parsing
mechanism
for
other
domains
than
geometry
remains
an
open
question.
For example,
a different mechanism
seems
to
be
responsible
for
re-encoding
of
the
Mutilated
Checker
Board
Problem
(Kaplan
&
Simon, in
press).
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohlsson
11
Restructuring
in
Geometry
References
Amarel,
S.
(1968).
On
representations
of
problems
of
reasoning about
actions. In
D.
Michie (Ed.),
Machine intelligence.
Vol
3.
(pp. 131-171).
Edinburgh,
UK:
Edinburgh
University
Press.
Anderson,
J.
R.
(1981).
Tuning
of
search
of
the
problem
space
for
geometry
proofs.
Proceedings
of
the
Seventh
International
Joint
Conference
on
Artificial
Intelligence
(pp.
165-170).
Vancouver,
Canada:
University
of
British
Columbia.
Greeno,
J.
G.,
&
Berger,
D.
(1987).
A
model
of
functional
knowledge
and
insight
(Technical
Report
No. GK-1).
Berkeley,
CA:
University
of
California.
Kaplan,
C.
A.
&
Simon,
H.
A.
(in
press).
In
search
of
insight.
Cognitive
Psychology.
Keane,
M.
(1988).
Analogical
problem
solving.
New
York,
NY:
Wiley.
Koedinger,
K.
R.
&
Anderson,
J.
R.
(in
press).
Abstract
planning
and
perceptual
chunks:
Elements
of
expertise
in geometry.
Cognitive
Science.
Korf,
R.
E.
(1985).
Learning
to
solve
problems
by
searching
for
macro-operators.
Marshfield,
MA:
Pittman.
Langley,
P.
&
Jones,
R.
(1988).
A
computational
model
of
scientific
insight.
In
R.
J.
Sternberg
(Ed.),
The
nature of
creativity.
Contemporary psychological
perspectives
(pp. 177-201).
Cambridge,
MA:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Montgomery,
H.
(1988).
Mental
models
and
problem
solving:
Three
challenges
to
a
theory
of
restructuring
and
insight.
Scandinavian
Journal
of
Psychology,
29,
85-94.
Newell,
A. &
Simon,
H.
A.
(1972).
Human
problem
solving.
Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ohlsson,
S.
(1984a).
Restructuring
revisisted.
I.
Summary
and
critique
of
the
Gestalt
theory
of
problem
solving.
Scandinavian
Journal
of
Psychology,
25,
65-78.
Ohlsson,
S.
(1984b).
Restructuring
revisited.
II.
An
information
processing
theory
of
restructuring
and
insight.
Scandinavian
Journal
of
Psychology,
25,
117-129.
Simon,
H. A.
(1966).
Scientific
discovery
and
the
psychology
of
problem
solving.
In
Mind
and
cosmos:
Essays
in
contemporary
science
and
philosophy.
Vol.
III.
(pp.
22-40).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
University
of
Pittsburgh.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohisson
12
Restructuring
in
Geometry
KUL
Reports
1985
Ohlsson,
S.,
&
Langley,
P.
(April,
1985).
Psychological
evaluation
of
path
hypotheses
in
cognitive
diagnosis
(Technical
Report
No.
1985/2).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
1986
Ohlsson,
S.
(January,
1986).
Some
principles
of intelligent
tutoring
(Technical
Report
No.
1986/2).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(June,
1986).
Computer
simulation
and
its
impact
on
educational
research
and
practice
(Technical
Report
No.
1986/14).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(October,
1986).
Sense
and
reference
in
the
design
of
interactive
illustrations
for
rational
numbers
(Technical
Report
No.
1986/18).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
1987
Ohlsson,
S.
(April,
1987).
A
semantics
for
fraction
concepts (Technical Report
No.
KUL-87-01).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(September,
1987).
Trace
analysis
and
spatial
reasoning:
An
example
of
intensive
cognitive
diagnosis
and
its
implications
for
testing
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-87-02).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohisson,
S.,
Nicholas,
S.,
&
Bee,
N.
(December,
1987).
Interactive
illustrations
for
fractions:
A
progress
report
(Technical
Report
No. KUL-87-03).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.,
&
Rees,
E.
(December,
1987).
Rational
learning: Deriving
arithmetic
procedures
from
state
constraints
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-87-04).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Ohlsson
13
Restructuring
in
Geometry
1988
Ohlsson,
S.
(February,
1988).
Mathematical meaning
and
applicational
meaning
in
the
semantics
for
fractions
and
related
concepts
(Technical Report
No.
KUL-88-01).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(March,
1988).
Principled
understanding
of
subtraction
with
regrouping:
A
mathematical
analysis
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-88-02).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.,
&
Rees,
E.
(August,
1988).
An
information
processing
analysis
of
conceptual
understanding
in
the
learning
of
arithmetic
procedures
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-88-03).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(December,
1988).
Towards
intelligent
tutoring
systems
that
teach
knowledge
rather
than
skills:
Five
research
questions
(Technical Report
No.
KUL-88-04).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
1989
Ohlsson,
S.
(January,
1989).
Knowledge
requirements
for
teaching:
The
case
of
fractions
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-89-01).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(April,
1989).
Cognitive
science
and
instruction:
Why
the
revolution
is
not
here (yet)
(Technical Report
No.
KUL-89-02).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
Robin,
S.,
&
Ohlsson,
S.
(August,
1989).
Impetus
than
and
now:
A
detailed
comparison
between
Jean
Buridan
and
a
single
contemporary
subject
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-89-03).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.
(Ed.),
(October,
1988).
Aspects
of
cognitive conflict
and
cognitive
change
(Technical Report
No.
KUL-89-04).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
Leinhardt,
G.,
&
Ohlsson,
S.
(November,
1989).
Tutorials
on the
structure
of
tutoring
from teachers
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-89-05).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
OhIsson
14
Restructuring
in
Geometry
Ernst,
A.,
&
OhIsson,
S.
(December,
1989).
The
cognitive
complexity
of
the
regrouping
and
augmenting
algorithms
for
subtraction:
A
theoretical
analysis
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-89-06).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
1990
Ohisson,
S.,
&
Rees,
E.
(January,
1990).
Adaptive
search
through
constraint
violations.
(Technical Report
No.
KUL-90-01).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center,
University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.,
&
Hall,
N.
(February,
1990).
The
cognitive
function
of
embodiments
in
mathematics
instruction
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-90-02).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
Ohlsson,
S.,
&
Rees,
E.
(March,
1990).
Comparative
evaluation
of
knowledge-based
simulation
models
of
procedural
learning
(Technical
Report
No. KUL-90-03).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
OhIsson,
S.
(May,
1990).
The
mechanism
of restructuring
in
geometry
(Technical
Report
No.
KUL-90-04).
Pittsburgh,
PA:
Learning
Research
and
Development
Center, University
of
Pittsburgh.
May
KUL-90-04
1990
Distribution
LAt
ML.
baa
B.
Achdle
Dr.
Meryl
S.
Baker
Dr.
Jaime
G.
Carbonell
Code
5530
Navy
Personnel
R&D
Center
Computer
Science
Department
Nava
Reserc
Lab
San
Diego.
CA
92152-6800
Carnegie-Mellon
University
Overlook
Drive
hdenly Part
Washington,
DC
20375-5000
proC
doutL
Brunoi
G.
Bars
Pittsburgh,
PA
15213
Units
di
noices di
Dr.
Edith
Ackcrsnn
intelligenza
artiticisle
Dr.
Gail
Carpenter
Media
Laboratory
Univeraita
di
Milano
Center
for
Adaptive
System
EIS-311
20122
Milano
-
via
F. Storms 23 111
Cummington
St-.
Room
244
20
Ames Street
IT~ALY
Boston
University
Cambridge.
MA
02139
Boston.
