An Evidence-Based Strategy
for Problem Solving
DONALD R. WOODS
Chemical Engineering Department
McMaster University
ABSTRACT
Over 150 published basic strategies for problem solving are docu-
mented and compared. Nested strategies are described. Re-
search is summarized of the cognitive and attitudinal processing
used when we solve problems. The connection between past prob-
lems that have been solved successfully, the subject knowledge, the
current problem to be solved, and the problem solving process is
described. Problems are distinguished from exercises. Based
on the research evidence, eleven criteria are posed for the creation
of an evidence-based strategy. A resulting strategy is described.
Suggestions are given about how to overcome the propensity to use
the strategy as a series of linear, sequential steps. Evidence is sum-
marized of the use and effectiveness of the proposed evidence-
based strategy. Most successful problem solvers use a strategy. In
this paper, we survey published strategies, consider the research ev-
idence about the appropriateness of using and teaching via strate-
gies, summarize pertinent research evidence about the problem
solving process and apply criteria to devise an evidence-based
strategy for problem solving.
I. 150 PUBLISHED STRATEGIES
More than 150 basic strategies to solve problems in business,
science, mathematics, engineering, design, military, music, art, psy-
chology, history, nursing, medicine, and policing have been pub-
lished.1150 An analysis of these basic strategies shows:
The published strategies are similar. Most start with words
describing an awareness of a problem; most close with an
evaluation or verification. Most have a definition stage.
Most have between two and seven stages.
A few59,81,82,96,113,143,150 explicitly link the problem solving process
with subject knowledge (context-specific knowledge), past
experience and past solved problems.
Some strategies use a mnemonic acronym to aid recall and ap-
plication: DO IT, 77 IDEAL, 99 SOLVE, 131 ABCDE, 146 and
PHARMA.152 Some are variations on Polyas classic four-stage
strategy,6 on the Creative Problem Solving strategy from the Cre-
ative Education Foundation,1115 or on the McMaster Problem
Solving (MPS) program.140,141 Only the Nursing Profession uses a
consistent strategy63,57g worldwide, although variations have been
published.61,62,102 Some propose different strategies for problem solv-
ing, decision-making, and writing.115,127,139,142 Some refer to a strategy
October 2000
as a framework142; others as a map139 and others show the strate-
gy in the context of a computer program rather than as a strategy to
guide individuals or students.150 Only a few authors143,150,151 cite pub-
lished research to support the names used in these basic strategies.
For complex problem situations, the published strategies may be
notably different.58,152161 The strategies proposed for such complex
problems usually can be represented as a series of subproblems; sub-
problems that can be solved using a basic strategy similar to those
given by references 1151. We refer to this application as the use of
nested strategies. For example, Kepner Tregoe58 solve a trouble-
shooting situation as a series of four subproblems: 1) Prioritize the
problem, 2) Find the cause, 3) Correct the cause, and 4) Prevent the
cause from reoccurring. A strategy published for Pharmacists can
be represented as a nested strategy that applies the same basic strat-
egy to different parts of the overall problem.151 In the analysis that
follows, the focus is on basic strategies1151 and not ones requiring
nesting or the multiple application of a basic strategy.
II. IS A STRATEGY USEFUL?
Since there are so many different strategies and since few are sup-
ported by research evidence, is it useful to have a strategy to solve
problems? On the one hand, some authors noticeably avoid provid-
ing a strategy; they prefer to use the word heuristics.162166 Some sug-
gest that using a strategy is not useful because the strategy suggests a
linearity that is not typical of the actions successful problem solvers
use when they attack difficult problems.108,162 Non-linearity in the ap-
plication of the stages in a strategy is well documented. Successful
problem solvers do not use the stages sequentially.26,108,128,140,141,151
On the other hand, using a strategy has been proven to be
effective.
Researchers analyzing protocols of successful problem
solvers (the so-called novice versus expert evidence169) identi-
fy stages that show natural breaks corresponding to the
stages in the problem solving process.26,85,167,168
Using a strategy reinforces attributes identified with success-
ful problem solvers169: characteristics of being positive and
willing to tackle difficult problems, being systematic and or-
ganized.141, 169
Using a strategy as an intervention has developed students
problem solving skills. Data show that those receiving practice
applying a strategy outperform, on numerous measures, stu-
dents who did not receive such an experience.59,60,80,81,123,141,170174
Using a strategy was well-received by students in the McMas-
ter Problem Solving program (described in reference 141):
By using a standard, well-defined procedure I can overcome my initial panic
and gradually work my way into the problem.
Journal of Engineering Education 443
 I discovered that the same, organized approach can be applied to actively solve
technical problems and to the problems of understanding new concepts and learning. I
learned how to present my ideas and my assignments in a logical order following an
organized format. This helps me to see where I am, where Ive been, where Im going
and to identify any obstacle that is preventing me from getting to the next stage.
I have also developed a new style in getting started on a problem. Previously I
delayed getting my ideas down. Now I have an identified procedure, and I can
start writing down ideas about the problem following that procedure.
Using a strategy helps problem solvers
1. Overcome any initial distress encountered naturally when
they begin an ambiguous and challenging problem. Having a
strategy gives one an immediate task to do.