MA
02215
Dr.
Jonathan
Baron
Dr.
Beth
Adelaon
80
Glenn Avenue
Dr.
John
M.
Carroll
Department
of
Computer
Science
Berwsyn.
PA
19312
IBM
Watson
Research
Center
Tufts
University
Usaer
Interface Institute
Medford.
MA
02155
Dr.
Gauts.
Biewas
P.O.
Box
704
Department
of
Computer
Science
Yorktown
Heights.
NY
10598
Technical
Document
Center
Box
168&~
Ststion
B
AFHRLJLRS-TDC
Vanderbilt University
Dr.
Ruth
W.
Chabay
Wrighit-Patterson
AFB
Nuahrille. TN
37235
CDEC,
Hamburg
Hall
OH
45Q4336M
Carnegie
Mellon
University
Dr.
John
Black
Pittaburgh,
PA
15213
Dr.
Robert
Ahlera
Teaicher
College
Box
8
Code
N711
Columbia
University
Dr.
Fred
Chang
Human
Factors Laboratory
525
West
120th
Street
Pacific
Bell
N"va
Training
Systems
Center
New
York,
NY
10027
2600
Cammno
Prtmon
Orlando.
Fl
32813
Room
3S-450
Dr.
Michael
Blackburn
San
Rain
CA
94583
Dr.
Robert
M.
Aiken
Code
943
Cocmputer
Science
Department
Naval
Ocean
Systems
Center
Dr.
DrAvda
Charney
038-24
San
Diel,
CA
92152-5000
English
Department
Temple
University
Penn State
Universty
Philadelpia.s
PA
P%=2
Dr.
Arthur
S.
Blaiwea
University
Part
PA
16802
Code
N712
Mr.
Tejaisb
S.
Anand
Naval
Training
System
Center
Mrs.
Ole
Clarke
Philips
Laboratories
Orlando.
FL
32813-7100 818
South George
Maon
Drive
345
Scarborough
Road
Arlington,
VA
22204
Briarliff
Manor
Dr. Deborah
A.
Boehm-Davi
New
York.
NY
0520
Department
of
Psycholog
Dr.
Norman
Cliff
George
Mason
University
Department
of Psychology
Dr.
James
Anderson
4400
Universty
Drive
Univ.
Of SO.
California
Brown
University
Fairfax
VA
22030
Los
Angeles,
CA
0061061
Department
of
Psychology
Providence,
RI
02912
Dr.
Sue
Bogner Dr.
Stanley
Collyer
Army
Research
Institute
Office
of
Na"a
Technology
Dr.
John
R.
Andersosn
ATTN: PERI-SF
code
m2
Deparmn
of
PsycloUr
5001
Eisenhower
Avenue
800
N.
Quincy
Street
Carnegie-Mellon
University
Aimsandria.
VA
22333.5%M
Arlington,
VA
2217-50M0
Schenley
Part
Pittsburgh,
PA
15213
Dr.
Jeff Boner
Dr.
Jere
Confrey
Guidance
Technology.
Inc.
Cornell
University
Dr.
Thomas
H.
Anderson
800
Vinial
Stree
Dept.
of
Education
Center
for
the
Study
cW
Reading
Pitsu~rgh,
PA
15212
Room
490
Robeirts
174
Children's
Reseach
Center
Ithaca,
NY
14853
SI
Gerry
Drive
Dr.
J. C.
Boudreaux
C~hampaign.
IL
61820
Center for
Manufacturing
Dr.
Lynn
A.
Cooper
Engineering
Department of Psychology
Dr.
Stephen
J.
Andiocle,
Chairman
National
Bureau
of
Standarde Columbia University
Department of
Information
System
Gaithersburg,
MD 2M89
New
York,
NY
10027
and
System.
Engineering
George
Mason
University
Dr.
Lyle E.
Bourne. Jr. Dr.
Meredith
P.
Craweford
4400
University
Drive
Department
of
Psychology
3563
Hamlet
Place
Fairfax.
VA
22030
Box
345
Chevy
Chase, MD
20815
University
of
Colorado
Prat
John Annett
Boulder,
CO
80309
Dr.
HamS F.
Ciostbag
Universt
of
Warwick
Faculty,
of
Law
Deparmn
of
P~molog
Dr. Hugh Burns
University
of Limburg
Coventry
CV4
7AL
Department of
English
P.O.
Box
616
ENGLAND
University
of
Tese
Maastricht
Amitin.
TX
7870
The
NETH-ERLANDS
6200
MD
Edward
Atkins
Code
61Z1210
Dr. Robert
Calfee
Dr.
Kenneth
B.
Cross
Na
soo
Sm
ysteim
command
School
of
EducOatio
Anaicapa
Scieno-
Inc.
Washington.
DC
20362-5101
Stanford
University
P.O.
Drawer
0
Stanford.
CA
9430
Santa
Barbara, CA
93102
Dr.
Paticiha
Bawit
School
of Education
Dr.
Joseph
C.
Campioine
Dr.
Cat
7
Caichon
610
E.
Unosensiy
Rn
1302D
Center
for
the
Study
of
Reading
Intelligent
Instructional
Systems
UNamy
of
Nilieligon
University of
Illinois
Texas
Instruments
Al
Lab
Ann
Arbor.
MI
491259
51
Gerry
Drive P.O.
Box
660246
Champaign.
IL
61820
Dallas,
TX
75266
Dr.
James
D.
Baker
Director
of
Automation
and
Research
Dr.
Joanne
Capper.
Director
Brian Dallman
Allen
Corporation
of
Amierca
Center
for
Research
into
Practice
Training Technology.
Branch
209
Madison
Strem
3W4
Albemane
Street.
NW
340
1THTWT1'GxC
Alossndiria. VA
22314
Washington
DC
2000
Lowry
AMR
CO
802-10-5000
liveaity
of
Plau~0~an05/29t9
Mr.
John
F.
Dealpin
Dr.
Debra
Evans
Dr.
Cadi F.
Frederikse
Chair.
Computer
Science
Dept.
Apiplied
Science
Associate.
Inc.
Dept.
of
Educational
Psychology
Towson
State
Utaveit
P.O0.
Bon )7
McGill
University
Baltimore, MD
21204
Butler.
PA
00
3700
Meravolh
Screw
Montreal.
Quebec
Margaret
Day.
LA-ia
Dr.
Lorrane
D. Eyde
CANADA
H3A
1Y2
Applied
Sciec
Associates
Oflice
of
Personnel
Managemet
P.O.
Box
1072
Office
of
Eimminetio
Develoipmenit
Dr.
Jobe
ft.
Frederiltam,
Butler. PA
NO00 1900 E
St..
NW
BBN
laboratories
Washington.
DC
20415 10
Moulton
Street
Goary
Delaccote
Cambid
MA
0223
Dirctor
de
L'inforumatiqiue
Dr.
Jean-Claude
Falmagne
Scienthue
it
Techniue
Irtaie
Resarchb
Unit
in
Dr.
Norman
RedorIkien
CNRS
Mathemsail
A
Behavioral
Sciences
Educational
Teting
Service
1S,
Quo
Anatole
France,
University
Of
CalOifoni
(05-R)
75700
Paris
FRANCE
Irvine,
CA
9277 Princton.
NJ
08541
Dr.
Denise
Delaerom
Dr.
Beatrice
J.
Faur
Department
of
Humanitins
and
Paycholoff
Deparmn
Army
Research
Instite
social
Sciences
BM
a .
Yale Station
PERI-IC
Harvey
Mudd College
Yale
Uiveray
5001
Eisenhomvr
Avenue
Claremont.
CA
91711
New
Kavem
CF
06520-7447
Alemindria,
VA
2233
Dr
A"fe
R.
Fre*y
Dr.
Slairon
Dorm
Dr.
MarshailJ.