2. Focus on the different cognitive and attitudinal skills used in
each stage.
3. By providing natural times at the start and end of each stage
to explicitly monitor and reflect. Indeed, an identified transi-
tion stage might be inserted between stages.26
4. By giving a common language to improve communication
and help teams stay on task.
5. Improve their confidence and skill in problem solving.
III. SELECTING AN EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY
Here we summarize some cognitive research about problem
solving, list criteria, apply the criteria to create a strategy, and sug-
gest how to overcome linearity in application.
A. An Evidence Base about Problem Solving
The following model for problem solving has been developed
based on research findings from cognitive science:
What some perceive as being a problem others perceive as an
exercise. The mental processes we use differ depending on
whether we are problem solving or exercise solving. In exercise
solving, we retrieve a plan that was used in the past. We use pattern
recognition and identify a match between the current problem situ-
ation and our internal collection of problems we have solved suc-
cessfully in the past. We may need to modify things slightly. How-
ever, basically, we see connections between the given information
and the goal. We tend to work forwards from the given inputs.
Other terms used for exercise solving include algorithmic,108 re-
productive,143 and typical problems.175,176 On the other hand, in
problem solving, we must create a plan. We are unable to find a
match between the current problem situation and our internal col-
lection of problems we have solved successfully in the past; no im-
mediate connection can be made between the given information
and the goal. We tend to work backwards from the goal toward the
given inputs. Other terms used for problem solving include produc-
tive and ill-defined143 and atypical.175,176 In this paper the focus is
on a strategy for problem solving.
We use five sets of cognitive skills and knowledge when we solve
problems:
1) Subject knowledge that should be hierarchically stored in
memory and linked to past experience with cues.
2) Numerical order-of-magnitude experience and ancillary
knowledge in the subject domain to anchor that subject
knowledge in reality. Some refer to this as tacit knowledge.
444 Journal of Engineering Education
3) Solutions to problems that have been solved successfully
with links and cues to the subject domain.
4) Pattern recognition skills to classify a new situation as either
an exercise or a problem.
5) Generic problem solving skills.
The problem we solve is our mental internal representation of
the situation. The creation of the internal representation seems to
be a most challenging task. We refer to this activity as defining the
real problem.
Problem solving occurs in short term memory (STM), which is
limited to four to nine chunks of information at a time.
Most mistakes unsuccessful problem solvers make tend to be
made when they are trying to define the problem. The differences
between unsuccessful (novices) and successful (expert) problem
solvers are documented.169 Successful problem solvers use a broad
set of metacognitive and cognitive skills and attitudes. Table 1 gives
an example listing.127,128,151,164,165,167171,177180
B. Criteria for Selecting a Strategy
In selecting one universally-applicable, basic strategy, the criteria
might be:
1. The strategy should be general but specific enough to be use-
ful; it should provide a systematic and organized approach
that can be used for all kinds of problems, independent of the
subject domain: puzzles, social, family, professional, political,
artistic, or historical problems.
2. It must be consistent with the fundamentals listed in section
A representing our understanding of how we solve problems.
3. If possible, none of the stages should include titles describing
a skill or attitude listed in Table 1 since that skill or attitude
could be used in many different stages. For example, brain-
storming can be used whenever we need to create ideas and
options. Hence, if a stage is labeled brainstorming we
might incorrectly infer that this is the only time when we use
the skill.
4. The number of identified stages should be more than three
and less than nine, to facilitate application and recall in
STM.
5. The strategy should be useful and not an academic invention.
6. The strategy should promote flexibility in its application.
7. The strategy should be easy to describe in the classroom, yet
not be trivial. For example, read the problem and then,
solve it is trivial.
8. To select effective methods to develop problem-solving
skills, the stages in the strategy that most people perform the
same way should be separated from those steps where every-
one applies his/her own style. For example, most people do
the following tasks essentially the same: read a problem
statement, classify information, develop a plan, and
carry out a plan. On the other hand, most people differ in
their approach to the following tasks: create the internal
representation, make connections with their knowledge
base, and simplify and generalize.
9. Special emphasis should be placed on stages where the re-
search evidence suggests people have the most difficulty.
10. The strategy should be related to results expected from the
stage rather than to the methods; where methods are select-
ed, then these should relate to the types of cognitive and atti-
tudinal skills used.
October 2000
 Table 1. Metacognitive, cognitive and attitudinal skills needed for problem solving.127, 128, 151, 164, 165, 167171, 177180
11. The strategy should promote behaviors of successful prob-
lem solvers. For example, successful problem solvers moni-
tor the process about once per minute.26 The stages selected
should correspond to natural pauses in the process128 where
monitoring is most appropriate.
These criteria suggest that 1) a focus should be on the define
stage since this is where most unsuccessful problem solvers go
wrong and 2) the define stage is complex with at least three differ-
ent stages: engage, define the stated problem and create the internal
representation.
C. An Evidence-based Strategy
Our approach was to apply the criteria and create a trial strategy.
Then, we asked experts to use the strategy when they solved ill-de-
October 2000
fined, open-ended problems and well-defined but difficult prob-
lems (not exercises). Based on their input, we modified the trial
strategy until we satisfied our criteria and the concerns of our ex-
perts. We then used that model with students for about five years,
and monitored its effectiveness and the pertinence of the stages with
the findings of more recent research. We modified the five-stage
strategy to a six-stage strategy and changed the visual representation
from a serial one to circular one with a central transition region. We
emphasized the importance of nested strategies. Figure 1 shows our
best effort at this time. Table 2 lists the tasks, and the cognitive and
attitudinal skills corresponding to the different stages. The frequent
monitoring of the performance should be based on the behavior of
successful problem solvers.169 Following is a description of the six
stages.
Journal of Engineering Education 445
 Table 1 (Continued).
1) Engage: I want to and I can: We engage in reading, listen-
ing, seeing, and/or hearing about the situation and sense that a
problem exists. For written, text-book problems, Larkin179 found
that successful problem solvers spent two to three times longer
reading an initial problem statement than did unsuccessful problem
solvers. Once we have identified the existence of a problem and
have understood the given information, our next task is to motivate
ourselves to continue and to have confidence that we can solve it.
The mantra I want to and I can summarizes this task.
446 Journal of Engineering Education
When this six-stage strategy was used successfully with Grade 6
students,181 we describe this stage as a room.
In the room is a confidence cape that you put on when you enter the room. Also
included in the room are super-sensitive gloves that help us touch or feel the parts of
the problem, glasses to help us read the problem statement, a big nose to aid our
sense of smell and big ears to help us listen carefully to what is said about the situa-
tion. We cannot leave the room without passing Mr. Checker, seated by the door
who asks, Are you sure you are ready to leave this room? Have you checked and
October 2000
 Figure 1. A strategy for problem solving: the MPS 6-stage strategy with typical cognitive and attitudinal skills noted for each stage (repro-
duced with permission from Woods, 1994151).
double checked everything? Have you put on your confidence cape and said I
want to and I can?
2) Define-the-stated-problem: The next part of defining the
problem is to understand the stated problem statement as it is
given to us. Typically, but not necessarily, this stage follows En-
gage: I want to and I can. We classify the given information.
Problem statements usually include:
a. The stated objective. For example, Find the force.
b. The situation, conditions or context. What are the inputs?
What is the system? What is included and what is excluded?
October 2000
c. The constraints: on the inputs, on the solution and on the
process we can use. For example, You have three weeks to
consider the case.
d. The criteria by which we will judge an acceptable answer.
For example, Your solution must satisfy your initial criteria;
the evidence must substantiate your hypothesis. Often
constraints become criteria.
Some prefer to transform the problem first to help them define
the problem: to draw a picture, select nomenclature, consider the
inferred constraints and criteria and translate the problem statement
into a visual, symbolic or verbal format. Because many mistakes are
Journal of Engineering Education 447
 Table 2. Skills and attitudes used in different stages of a recommended strategy for problem solving.151,26,169

made during the task of transformation, we recommend that the lem, not on understanding what the problem really is and not on cre-
goal, the inputs/situation, and the constraints and criteria be identi- ating the internal image of the problem. Classify the information to
fied before transformation is attempted. The focus for this stage is to define-the-stated problem is a recommended second part of the task
classify the given information. The focus is not on solving the prob- of defining the problem We monitor this stage by asking such

448 Journal of Engineering Education October 2000

 Table 2. (Continued).
questions as, Have all of the conditions of the problem been
noted? Has the stated goal been stated correctly?
3) Explore: This stage is probably the most underrated, most
challenging and least understood stage of all the stages. In this stage
we play around with the problem statement, with our background
subject knowledge and with our set of problems that we solved suc-
cessfully in the past. We use pattern recognition to decide if this is
an exercise or a problem. We try to discover what the real problem
is. We patiently build a rich goal statement that satisfies the six
characteristics of well-stated goals.113,182 These are
1. The goal is written.
2. The goal is in a defined context: general and specific; now
and then; constrained.
3. The goal focuses on causes and not on symptoms.
4. The owner of the goal is defined.
5. The achievement of the goal affects others: the stakeholders
are identified.
6. The goal is expressed in observable and unambiguous terms
and as results to be achieved rather than actions, has mea-
surable criteria, and is capable of being achieved with the re-
sources available.
The tasks we want to accomplish include:
1. Create a reasonable internal representation of the problem
with connections to the subject domain. Highlight the criti-
cal features, simplify the problem, generalize by removing
the constraints and by asking What if ? and Why?.
Guesstimate an answer. Explore the situation from many
conflicting points-of-view. Elaborate.
2. Transform the situation to ones preferred mode of expres-
sion (visual, symbols or words).
3. Decide if this is an exercise or a problem.
4. Choose the real goal and express it in terms of the six charac-
teristics listed above.
5. Connect the goal and the given data.
6. Analyze the data; identify missing data; check the reliability
of the given data.