Parr,
Consultant
APOSRJNl
Bldg.
410
Flori"
sumt
Univeraity
Cognitive
a
Instructional
Sciencea
Boiling
AFB.
DC
20332-6448
Deparmn
of
Paycholog
2520
North
Vernon
Street
Tallahassee,
FL
32306
Arlington.
VA
Z127
Dr.
Afitida
Friedman
Deparmn
of
Paycholov
Dr.
Thomas
2.
DeZern
Dr.
P-A. Federico
Univerasity
of
Alberta
Proeat
Engineer.
Al
code
51
Edmonton.
Alberta
General
Dynamics
NPRDC
CANADA
T6G
2E9
PO
Box
74&(Mail
Zone
2646
San
Diego,
CA
92152-610
Fort
Worth. TX
76101
Dr.
Michel
Friendly
Dr.
Jerome
A.
Feldman
Psychology
Deparmn
Dr.
Ronm
Dillon
University
of
Rocheater
Yorit
Univerasity
Department
of
Guiduto
and
Computer
Science
Department
Toronto
ONT
Educational
Psychologr Rochester,
NY
14627
CANADA
M3J
11 3
Southern
Illinois
Univeraity
Carbondale,
IL
62901
Dr.
Pad
Feltneich
Col.
Dr.
Ernst
Frue
Southern
Illinois
University
--
er
--
pey
--
logu--e
Dienet
Dr.
J.
Stur
Dom,
School
of
Medicine
Mar.s
Tereamen-Kaserne
Faculty
of
Education Medical Education
Depat'tment
1130
Wien
UnAsmisy
of
British
Columbia
PROL
Box
3926
AUSTIRIA
21±1
Main Mall
Sprianhedd.
IL
6270
Vancouver.
BC
CANADA
WI'
1Z5
Dr. Robert
M.
Gagne
Dr.
Elizabeth
Fennem
1456
Mitchell
Avenue
Defense
Technical
Curriculum
andl
Instuuction
Tallahassee,
FL
32303
Information
Center
Univeraqt
of
Waconsin
Cameron
Station.
Bldg
5 225
North
Milk
Stree
Dr.
C.
Lee
Giles
Alexandria,
VA
22314
Madeon. WI
53706
AFOSR/NE.
Bldg.
410
(2 COPie)
Boiling
AF8
CAPT
J. Fmnelli
Wasington.
DC
20332
Dr.
Pioen
Duguet
Commanidant
(G.PTE)
Organiatio
for
Economic
US.
Coast
Guard
Dr.
Pbilip
Gills
Cooperto
andl
Developmen
2100)
Second
St..
SW.
ARI.Fort
Gordon
2rue
Andre.Pail
Waehington.
DC
20593
ATTN:
PERI.ICD
75016
PARIS
Fort
Gordon.
GA
30905
FRANCE
Prod.
Donald
Fagitzead
Univeraity
of
Now
England
Mr.
Lse
Gladinn
Dr.
Ralph
Dutek
Depiitment
of
Psyrholog
305
Davis
Avenue
V.P
Human
Factors
Arejidale.
Now
South
Wake
2351
Lembiur
VA
MMP7
IlL,
syateum
AUSTRALIA
1225
Jellerion
Davis Hwy.
Dr. Robert
Glaser
Suite
1209 Mr
Michael
Flanigm
Learning
Resarch
Arlington.
VA
ZZZ
Code
52 A
Developenrt
Center
NPRDC
Ulniveraity
of
Pittsburgh
Dr.
John
Eli
San Die@%
CA
92152.6100)
3939
O'Har
Street
Navy
Person-e
R&D
Center
Pittsburgha,
PA
13260
Coda
51
Dr.J.D.
Pletcher
San
Dkqpk
CA
9W22
Institute
for
Defense
Analysms
Dr.
Marvin
D.
Gloclt
11111 N.
Beauriegard
St. 101
Hommstead
Terrace
Dr.
Sum
Elatmn
Alhxmka
VA
22311
Ithaca
NY
14856
144
S
Mountain
Avenue
Montlir
NJ
00C
Dr.
8ennoh
0.
Forte.
Dr.
Dwighit
3.
Goering
Uniaierity
of
Illo
ARI
Field
Unit
ERIC
Padity-Acqui-ii
DePartment
of
Coimputr
Scienc
P.O.
Box
5717
2440
Reaearch
Blvd.
Suite
550 a 1309
West
Spmrinel
Avowat
Presidio,
of
Monterey.
CA
939W45011
Roibt.
MID
20850323
Urbant
IL
61801
Dr.
Joseph
Gogue
Dr.
L.
Anders
Erlcaao
Dr.
Barbara
A.
Fox
Computer
Scinc
Laboratory
U
"versity
of
Coilorado
Univeraity
of
Colorado
SRI
International
Departmenit
of
Paydiology Department
of
Unpistics
333
Ravensw'ood
Avenue
Campo.
Box
345
Boulder,
CO
8030
Menlo,
Patk.
CA
9402
Boulder.
CO
OW063
University
Of
PitabU1*1JAhlsaon
05r9?90
Mr.
Richard Golden Dr.
Wayne Harvey
Mr.
Roland
Jones
PaycholoVi
Department
Center
for
LeAarning
Technology
Mitre
Corp,.
K-203
Stanford
University
Education
Development
Center
Burlington
Road
Stanford.
CA
943M 55
Chapel
Street
Bedford.
MA
01730
Newton.
MA
02160
Mr.
Harold
Goldmans
Dr.
Marvel
lust
Universty
of
DC
Dr.
Barbers
Hayes-Rotb
Camnege-Mellon
University
Department
Civil
Engieering
Knowledge
Systems
Laboratory
Department
of
Paychology
Bldg
42Z
Room
U2
Stanfordi
University
Scheiq
Park
4200
Czanectics* Avenue,
N.W.
701
Wtch
Road
Pittsburgh,
PA
15213
Washaigon
DC
2DW000d
Alto
CA
94304Dr A
Kne
Dr.
Sberi* Gott
Dr.
Freda%*k
HayesRoth
University
of
Minnesota
AFHRIJMOMJ
Teitnasledge
Deparmn of
PsyctIoo
Brooks
AFB.
TX
7W25-5601
P.O.
BOX
10119
Elliott
Haill
1850
Emb'adere
Rd.
75 E.
River
Rood
Dr.
T.
Govwianduj
Palo
Akc,
CA
943(0
Minneapoli, MN
55455
Georgia
Institute
of
Technolog
Dr.
James Hendler
Dr.
Michael
Kaplan
School
of
Industrial
Dept.
of
Computr
Science
Office
of
Basic
Research
aid
S*-ms
Engieering
Univemcty
of Maryland
U.S
Army
Research
Institute
Atlanta.
GA.30&V32W
College
Purt.
MD
20742 5001
Pisenhower
Avenue
Akwdnla,
VA
22333-5600
Dr.
Wayne
Gray Dr.
lames
Hiebert
Artifcil
Intelligene
Laboratory
Department
of
Educational
Dr. A.
KarmilofY-Smith
NYNEX
Development
MRC-CDU
500
Westchester
Avenue
Universit
of
Delaware
17
Gordon
Straet
White
muama
NY
10604
Newark.
DE
19716
London
H.
Willsam
Greenup
Dr.
Geoffrey
Hinton
EGADW
l
A
Dep
Amut
CiS.
Inamictional
Computer
Science
Department
Dr.
Milto
S.
Kaui
Management
(EO3A)
University
of
Toronto
European
Science
Coordination
Education
Center.
MCCDC
Sandford
Fleming
Building
Office
Quantico.
VA
22134-5050
10
King*& College
Road
U.
Army
Research
Institute
Toronto.
Ontario
MSS
LA4
CANADA
Box
65
Dr.