4) Plan: The separation line between Explore and Plan is often
very blurred because the Exploration often includes mapping out
the subproblems and the steps to be taken; listing the data to be col-
lected and noting the hypotheses to be tested. The plan is often se-
lected from such options as working backwards, systematic trial-
and-error, creating subproblems, proving contradiction or
contrapositive, or making inferences.166,183,184 The monitoring ques-
tions we use during this stage might be, What is the overall, orga-
nized plan? Is this plan well-structured and relevant? How can I as-
sess the quality of the plan and monitor progress?
October 2000
5. Do It: Methodically and systematically we carry out the
plan.
6. Look Back: This evaluation stage is usually not done very well,
if it is done at all. Yet, this stage holds the greatest potential for the
acknowledgement of success and for improving our ability to solve
problems. Included in this stage are
managing the thrill (and positive stress) of having successful-
ly completed the task and taking time to look back;
checking that the answer is reasonable, error-free, and satis-
fies the criteria and the goal;
reflecting on what we learned about problem solving;
identifying and memorizing experience factors;
elaborating on the situation by creating other problems that
could be solved using the same subject fundamentals;
identifying cues that connect this worked solution, the sub-
ject knowledge used, and the problem statement.
implementing, communicating, and preventing the problem
from reoccurring.
The monitoring questions might include, How do I terminate
this stage? How might I monitor this stage?
7) Transition: A transition stage exists after each of the six listed
above. In figure 1 this is shown as a central hall. This stage is mainly
a monitoring stage where we ask:
Where am I in the process of obtaining a solution? How do
I assess my progress?
How can I salvage and store valuable components from a
failed avenue of attack?
What do I do now? What new avenue or stage should I fol-
low? How does what I have just done affect my decisions?
What do I anticipate the outcomes to be from this next
stage?
D. Overcoming the Linearity in Application
Successful problem solvers do not use the strategy serially.
Hence, we want to prevent those learning a strategy from acquiring
the linearity mindset. Three possible options include how we pre-
sent it, what we call it and how we develop their experience with it.
We can refrain from presenting the strategy
as a sequence of numbered stages: stage 1, stage 2;
as a sequenced list;
as a linear diagram. Figure 1 provides a recommended option.
We prefer to use the words stage, zone, or episode26 instead of
step. The latter tends to suggest a linear sequence of actions.
Finally, we can provide students with a workshop experience
that illustrates the non-linearity in the application of the strategy.
Details are available.151,185,186
Journal of Engineering Education 449
 IV. USING THIS EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGY
The evidence-based strategy, described here, has been used over
the past 20 years in the MPS program.141 Our longitudinal evalua-
tion of that program shows significant gains, compared with con-
trol groups, on seven measures: marks, confidence, problem solving
skill, learning environment, attitude toward lifetime learning, self-
assessment and alumni and recruiter response.141 Although we were
not able to identify the unique contribution of the evidence-based
strategy to the success of the MPS program, the strategy was an in-
tegral part of the overall program.
For short courses where the contribution of the strategy work-
shop, MPS 4,186 can be more easily isolated and evaluated, the par-
ticipants confidence in their problem solving skill, as measured by
the Heppner PSI187 typically shifted from 9095 to 7080, a statis-
tically significant positive shift.
Typical reflections about the use of a strategy, by participants in
the MPS 4 workshop,186,185,151 have been:
Typically I bounce around among the stages, I dont use it
linearly the way I initially thought I would.
Having a strategy helped me get words for the process.
Having a strategy helped me focus my thinking skills in the
different stages.
Being able to move flexibly among the stages and to return
to I want to and I can really helped. neering and Related Fields, J.L. Lubkin, ASEE, Washington, DC, 1980.
Having a strategy helped me become aware of where I was
and where I was going to the problem solving process.
Having a strategy helped me to monitor and to focus on
being systematic and careful.
Often I found I combined the explore and plan stages; I had
trouble distinguishing between these two.
The patterns and sequence of stages helped me see which
situations were exercises and which were problems.
The Explore stage is difficult, I learned to calm down and
spend a lot of time in this stage. I learned to overcome my
tendency to jump ahead. I said to myself: Be patient, spend
time here because if you define the problem wrong, you solve
the wrong problem.
Versions of the MPS strategy have been used and cited by oth-
ers.172,181,188191 For example, Thomson181 used the MPS strategy with
her Grade 6 students. Other teachers in Thomsons school saw
such a difference in her students approach to problem solving com-
pared with those in the other Grade 6 classes, that they went into
her class to see what she was doing. Her use of the MPS strategy
was extended to classes as early as Grade 4.
V. SUMMARY
The use of an organized approach, often called a strategy, is a
popular heuristic proposed to improve skill in solving problems.
Most of the published strategies seem to be based on a personal style
instead of upon research about the process. Some research about the
cognitive and attitudinal dimensions of problem solving is summa-
rized and criteria are suggested for selecting a strategy. Based on
these, a six-stage strategy is described; suggestions are given to help
internalize the use and application of the strategy. Some research re-
sults about the use and effectiveness of the proposed strategy are
given.
450 Journal of Engineering Education
REFERENCES
1. Zurilla, T.J., and M.R. Goldfried, Problem Solving and Behavior
Modification, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 78, no. 1, 1971, pp.
107126.
2. Bloom, B.S., and L. Broder, Problem Solving Processes of College
Students, Supplement Educational Monograph, No. 73, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1950.