Dik
Gregory
FPO
New
York
09510-L500
Admiralty
Reaearch
Dr.
lames
E.
Hoffman
Eaeablisbment/Aj(B
Department
of
Psycholog
Dr.
Frank
Keil
Queens
Road
University
of
Delaware Departmenit
of
Psychology
Teddington
Newark.
DE
19711 22
Urn
Hall
Mkddlesm
ENGLAND
TI11OLN
Cornell
University
Dr.
Kalbh
3Io~ycik
Ithaca
NY
14850
Dr.
Stephen
Grouberg
Department
of Paycholog
Camte
(or
Adaptive
Syteme
Universty
of
California
Dr.
Wend
Kellogg
Room
244
Los
Angeles
CA
90024
IBM
T.
J.
Watson
Research
Ctr.
III
Cummington
Stuve
P.O.
Box
704
Boston
University
ML.
Julia
S
Hough
Yorktown
Heighta,
NY
10598
Boston.
MA
02213
Cambridge
University
Press
40
West
2Oth
Street
Dr.
Douglas
Kelly
Michael
Habon New
York
NY
10011
Unpivesity
of
North
Carolina
DORNIER
GMBH
Department
of
Statiatics
P.O.
Box
1420
Dr. William
Hosl
Chapel
Hill.
NC
27514
D-7990
Friedr
daen
I
Chief
Scientist
WVEST
GERMANY
AFHRUCA
Dr.
David
Kieras
D He M.HlfBrooks
AFB,
TX
73235.5601
Technical
Communication
Program
Dr.
Heney I.
Half
TDAL
Bldg.,
2360
Bonesee
BKLvd
Halff
Resources.
Inc.
Dr.
Steven
Hunka
Universty
of
Michigan
4918 33rd
RAd"
North
3.104
Educ,
N.
Ann
Arbor.
MI
48109L2106
Atlingoon
VA
ZZ27
Univesit
of
Alberta
Edmonton.
Alberta
Dr.
thomas
Killion
Mr.
H.
Hamburger
CANADA
T6G
205
AFHR~jOT
Department
of
Computer,
Scienc
Willisasi
APB,
AZ
85240.6457
George Mason
Universit
Dr.
loa
Hunter
Fairfax
VA
22M
2122
Coolidge
Street
Dr.
Jeremy
Kilpatrick
Lansing,
MI
4890
Department
of
Dr.
Bruce
W.
Hamill
Mathematica
Education
Reseach
Center
Dr. Bonnie
E.
John
105
Adehold
Hall
The
lohns
Hopkis
Universit
Wean
Hall
8124
University
of
Georgia
Applied
Physics
.Ahorstory
Departen
of Computer
Science
Athens
GA
30602
Johns
Hopkins
Road
Carneire
Mellon University
Laurel
MD
2M10
Pittsburgh,
PA
15213
Dr.
J.
Peter
Kincaid
Army
Research
Institute
Dr.
Patrick
R. Harito
Dr.
Daiel
B.
Jones
Orlando
Field
Unit
Computer
Sio-
Deparmn
U.S
Nuclear
Regulatory
cdo
PM
TRADE-P
U.&
Nava
Aesd"m
Comm"=iso
Orlando.
FL
32813
Annepolis.
MD
21402-5002
NRRJ1LRB
Wasington.
DC
2855
Dr. Walter
Kintach
Janie
Hat
Departen
of
Psycholog
Office
of
the
Chief
Mr.
Paul
L
Jones
University of
Colorado
of
Nava
Operations
Research
Division Boulder.
CO
80309-0345
OP.11112
Chief
of
Nava
Technical
Training
Dapartassant
of
the Navy
Building
Pam.I
Dr.
Ale.
Kirlkt
Washbington.
D.C.
20350.200
Nava
Air
Station
Mempis
Geora
Institute
of
Millington.
IN4 360545056i
Technology
Center
for
Human-Machitne
Systes
Research
Atlanta,
GA
30332-020
Unitversity
of
Plizebc~tbhown
0529M
Dr.
Janest L
Kolodner Dr.
Marcoa
C. Limn
Dr.
.
Mkbie
GJeorgia
Institute
01
Technology
Graduate
School
The
Turing
Institute
Sc
Oolf
looatica
of
Education.
EMS!'
George
House
&Computer
Science
Tolman
Hall
36 Noth
Hanover
Street
Adlao"
GA
30M3
University
of
Cadafoem
Glasgow
G
I
2AD
Berkeley,
CA
94720
UNITED KINGDOM
Dr.
Stephen
Kosl1
Harvard
Univerit
Dr.
Robet
Ucyd
Dr.
Vittorio
Midoro
1fl6
William
James
HAR
Dept.
of
Geography
CNR-IstWuO
Torolope
Didattucbe
33
Kirklad
St.
University
01
South Carolina Via
All
Vper
Pia 11
Cambridge.
MA
02138
Colanbia.
SC
2920
GENOVA-ITAUA
16145
Dr.
Kennseth
Kaovosky
Dr.
Jackt
Lodihead
Dr.
James
R.
Miller
Commuiaty
College
01(
University
01
MCC
Allegheny
Count.y
Musadiusetas
3500
w.
Baboones
Cente-
Dr.
RSidge
Avenue
Physics
Doertmn
Astin.
TX
7M79
Pittabwgb, PA
t5212
Amherst.
MA
01003DrJaoMiln
Dr.
Keith
Kramer
Vent
M.
Malec
Department
o1
Education
HO
Lab.
Code
5530
NPRDC.
Code
52
Roberts
Haog
Novel
Research
Laboratory
Son Diegom
CA
92152-6800
Cornell
Univaty
4445
Overlook
Avenue
Ithaca
NY
14853
Washingon.
DC
201375-500
Dr.
William
L.
Malay
Code
04
Dr.
Chroombe M.
Mitchell
Dr.
Gary
Kress
NETPMSA
School
01
Indus.
and
Sys.
Eng.
628
Spazier
Avenue
Penasoola.
FL
32509-500
Center
for
Man-Machine
Pacific
Grove.
CA
93950 Systems
Research
Dr.
Mary
Marlino
Georpa Institute
of
Technology
Dr.
LowaAim
Kuntz
Director.
Educational
Technology Atlanta.
GA
30532-020
3010
S.W.
23rd
Terrace
HO, USAFA/DFTE
Apt.
No,
00
USAF
Academy,
CO
8084-500
Dr.
Andrew
R.
Moinar
Gainesville,
FL
32608
Applic.
01
Advanced
Technology
Dr.
Sandra
P.
Marshall
Science
and
Engr.
Education
Dr.
David
R. L.Ambork
Dept.
01
Psychology
National
Science
Foundation
Naval
Ocon
Sysem
Center
San
Diego
State
University
Washington.
DC
20550
Code
7n2
Sa
Diego,
CA
92182
271
Catalina
Boulevard
Dr. William Montague
San
Diego,
CA
92152-5000
Dr.
John H.
Mason
NPRDC
Code
13
Centre
for
Maths Education
San
Diego
CA
921526800
Dr.
Pat
Langley
Mathematica
Faculty
NASA
Atm
Research
Ci,.
Open
University
Dr.
Melvin
D.
Montemerlo
Moffett
Field
CA 9405
Milton
Keynes
MK7
6AA
NASA
Headquarters
UNITED
KINGDOM
Code
RC
Dr.
Robert
W.
Lawler
Washington.
DC
2054
Matthews
118
Dr.
Manton
M.
MattieAn
Purdue
University
Department
01 Com~p-
Scinc
Prof-
John
Moton
West Lafayette.
IN
47907
Univesity
01
South
Carolina
MRC
Cognitve
Columbia,
SC
2920
Development
Unit
Dr.
Eugene
Lea
17
Gordon
Scroet
Naval
postgraduate School
Dr.
Richard
E
Moyer
London
WCIH OAH
Monterey. CA
93943-5M26
Department
01
Psychology
UNITED)
KINGDOM
University
01
Califrnia
Dr.
Yub-Jeng
Lee
Santa
Barbara,
CA
93106
Dr.
Allen
Munro
Department
01
ComPue
Scinc
Behavioral
Technology
Code
521.
Dr.
David
J.
McGinness
Laboratories
-
USC
Naval Postgraduate
School
Gallaudec
Universty
250 N.
Harbor
Dr.
Suite
309
Montere,
CA
93043 800
Florida Avenue.
NE
Redondo
Beach
CA
90277
Dr.
All
P. LehmanWsbngmDC M
Dr.
Wllisom
R.
Murray
School
01
Computer
Science
Dr.
Joseph C.
McLachlan FMC
Corporation
Carnege
Mellon
Univmusty
Code
52
Central Engineering
Labs
Pittsburgh, PA
15213-3890
Navy
persone
R&D
Center
1205
Coleman
Avenue
San
Diego.
CA
92152-6800
Box
580
Dr.
Ji
Levin
Santa
Olars.
CA
95002
Department
01
Dr.
Douglas
L
Media
Educational
Psyholog
Department
01
Psychology
Cair.
Department
01
Weapons
and
210
Edacton Bilding
Universty o
Mthign
Systems
Engieering
1310
South
Sixth
Stre Amn
Arbor,
MI
48109
US
Naval
Acoamy
Caep@igt
IL
6182049Mr90il
emk
Annapolis,
MD
21402
Dr.
John
Le9vMn
Foravarees
Canter
for
Ledertlab
Dr.
T.
NWbet
Leaning
R&D
Canter
chruiuhavns
Voape
6
The
Turing
Institute,
Uniest
041"o Ptzabusar 1424
Kobanhavn
K
George
House
Ploasbtagl
PA
1520
DENMAR
36
North
Hanover
Street
Glosgow
G1
2AD
Matu Loam
Dr.
Arthur
Melmed
UNITED
KINGDOM
Deparmn
01
Psychology
Computer
Arts
and
CaWrgie-Melon
Univert&y
Edutcatio
Laboratory
Library.
NPRDC
Pleatgsl
PA
15213
New
York
University
Code
10291L.
719
Broadway.
12Lb
floor
Sen
Diego,
CA
921524800
Or.
Doria
K.
Luke
New
York.
NY
O00
Sothwae
Productvity
Consortium Librarian
ISI Campu
Commoe,
Drive
North
Dr.
Jone
Mestre
Naval
Center
for
Applied Research
Resin.
VA
2209
Department
o1
Plyioca
in
Atificial
Intelligence
Hashrouck
Laboratr
Naval
Research
Laboratory
University,
01
Massachusetts Code
5510
Amherst.
MA
01003
Washingon
DC
20754M00
Univrity
of
Pinurimotbisson
05/29/"0
Dr.
Herold
F.
O?4ed
Jr.
Dept.
of
Administrative
Sciences
Dr. Linda
0.
Roberts
School
of
Education
-
WPH
801 Code 54
Science.
Education,
and
Depatment
of
Educational
Naval
Postgraduate
School
Transportation
Program
Psycholog
A
Technology
Mon"ey
CA
"0943-5026
Office
of
Technology
Assessment
University
of
Southern
California
Congress
of
the
United
States
Loo
Angeles.
CA
9008W.00I
Dr.
Peter
Pitchi
Washington.
DC
M010
School
of
Education
Dr.
Paul
Oltorke
University
of
California
Dr.
Ernst
Z.
Rothkopf
Infenintion
&
computer
Science
Berkeley,
CA
94720
AT&T
Bell
Laboratories
University
of
Caliornia.
Irvine,
Room
ZD-456
Irvine,
CA
92717
Prot
Tomiaso Poggio
600
Mountain
Avenue
Massachusetts
Instiute
Murray
Hill.
NJ
0394
Dr.
Stati
Ohission
of
Techology
E25-201
Learnig
Rt
A
D
Center
Center
for
Biological
Dr.
Alan
H.
Schoenfeld
Uniiversity
of
Pittsburgh
Information
Processing
University
of
California
Pitiasbiargl,
PA
15260
Cambridge
MA
02139
Department
of
Education
Berkeley,
CA
94720
Dr.
James, B.
Olaw
Dr.
Pete
Poison
WICAT
Systsa
University
of
Colorado,
Losell
Schoer
1875
South
Stae
Street
Deprten
of
Psycholog
Pschological
A
Quantitative
Orem
UT
8400
Boulder CO
8030904W
Foundations
College
of
Education
Dr.
Gary
M.
Olson Dr.
Steven
E.
PoltrockL
University
Of
Iowa
Cognitive
Science
and
Boeing
Advanced
Technology Center
Ioas
City
LA 52242
Machine
Intelligenice Lab. PO
Box
24346
rn/a
7L-64
University
of
Michigan
Seattle,
WA
98124
Dr.
Janet
W.
Scho~wld
701
Tappani
Street
816
LRDC
Building
Ann Arbor, MI
491234
Dr.
Joseph
Psocka
University
of
Pittsburgh
ATTN:
PERI-IC
3939
O'Hara
Street
Dr.
Judith
Reitman
Olso
Army
Resarch
Institute
Pittsburgh.
PA
15260
Graduate
School
of
Businesa
5001
Eiaenhower
Ave.
University
of
Michigan
Alendria.
VA
2233-560
Dr.
Key
Schulze
Ann
Arbor.
MI
48109I234
Computer
Science
Dept
Mr.
Paul
SI
Rau
U1.S.
Naval
Academy
Office
of
Naval
Research. Code
U1-33
Annapolis.
MD
21402-5018
Code
1142CS
Naval
Surface
Weapons
Center
S00
N.
Quincy,
Stree
White Oak
Laboratory
Dr.
Miriam
Schissack;
Arlinpton.
VA
221750100
Silver
Spring
MD
20911
Code
52
(6
COPie)
Navy Personnel
R
a
D
Center
Dr.
James
A.
Regga
San
Diego,
CA
92152-6800
Dr.
Judith
Oraaao
University
of
Maryland
Basc
Rearch
Office
School
of
Medicine
Dr. Judith
W. Segal
Army ResarchInestitute
Department
of
Neurology
OERJ
5001
Eisenhower
Avenue
22
South
Greene Street
555
New Jersey
Ave,.
NW
Alendria.
VA
2Z333
Baltimore
MD
21201
Washington.,
DC
2M~
Dr.
lese
Orianaky
Dr.
J.
Wesley
Regian
Dr. Robert
J.
Seidel
Institute
for
Defense
Analse
AFHRL41DI
US
Army
Research
Institute
180M N.
Beauregard
St.
Brooks
AFB.
TX
78235 500
Eisenhower Ave.
Almenrdria.
VA
22311
Almandia, VA
22333
Dr.
Fred Reif
Dr.
Everett Palmer
Physica
Deparmet
Dr
Coleen M.
Seifert
Mail
Stop
2.39.3
University
of
California Institute
for
Cognitive
Science
NASA-Amws
Research
Center
Berkeley,
CA
94720
Mail Code
C-01S
Moffett
Field.
CA
94035
Univeraity
of
California.
San
Diego
Dr% Charles
M.
Reigeluth
La
Jolla.
CA
9209
Dr.
Okchoon
Park: 330
Huntington
Hall
Army
Research
Institute
Syracuse
University
Dr.
Michael
G.
Shafto
PERI.2
Syracuse.
NY
13244
NASA
Ames
Research
tr.
5001
Esenhwe
Avenue
Mail
Stop
239-1
Aleandrma.
VA
22333
Dr.
Daniel Reisberg
Moffet
Field
CA
94035
Reed
College
Dr.