3. Wallas, G., The Art of Thought, Harcourt and Brace, New York, NY,
1926, cited by Davis, G.A., The Psychology of Problem Solving, Basic Books,
New York, NY, 1973 and by Bailey reference 137.
4. Kingsley, H.L., and R. Garry, 1957, cited by Davis, G.A. The Psy-
chology of Problem Solving, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1973.
5. Douglas, J.M., and J.R. Kittrell, A Course in Engineering Entre-
preneurship, Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 6, no. 4, 1972, pp.
181186.
6. Polya, G., How to Solve it, Doubleday Anchor, Garden City, New
York, NY, 1957.
7. Richards, M.J., Brunel University, UK, Personal communication,
1974.
8. Small, P.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Personal com-
munication, 1974.
9. Aubel, J.L., University of South Florida, FL, Personal communication,
1974 and Chapter 6 in The Teaching of Elementary Problem Solving in Engi-
10. Eastburn, F., University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, personal
communication, 1974.
11. Isaksen, S.G., and D.J. Treffinger, Creative Problem Solving: The
Basic Course, Bearly Ltd., Buffalo, NY, 1985.
12. Parnes, S.J., Creative Behavior Guidebook, Charles Scribners Sons,
New York, 1967.
13. Sedgwick, J., Business School, Mohawk College, Hamilton, ON,
personal communication, 1974.
14. Crealock, C., The Creative Problem Solving Approach in Mathe-
matics, Ontario Mathematics Gazette, vol. 19, 1981, p. 13.
15. Reid, D.J., Applied Problem Solving Through Creative Thinking,
American Chemical Society Audio Course, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 27,
and p. 109.
16. Fuller, O.M., McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, personal
communication, 1974.
17. Stager, R.A., University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, personal com-
munication, 1974.
18. Wales, C.E., R.A. Stager, and T.R. Long, Guided Engineering De-
sign, West Publishing Co., St Paul, MN, 1974.
19. Wales, C.E., and R.A. Stager, Guided Design: Teaching Decision
Making, Wales, Morgantown, WV, 1977.
20. Wales, C.E., A.H. Nardi, and R.A. Stager, Thinking Skills: Making
a Choice, Wales, Morgantown, WV, 1987.
21. Wales, C.E., Word Problems Made Easy, Wales, Morgantown
Printing, Morgantown, WV, 1994.
22. Magazine, M., Business School, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
ON, personal communication, 1974.
23. Neuman, C.P., et al., Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation: Adventures
in Professional Engineering Problem Solving, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1977.
24. Gasson, P., The Theory of Design, Batsford Ltd., London, UK,
1974.
25. Buhl, H.R., Creative Engineering Design, Iowa State University
Press, Ames, Iowa, 1960.
October 2000
 26. Schoenfeld, A.H., Can Heuristics be Taught? SESAME Report,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1978 and Mathematical Problem
Solving, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985.
27. Dewey, J., How We Think, Heath Books, New York, NY, 1933.
28. Rossman, J., Industrial Creativity: The Psychology of the Inventor,
University Books, Seacaucus, NJ, 1931.
29. Bales, R.F., Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of
Small Groups, Addison Wesley, Cambridge, MA, 1950.
30. Bennis, W.G., and H.A. Shepard, A Theory of Group Develop-
ment, Human Relations, vol. 9, 1956, pp. 415437.
31. Tuckman, B.W., Development Sequences in Small Groups, Psy-
chological Bulletin, vol. 63, 1965, pp. 384399.
32. Fisher, B.A., Small Group Decision Making, McGraw Hill, New
York, NY, 1980.
33. Anon, Scientific Method, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, IL,
1974.
34. Edmund, N.W., The General Pattern of the Scientific Method, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL, 1992.
35. Zwicky, F., Discovery, Invention and Research, MacMillan, New
York, NY, 1969.
36. Zajchowski, R., How to Study Science and Solve Problems,
Physics Dept., John Abbot College, Set. Anne de Beauport, Quebec,
1980.
37. Anderson, B.F., The Complete Thinker, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
38. Simon, H.A., The New Science of Management Decision, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
39. van Gundy, A.B., Jr., Techniques for Structured Problem Solving, van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1981.
40. Lang, J.R., J.E. Dittrich, and S.E. White, Managerial Problem
Solving Models: A Review and a Proposal, Academic Management Review,
Oct. 1978, pp. 854866.
41. Norton, Gusgafson, and Foster, cited in Lang et al., reference 40.
42. Jackson, K.R., The Art of Solving Problems, St. Martins Press, New
York, 1975.
43. Pounds, cited in Lang et al., reference 40.
44. Kolb, D.A., On Management and the Learning Process, in Orga-
nizational Psychology, D.A. Kolb et al., eds., 2nd edition, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974.
45. Delbecq, A.L., A.H. van de Ven, and D.H. Gustafson, Group Tech-
niques for Program Planning, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL, 1975.
46. Filley, A.C., Interpersonal Conflict Resolution, Scott Foresman,
Glenview, IL, 1975.
47. Blake, R.R., H.A. Shepard, and J.S. Mouton, Managing Intergroup
Conflict in Industry, Gulf Published, Houston, TX, 1964.
48. Dill, W.R., T.L. Hilton, and W.R. Reitman, The New Manage-
ment Action, McGraw Hill, New York, 1976.
49. Glueck, W.F., Business Policy: Strategy Formation and Management
Action, McGraw Hill, New York, 1976.
50. Johnson, R.J., Executive Decisions, South-Western Publishing Co.,
Cincinnati, OH, 1970.
51. Kast, F.E., and J.E. Rosenzwig, Organization and Management,
2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, 1974.
52. Young, R.L., A.L. Becker, and K.L. Pike, Rhetoric: Discovery and
Change, Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich, New York, NY, 1970.
53. Jones, J.C., Design Methods, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY,
1974.
54. Groh, J.L., Physics Department, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario, personal communication, 1980.
October 2000
55. Frazier, A.W., A New Seven-Step Approach to Problem Solving,
Hydrocarbon Processing, no. 6, 1969, p. 189.
56. Xerox Corporation, Problem-solving Process: Users Manual, Xerox
Corp., Rochester, NY, 1986.
57. Doherty, A., Alverno College, Milwaukee, WI, personal commu-
nication, 1982.
58. Kepner, C.H., and B.B. Tregore, The Rational Manager, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1965.
59. Mettes, C.T.C.W., et al., Teaching and Learning Problem Solv-
ing in Science, Part I, A General Strategy, Journal of Chemical Education,
vol. 57, no. 12, 1982, pp. 882885.
60. Kramers-Pals, H., and A.N.J. van Keulen, Een Systematische Aan-
pak Can Verklaringsvragen Bij Scheilund in het VWO, CT3 98-3, Faculteit
Chemische Technologie, Universiteit Twente, Enchede, 1989.
61. Knowles, L.N., Decision Making In Nursing, ANA Clinical Ses-
sions, 1966, New York, Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1967.
62. Western Interstate Commission, Defining Clinical Content, Gradu-
ate Nursing Programs, Medical and Surgical Nursing, Western Interstate
Commission on Higher Education, 1967.
63. Yura, H., and M. Walsh, The Nursing Process, The Catholic Uni-
versity of America Press, Washington, DC, 1967.
64. Griffiths, D., Administrative Theory in Education, in Administra-
tive Theory in Education, A. Halpin, ed., MacMillan Co., London, 1958,
p. 123.
65. Stelco Ltd., Steltech Handbook on System Analysis, Stelco, Hamilton,
ON, undated.
66. Kelley, H.H., and J.W. Thibaut, Handbook of Social Psychology,
G. Lindsey, ed., Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1954.
67. Travis, T.G., and E. Mullen, Problem Solving Newsletter, vol. 3, no.
3 and 4, 1981, p. 10.
68. Woditsch, G.A., Developing Generic Skills, CUE Project, Occa-
sional Series, no. 3, Bowling Green (undated).
69. Googins, B., Problem Solving Newsletter, vol. 4, no. 5, 1982, p. 2.
70. Scholls, D., Applied Problem Solving, AIChE Workshop, New
York, NY, 1978.
71. Munroe, B., GT Program Notes, Wentworth Country Board of Ed-
ucation, Hamilton, ON, 1982.
72. Ackoff, R.L., Scientific Method: Optimizing Applied Research Deci-
sion, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1962.
73. van der Meer, A., Department of Mathematics, Twente University,
Enschede, the Netherlands, personal communication, 1979.
74. de Bono, E., The Teaching of Thinking, Workshop, University of
Toronto, Toronto, ON, May 1982.
75. McLean, M., Waterdown, ON, personal communication, 1982.
76. Gordon, T., Leadership Effectiveness Training, Bantam Books,
Toronto, ON, 1980.
77. Olson, R.W., The Art of Creative Thinking: a practical guide, Barnes
and Noble, Toronto, 1980.
78. Ashmore, A.D., R.J. Casey, and M.J. Frazer, Journal of Chemical
Education, vol. 56, 1979, p. 377.
79. Guilford, J.P., and R. Hoepfner, Analysis of Intelligence, McGraw
Hill, New York, 1971.
80. Heller, P., R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching Problem Solving
Through Cooperative Groups: Part 1; Group Versus Individual Problem
Solving, American Journal of Physics, vol. 60, no. 7, 1992, pp. 627636.
81. Heller, P., and K. Heller, Cooperative Group Problem Solving in
Physics, Physics Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1996.
82. http://mnhepw.hep.umn.edu/soudan/people/demuth/1251/prob-
lem_solving.html.
Journal of Engineering Education 451
 83. Gagne, R.M., Conditions of Learning, Holt, Rinhart and Winston,
New York, NY, 1970.
84. Selvaratnam, M., and M.J. Frazer, Problem Solving in Chemistry,
Heinemann Educational Books, 1982.
85. Harvey, W., Success and Failure in Problem Solving, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1981.
86. Arnold, J.D., Make Up Your Mind! The Seven Building Blocks to Bet-
ter Decisions, Amacon-American Management Association, New York,
NY, 1978.