Roy
Pea
Deparmet
of
Psychology
Mr.
Cohn Sheppard
Instituto
for
Rinac
Portland,
OR
97202
AXC2
Block:
3
on
Learning
Adwirality
Research
Establishment
2550
Haoe
Street
Dr.
Lauren
Resnick
Min"sr
of
Defence Portadown
Palo
Alto. CA
9430
Learning
R
A
D
Center
Poetsmouth
Hanta
PO64AA
University
of
Piuaburgh
UNITED
KINGDOM
Dr.
David
N.
Patina
3939
O'Haa
Street
Prose
Zero
Pittsburgh,. PA
15213
Dr.
Lee S.
Shulman
Harard
Graduate
School School
of
Llducaonr
of
Educastions
Dr.
J.
Jeffirey
Richardson
507
Ceaw
7
Appian
Way
Center
for
Applied
Al
Stanford University
Cambridge.
MA
02168 College
of
Busineaa
Stanford.
CA
94
-30904
University
of Colorado,
Dr.
C
Perrio.
Chair
Boulder.
CO
80309-0419
Dr.
Randall
Sbutnaker
Dep.
of
Payeholog
Naval
Resac
Laboratory
Morgan
Stats
University
Dr.
Edm
L
Risaland
Code
5510
Cold
Spring
LA-Kitteni
Rd.
Dept.
of
Computer
and
4555
Overlook
Avenue.
S.W.
Baltimora.
MD
21239
Information
Scence
Washington. DC
20375.5000
University
of
Maattea
Dr.
Nancy
N.
Perry
Amherst,
MA
01003
Dr.
Edward
Silver
Naval
Education
ond
Training
LROC
Prnga
Support
Activity
Mr.
William
A. Rizzo
University
of
Pittsburgh
Cod*447
Code
71 3939
O'Hara
Street
Buidng
243
Naval
Training
Systems
Center Pittsburgh.
PA
13260
Painoesioa. FL.
32509500
Orlando,
FL
32813
University
of
Ploaburgbohlaaon
05/29M9
Dr.
Herbert
A
Simori
Dr.
David
E. Suon
Dr.
Keth
T.
Wacout
Depmlen
of
Paydiolog
Computer
Teaching
Corporatio
FMC
Corporation
Carnelle-Mello
Univarit
1713
South
Neil Street
Central
Enginerig
Labe
Schenley
Part
Urbana.
IL
61820
12M
Colem
Ave-.
Box
580
Pilsbsx6
PA
15213
Saita
Clars.
CA
9562
Dr.
Patrick
Supes
Robert
L
Simpson.
Jr.
Stanford University
Dr.
Dougias Wetzel
DARPA/ISTO
Institute
for
Mathematical
code
51
1400
Wilson
Blvd.
Studies
in
the
Social
Sciences
Navy
Personne
R&D
Center
Arlington.
VA
ZZ99-2306 Stanford.
CA
94305-4115
Son
Diego
CA
92152-680
Dr.
Zito
M.
Simutla
Dr.
Perry
W.
Thorrodyke
Dr.
Barbara
White
Chief,
Techniologies
for
Skidl
FMC
Corporation
School
of
Education
Acqluiaition
and
Retention
Central
Ennarinwg
LAWa Tolmanr
Hat.
EMST
ARI
120S
Coleman Avenue.
Box
580
Uniest
of
California
5001
Eiseanhower
Avenue
Sant
Clama
CA
9%02
Berly
CA
947W0
Alexndria.
VA
22333
Dr.
Sharon
Tkaac
Dr.
David
Wilkinsa
Dr.
Derek
Sleean
Alaen
Corporation
University
of
Ilinos
Computing
Scinc
Deparmn
209
Madleon Stroet
Department
at
Comopu'r
Science
The
University
Alexndia,
VA
2Z314 1304
West
Springfield
Amnue
Abrde
ABf9
NX3
Urbana,
IL
61801
Scotland
Dr.
Dougas
Toames
UNITED
KINGDOM
Behavioral
Teclinolg
Labs
Dr.
Marsha
R.
Willian.s
University
of
Southern
California
Applic.
ot
Advanced!
Tedinologies
Me.
Gail
KC.
Slestnon 250 N.
Harbor
Dr..
Suite
309
National
Science
Foundation
LOCIICON. Inc. Redondo
Beach.
CA
90277
SEE/MDR]SE
P.O.
BOX
85158 800
G
Street.
N.W. Room
635-A
San
Diego.
CA
92138-5158
Major
D. D.
Tucker
Waahington.
DC
20550
HQMC.
Code
MA
Room
4023
Dr.
Edward
I.
Smth
Waahington,
DC
208
S.
R
Wilson
Depuian ot
Psychlog
Code
5505
University
of
Miduigen
Dr.
Paul
T.
TN'ohig
Naval
Research
Laboratory
330
Packard
Road
Army
Research
Institute
Washington.
DC
20375.50000
Ann
Arbor.
MI
48103
ATIN:
PERIjRL
5001
Eienhwr
Avenue
Dr.
Robert
A.
Wisher
Dr. Alfred
F.
Smode
Alexndria.
VA
22333.5W0 U-1%.
Army
Institute
for
the
Code 7A
Behaviors!
and
Social
Sciences
Research
and
Development
Depit.
Dr.
Zita
P.
Tyer
5001
Esienower
Avenue
Naval
Training System
Center
Department
ot
Psychololl
Alexndia.
VA
2233-5600
Orlando. FL
32813-7100
George Mason
University
4400
University
Drive
Dr. Merlin
C.
Witrock
Dr.
OF
Soloexy,
Fairfax.
VA
22W0 Graduate School
of
Education
Yale
Unveity"
UCLA
Computer
Science
Deparmn
Dr.
Harold
P.
Van
Cott
Los
Angeles,
CA
90024
P.O.
BOX
2158
Coimmittee
on
Humn
Factors
New
Haven.
CT
06520
National
Academy
of
Sciences
Mr.
Paul
T.
Wohag
2101
Constitution
Avenue
Army
Research
Institute
Linde
B.
Sorio
Washington.
DC
20418
5001
Eisenhower
Ame
IBM-Los
Angeles
Scientific Center
ATTN:
PERI-RL
1M~
Wilshire
Blvd..
4th
Floor Dr.
Kurt
Van Lehn
Almndia
VA
22333-560
Los
Angeles,
CA
9002
Department
of
Psycbolog
Carnegie-Mellon University
Mr.
Josephi
WobI
N. S.
Seidharan
Seliley
Park
Alphatedi.
Inc.
FMC
Corporation
Pktcbuergb,
PA
15213 2
Buiiingco
Executiv
Center
BOX 580 111
Midlse
Turnpike
1205
Coleman
Avenue
Dr.
Frank
L
Vicino Burlington,
MA
01803
Samt
Cars.
CA
9W02
Navy
Personnel
R&D
Center
San
Diego
CA
92152-M80
Dr.
Wallace
Wulfeack.
III
Dr.
Marian
Stearns Navy
Personnel
R&D
Center
SRI
International
Dr.
Jerry
Vogt
code
51
333
Ravenuirood Ave.
Navy
Personnel
R&D
Center
San
Dieso.
CA
921526800
Room
B.5124
Code
51
Menlo
Park,
CA
9402
San
Diego.
CA
921526800
Dr.
Masoud
Yszdaai
Dept.
of
Computer
Science
Dr.
Friedric W.
Steep
Dr.
Thomas
A.
Warm
University
of
Entter
Bundesminkteium FAA
Academy
AAC934D
Prince
a
Wale Road
des
Verteidipio
P.O.
Box
2508
Exeter EX44PT
Postfardi
I=2
Oklahomsa
City.
OK
73125
ENGLAND
D-5300
Bonn
1
WEST
GERMANY
Dr.