87. Red, W.E., and B. Mooring, Engineering Fundamentals of Problem
Solving, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, 1983.
88. Barrows, H.S., and R. Tamblyn, Problem Based Learning: An Ap-
proach to Medical Education, Springer, New York, 1980.
89. Baldwin et al., Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 6, 1975, pp.
5056.
90. Mason, J.L., L. Burton, and K. Stacey, Thinking Mathematically,
Addison Wesley, 1982.
91. Brown, J.M., Learning Skills as an Overlay in Elementary Calcu-
lus, Chapter 9 in The Teaching of Elementary Problem Solving in Engineer-
ing and Related Fields, J.L. Lubkin, ASEE, Washington, DC, 1980.
92. Koberg, D., and J. Bagnall, The All New Universal Traveller,
W. Kauffman, Los Altos, CA, 1981.
93. Anon, Engineers Toolkit: A First Course In Engineering, Addison
Wesley, 1995.
94. Popp, L., and J. Corbi, Describing Problem Solving in Teachable
Terms, paper presented at the Teaching Thinking Conference, Chatham,
ON, 1984.
95. Conger, S., Life Skills Coaching Manual: Basic Course, Life Skills
Training Centre, Edmonton, AB, 1973.
96. Reif, F., Understanding and Teaching Problem Solving in
Physics, International Summer Workshop, Research on Physics Education,
La Londe les Maures, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scien-
tifique, Paris, 1983.
97. McKim, R.H., Experience in Visual Thinking, Brooks/Cole, Mon-
terey, 1980.
98. Metros, Susan E., Electronic Thinking Cap, Leonardo, vol. 18,
no. 2, 1985, pp. 100104.
99. Bransford, J.D., and B.S. Stein, The IDEAL Problem Solver,
W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, 1984.
100. Flower, L., Problem Solving Strategies for Writing, 2nd ed., Har-
court Brace and Jovanovich, 1985.
101. Reif, John, University of California, Irving, Model for Writing,
personal communication, 1988.
102. Nehring, W.M., et al., Effective Teaching: A Problem Solving
Paradigm, Nurse Educator, vol. 11, no. 3, 1986, pp. 2326.
103. Pridham, Hansen and Conrad, cited by Nehring et al., reference
102.
104. Whetton, D.A., and K.S. Cameron, Developing Management
Skills, Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL, 1984.
105. Krulik, S., and J.A. Rudnick, Problem Solving - A Handbook for
Teachers, Allyn Bacon Inc., Boston, 1980.
106. Goldstein, H., The Problem-Oriented Approach to Improving Police
Service, University of Wisconsin, Law School, Madison, WI, 1981.
107. Holdroyd, C., in Problem Solving: Is There a Problem?, Royal Soci-
ety, UK, 1985.
108. Bodner, G.M., Toward a Uniform View of Problem Solving:
A View from Chemistry in Toward a Unified Theory of Problem
Solving, M.U. Smith, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
1990.
452 Journal of Engineering Education
109. Hall, A.D., A Methodology for Systems Engineering, van Nostrand,
Princeton, NJ, 1962.
110. de Neufville, R., and J.H. Stafford, Systems Analysis for Engineers
and Managers, McGraw Hill, New York, 1971.
111. RAND, cited by Checkland, ref. 113.
112. Goode, H.H., and R.E. Machol, Systems Engineering, McGraw
Hill, New York, NY, 1957.
113. Checkland, P., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, NY, 1981.
114. Basadur, M., Simplex: A Flight to Creativity, Creative Education
Foundation, Buffalo, NY, 1994.
115. King, E., et al., Programming for the Gifted, Ontario Ministry of
Education, Toronto, ON, 1985.
116. Gallagher, J.J., Gifted Child, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1975.
117. Torrance, E.P., and R.E. Myers, Creative Learning and Teaching,
Dodd Mead, New York, NY, 1970.
118. Cooke, L.E., No Downtime, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA,
1991.
119. Gourley, T.J., Cognetics Resource Manual, Research for Better
Schools, Philadelphia, PA, undated.
120. Kujawski, R.A., and L.L. Smith, Creative Problem Solving,
Chemical Engineering, Aug. 4, 1986, pp. 7982.
121. Chambers, D. Teaching Cognitive Skills to Unprepared Stu-
dents, in Strategies for Active Teaching and Learning in University Class-
rooms, S.F. Schomberg, ed., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN,
1986.
122. Brackin, P., and P. Palazolo, Engineering, Christian Brothers
College, Memphis, TN, personal communication, 1991.
123. de Hernandez, L., A Systematic Approach to Problem Solving in
Chemistry: Does It Really Help the Students? CENAMEC, Caracas,
Venezuela, 1990.
124. Swanson, R.W., Problem Solving Improvement, McGraw Hill,
New York, NY, 1970.
125. Quinlivan-Hall, D., and P. Renner, In Search of Solutions: Sixty
Ways to Guide Your Problem Solving Group, Training Associates, Vancou-
ver, BC, 1991.
126. Seech, Z., Logic in Everyday Life, Wadsworth, Belmont, 1988.
127. Beyer, B.K., Developing a Thinking Skills Program, Allyn Bacon,
Boston, MA, 1987.