Beth
Warren Dr.
Joseph
L.
Young
BEN
Laboratories.
Inc.
National
Scienoe
Foundation
Dr. Frederiek
Steinheiuer
10
Moulton
street
Room
320
CIA-ORD
Cambridge,
MA
022381
80
Stroem.
NW.
Amews
Building
Washigton
DC
3150
Washington.
DC
2050
Dr.
Diana Wewrne
Department
of
Educational
Dr.
Uri
Zernik
Dr.
Saul Sternbierg
Development General
Electr
Uniiversity
of
Pesmalkut
University
of
Delaware Research
A
Developonmt Center
Daparasi
of Psycholo
Newark.
DE
19711
Artificial
Intelligence
Propam
3815
Walnut
St~e
P
02
a8
Philadelphia.
PA
191046196
Dr.
Shih-surig Wan
Schenectady.
NY
12301
Deparmn
of
Pvydxltoo
Dr.
Ronal
Sternfelle
Jackson
Stae
Universt
Oak
Ridge
Ammoc.
Univ.
1400
J. R.
Lynch
Stroet
P.O.
Ba
117
Jackaon,
MS
39217
Ook
Ridge.
TN
37831-0117
... The second account (Ohlsson 1990;Knoblich et al. 1999) holds that people apply self-imposed and unconscious constraints on the problem representation. Such an over-constraint problem representation dramatically hampers the solution of the problem. ...
... The Gestaltist's standard explanation was that fixation on the 3 × 3 dot matrix that forms a virtual square prevents moves outside the square's boundaries (Fig. 9b). The fixation is the result of perceptual Gestalt laws like figural integrity and figure ground perception (Maier 1931;Ohlsson 1990;Scheerer 1963). Weisberg and Alba (1981) questioned this interpretation. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Problem solving and thinking are inseparably linked together. We propose that a theory of thinking has to consider and incorporate the notion of problem solving. In this chapter, we review the most important accounts of problem solving and hope to convince the reader that problem solving may provide an ideal framework for developing a theory of thinking. We start with a broad summary on the Gestaltist perspective. The Gestaltists per se understood thinking as problem solving. They invented a large body of theoretical concepts and ingenious tasks that until now influence cognitive psychology in general and unexpectedly affects the development of the information processing account also. However, this influence becomes less and less explicit and is not appropriately recognized. We hope to stress this connection and bring it back to the readers’ minds. Nevertheless, the Gestaltist approach has its weaknesses and methodological flaws, which will be dealt with in this chapter. A large section is dedicated to the information processing account that still dominates the problem solving literature as a clear and proper account for describing and defining human problem solving. We elaborate on the differentiation between well and ill-defined problems and provide several foundations and models derived from this account. Nevertheless, the information processing account has its limits and we conclude with some extensions of the classical account and provide an integrative model for insight problem solving.
... For conceptual clarity, we will from now on refer to this process of inhibition and remote retrieval as extension of the search space. The ability to change the problem presentation or restructure (by means of constraint relaxation or search space extension as we call it in the case of CRAs) is a key concept in insight problem solving and creative cognition (Knoblich et al., 1999;Öllinger et al., 2014;Ohlsson, 1984Ohlsson, , 1990Ohlsson, , 1992DiBernardi Luft, 2018). More creative individuals have been found to successfully avoid the most obvious but false candidate solutions (Gupta et al., 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
In verbal creative problems like compound remote associates (CRAs), the solution is semantically distant and there is no predefined path to the solution. Therefore, people first search through the space of possible solutions before retrieving the correct semantic content by extending their search space. We assume that search and solution are both part of a semantic control process which involves the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). Furthermore, we expect the degree of relevant semantic control areas like the IFG to depend on how much the search space needs to be extended, i.e. how semantically distant the solution is. To demonstrate this, we created a modified CRA paradigm which systematically modulates the semantic distance from the first target word to the solution via priming. We show that brain areas (left IFG and middle temporal gyrus) associated with semantic control are already recruited during search. In addition, BOLD response in the left angular gyrus linearly correlates with search space extension. Hence, there is evidence that this process already takes place during search. Furthermore, bilateral IFG (pars orbitalis and triangularis) also correlates with search space extension but during solution. We discuss the role of the IFG in accessing semantically distant information during verbal creative problem solving.
... In the easiest case this could be attained by identifying overlapping features or meanings as in the word clue example above. We conclude that for those problems it is necessary to have a concerted interplay between spreading activation and constraining (Ohlsson, 1990;Thagard and Verbeurgt, 1998;Thagard, 2002) the activation landscape in a goaldirected manner. More difficult problem representations require constraining the search space by prior knowledge, hypotheses or chunking of information which structures and guides the process of coherence building (implications see below). ...
Article
Full-text available
Coherence-building is a key concept for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of intuition and insight problem solving. There are several accounts that address certain aspects of coherence-building. However, there is still no proper framework defining the general principles of coherence-building. We propose a four-stage model of coherence-building. The first stage starts with spreading activation restricted by constraints. This dynamic is a well-defined rule based process. The second stage is characterized by detecting a coherent state. We adopted a fluency account assuming that the ease of information processing indicates the realization of a coherent state. The third stage is designated to evaluate the result of the coherence-building process and assess whether the given problem is solved or not. If the coherent state does not fit the requirements of the task, the process re-enters at stage 1. These three stages characterize intuition. For insight problem solving a fourth stage is necessary, which restructures the given representation after repeated failure, so that a new search space results. The new search space enables new coherent states. We provide a review of the most important findings, outline our model, present a large number of examples, deduce potential new paradigms and measures that might help to decipher the underlying cognitive processes.
... Knoblich, Ohlsson, Haider, and Rhenius (1999) showed that puzzle-solving performance was impaired when the solution involved Bchunk decomposition^ (Knoblich, Ohlsson, & Raney, 2001) of a stronger, rather than a weaker, perceptual grouping. For even more complicated problems, like geometric proofs, considering alternative representations of a problem (i.e., different perceptual organizations of the same geometric diagram) may be critical for discovery of the solution (Ohlsson, 1990). ...
Article
Landy and Goldstone (2007a, 2010) demonstrated that an explicit rule, operator precedence for simple arithmetic expressions, is enforced in part by perceptual processes like unit formation and attention. When perceptual grouping competes with operator precedence, errors increase. We replicated this result (Exp. 1) and investigated whether perceptual grouping effects persist when the visual stimulus is presented briefly and then masked (Exp. 2) and when verbal recoding is encouraged through vocal expression (Exp. 3). We found that perceptual-grouping effects persisted in the masking condition, suggesting that the mental representations of arithmetic expressions retain visuospatial characteristics. Similarly, verbalization of the expressions did not eliminate perceptual-grouping effects, suggesting that participants were not verbally recoding. In sum, the persistent effects of unit formation and spatial attention emphasize the importance of perceptual processing in the development of human expertise in this domain.
... The explanation for the insight sequence that I and others have proposed is that the initial perception of the problem did not lead to a problem space in which the problem can be solved. By re-perceiving the problem, the initial state and hence the problem space is revised, possibly bringing previously unheeded options to mind (Ohlsson, 1984b(Ohlsson, , 1990b(Ohlsson, , 1992(Ohlsson, , 2011. ...
Article
Full-text available
The research paradigm invented by Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the late 1950s dominated the study of problem solving for more than three decades. But in the early 1990s, problem solving ceased to drive research on complex cognition. As part of this decline, Newell and Simon's most innovative research practices – especially their method for inducing subjects' strategies from verbal protocols-were abandoned. In this essay, I summarize Newell and Simon's theoretical and methodological innovations and explain why their strategy identification method did not become a standard research tool. I argue that the method lacked a systematic way to aggregate data, and that Newell and Simon's search for general problem solving strategies failed. Paradoxically, the theoretical vision that led them to search elsewhere for general principles led researchers away from studies of complex problem solving. Newell and Simon's main enduring contribution is the theory that people solve problems via heuristic search through a problem space. This theory remains the centerpiece of our understanding of how people solve unfamiliar problems, but it is seriously incomplete. In the early 1970s, Newell and Simon suggested that the field should focus on the question where problem spaces and search strategies come from. I propose a breakdown of this overarching question into five specific research questions. Principled answers to those questions would expand the theory of heuristic search into a more complete theory of human problem solving.
Article
Full-text available
Four experiments examined whether verbalization can interfere with insight problem solving. In Exp 1, Ss were interrupted during problem solving and asked either to verbalize their strategies (retrospective verbalization) or engage in an unrelated activity (control). Ss in the retrospective verbalization condition were significantly less successful than control Ss at solving the problems. Exp 2 replicated the finding of Exp 1 and demonstrated that the control Ss' advantage was not due to any beneficial effect of the interruption. In Exp 3, concurrent, nondirective verbalization impaired the solving of insight problems but had no effect on noninsight problems. In Exp 4, the effect of concurrent verbalization on insight was maintained even when Ss were encouraged to consider alternative approaches. Together, these findings are consistent with the hypothesis that verbalization can result in the disruption of nonreportable processes that are critical to achieving insight solutions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Conference Paper
Chunking is a unifying information-processing mechanism in human cognition and plays an important role in problem solving. In the present experiment, we use a Chinese character chunking task to explore the neural basis of the goal-oriented chunking, which were classified into loose chunking and tight chunking. The behavioral result confirmed our prediction that the tight chunking was more difficult than the loose chunking. For the imaging result, we observed similar neural activations in the occipital, parietal and frontal lobule in both conditions, which may reflect the visual perception, visuo-spatial and executive processing in the manipulation of Chinese chunks; by direct contrast the tight chunking and loose chunking, we found stronger activation in bilateral cuneus and we suggested that it may be resulted from the more mental operation of visual mental manipulation needed in the tight chunking.
Article
Full-text available
School children learn arithmetic procedures by rote, rather than by constructing them on the basis of their understanding of numbers. Rote learning produces lack of flexibility, nonsensical errors, and other difficulties in learning. Mathematics educators have proposed that if arithmetic procedures were constructed under the influence of conceptual understanding of the principles of arithmetic, then procedure acquisition would not suffer from these difficulties. However, little effort has been investigated in conceptual analysis of this hypothesis, or in proving its viability. We propose a theory of conceptual understanding and its role in the learning and execution of arithmetic procedures. The basic hypothesis of the theory is that principles constrain the possible states of affairs, and thereby enable the learner to monitor his/her own performance and to correct his/her errors. We propose a new knowledge representation, the state constraint, which captures this view of principled knowledge. Keywords: Computerized simulation, Machine learning.
Article
This chapter discusses the basic issues of choice of representation for problems of reasoning about actions. The general problem of representation is concerned with the relationship between different ways of formulating a problem to a problem solving system and the efficiency with which the system can be expected to find a solution to the problem. An understanding of the relationship between problem formulation and problem solving efficiency is a prerequisite for the design of procedures that can automatically choose the most appropriate representation of a problem—they can find a point of view of the problem that maximally simplifies the process of finding a solution. The chapter discusses a specific problem of transportation scheduling—the missionaries and cannibals problem—to evaluate the effects of alternative formulations of this problem on the expected efficiency of mechanical procedures for solving it and also to examine the processes that come into play when a transition takes place from a given problem formulation into a better one.
Article
This thesis explores the idea of learning efficient strategies for solving problems by searching for macro-operators. A macro-operator, or macro for short, is simply a sequence of operators chosen from the primitive operators of a problem. The technique is particularly useful for problems with non- serializable subgoals, such as Rubik's Cube, for which other weak methods fail. Both a problem-solving program and a learning program are described in detail. The performance of these programs is analyzed in terms of the number of macros required to solve all problem instances, the length of the resulting solutions (expressed as the number of primitive moves), and the amount of time necessary to learn the macros. In addition, a theory of why the method works, and a characterization of the range of the problems for which its is useful are presented. The theory introduces a new type of problem structure called operator decomposability. Finally, it is concluded that the macro technique is a valuable addition to the class of weak methods, that macro-operators constitute an interesting and important representation of knowledge, and that searching for macros may be a useful general learning paradigm.
Article
In this study a distinction is made between routine, semiroutine, and nonroutine problems based on the problem solver's knowledge. Routine problems are solved by applying a known procedure, semiroutine problems require planning that uses functional knowledge, and nonroutine problems require generation of new functional knowledge. Nonroutine problem solving has been simulated in which functional knowledge is derived from properties of objects that are available in the situation. In an experiment, knowledge was provided about functional relations of components of a device; this facilitated inference of operating procedures, in contrast to knowledge about the status of the individual components, which was ineffective. (Author/RH)
Article
Contends that the central concept of the information processing theory of problem solving is "search," while the central concept of the gestalt theory of problem solving is "restructuring." Both concepts express important aspects of human thinking. It is hypothesized that restructuring is a change in mental representation that affects the applicability of problem solving operators. Insight is hypothesized to occur when restructuring of the search space brings the goal state within the horizon of mental look-ahead. Deciding whether or not a problem-solving operator is applicable to a particular state in the search space may involve nontrivial computations. Internal search is restricted by capacity limitations. According to this theory, there is difficulty in knowing when to restructure and how to search for new representation. It is concluded that the present theory builds on already known cognitive principles extended by the postulation of the description space. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
The gestalt psychologists proposed that restructuring ( Umstrukturierung) is an essential process in thinking. This concept has not been integrated into the information-processing theory of problem solving. As a preparation for such an integration, the gestalt writings about restructuring in problem solving are summarized in a set of principles. Critical scrutiny shows that some gestalt principles are overstated; others have very weak empirical support. But the psychological reality of restructuring is not in doubt, in spite of the recent crtiticism by R. W. Weisberg and J. W. Alba (see record 1982-02568-001). A unified theory of thinking should interpret restructuring in information-processing terms and explain the relation between restructuring and search. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
The goal of the chapters in this book is to explore the nature of creativity. The chapter authors take a wide variety of approaches in pursuit of this goal. The book is divided into four basic parts. The first part, containing a single chapter, deals with the relationship between creativity and the external environment of the individual. The second part of the book deals with the relationship between creativity and the internal environment of the individual. This part of the book is divided into two sections, one focusing on the psychometric approach to creativity and the other focusing on cognitive approaches. Part three of the book deals with the interaction between the internal and external environments of the individual. This part of the book is divided into two sections. The first section contains chapters that use the study of creative lives as a primary data base; the second section comprises chapters that are more generally historical in their orientation, using larger data bases rather than studies of small numbers of lives. The fourth and last part of the book contains an overview and integration by Tardif and Sternberg. The goal of this chapter is to organize the main themes in the theorists, various views of creativity and to suggest a variety of commonalities that hold together their various points of view. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
The Gestalt psychologists' view of restructuring and the associated phenomenon of insight is discussed and related to findings in modern cognitive psychology. In line with Ohlsson (1984b) it is assumed that search in semantic memory is an indispensable part of restructuring. However, in contrast to Ohlsson's (1984b) information processing theory of restructuring and insight the present paper focuses on the role of mental models. It is asserted that the Gestalt approach to problem solving is compatible with the idea that a mental model is manipulated. The paper discusses three assumptions of restructuring and insight, all of which are related to mental models: (a) restructuring involves manipulating a mental model; (b) the experience of insight is based on “seeing” something in a mental model; (c) restructuring aims at realizing structural balance in a mental model. To assess the validity of these three assumptions is seen as a challenge to future research on human problem solving.