128. Kimbell, R., et. al., The Assessment of Performance in Design and
Technology, Assessment of Performance Unit, National Examination and
Assessment Council, Newcombe House, London, UK, 1991.
129. Kelly, M.R., Everyones Problem Solving Handbook, Quality Re-
sources Press, White Plains, NY, 1992.
130. Chang, R.Y., and P.K. Kelly, Step-by-Step Problem Solving, Dut-
ton, New York, NY, 1993.
131. Allen, R.E., and S.D. Allen, Winnie-the-Pooh on Problem Solving,
Dutton, New York, NY, 1995.
132. Walkup, L.E., Creativity in Science through Visualization,
Journal of Creative Behavior, vol. 1, no. 3, July 1967, and cited by Bailey,
#137.
133. Diesel, H.R., Die Entstehung des Dieselmotors, Berlin, 1913,
cited in Bailey, #137.
134. Asimow, M., Introduction to Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1962.
135. von Fange, E.K., Professional Creativity, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1959.
136. U.S. Army, Workbook for Military Creative Problem Solving, U.S.
Army Management School, 1964, cited by Bailey, #137.
October 2000
 137. Bailey, R.L., Disciplined Creativity for Engineers, Ann Arbor Sci-
ence Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, 1978.
138. Raybould, E.B., and A.L. Minter, Problem Solving for Manage-
ment, British Institute of Management, London, 1971.
139. Swartz, R.J., and D.N. Perkins, Teaching Thinking: Issues and Ap-
proaches, Midwest Publications, Pacific Grove, CA, 1989.
140. Woods, D.R., et al., Teaching Problem Solving Skills, Annals of
Engineering Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 1975, pp. 238243.
141. Woods, D.R., et al., Developing Problem Solving Skills: The
McMaster Problem Solving Program, Journal of Engineering Education,
vol. 86, no. 2, 1997, pp. 7591.
142. Halpern, D.F., Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical
Thinking, 3rd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.
143. Greeno, J., The Structure of Memory and the Process of Solving
Problems, in Contemporary Issues in Cognitive Psychology: Loyola Sympo-
sium, R. Solso, ed., Winston, Washington, DC, 1973.
144. Ausubel, D.P., Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt
Rinehart and Winston, 1970.
145. http://www.cotf.edu/ETE/pbe.html, May 18, 1997.
146. Woodcock, D., http://www.sci.ouc.bc.ca/chem/probsol/
a-e_out.htm, May 20, 1997.
147. McAllister, H.C., http://www2.hawaii.edu/suremath/learn4.htm,
May 20, 1997.
148. Applied Computer Technology, http://www.acomtech.com/act/
problems.htm, May 20, 1997.
149. Wyoming Future Problem Solving Program, http://www.uwy.
edu/a&s/nasc/wyfps1.htm, May 20, 1997.
150. Newell, A., and H.A., Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.
151. Woods, D.R., Problem-based Learning: How to Gain the Most from
PBL, Woods, Waterdown, ON, 1994.
152. Ponting, A., et al., PHARMA Learn: Karen Yee, a Patient Study
Case, Continuing Pharmacy Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB, 1997.
153. Ford Motor Company, Team Oriented Problem Solving, 3rd edi-
tion, Powertrain Operations, Ford, 1989.
154. Lawson, B., How Designers Think, The Architectural Press, Lon-
don, 1980.
155. EPA, The EPA Manual for Waste Minimization Opportunity As-
sessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
1988.
156. Gerbis, M.B., Planning and Implementation Approaches for Waste
Reduction Programs, M.Eng. Thesis, Chemical Engineering, McMaster
University, Hamilton, ON, 1992.
157. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Waste Manage-
ment Planning: Vol. 1, Environmental Assessment Branch, Toronto, 1994.
158. Barrows, H.S., and G.C. Pickell, Developing Clinical Problem-
Solving Skills, Norton Medical Books, New York, 1991.
159. Cooper, R.G., Winning at New Products, Gage, Toronto, 1987.
160. Sherwood, T.K., A Course in Process Design, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, MA, 1963.
161. Nenniger, E., Jr., The Engineering Design Process, Chemistry in
Canada, Sept. 1966, pp. 46.
162. Koen, B.V., Discussion of the Method, Mechanical Engineering
Department, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1988.
163. Starfield, A.M., K.A. Smith, and A.L. Bleloch, How to Model It:
Problem Solving for the Computer Age, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990.
164. Rubinstein, M.F., and I.R. Forstenberg, Patterns in Problem Solv-
ing, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
October 2000
165. Marzano, R.J., et al., Dimension of Thinking: A Framework for Cur-
riculum and Instruction, Association for Supervision and Curriculum De-
velopment, Alexandria, VA, 1989.
166. Wickelgren, W.A., How to Solve Problems, Freeman, San Francis-
co, CA, 1974.
167. Lin, H., Problem Solving in Introductory Physics: Demons and Diffi-
culties, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1979, and
The Hidden Curriculum of the Introductory Physics Classroom, Engi-
neering Education, vol. 70, no. 3, 1979, pp. 289294.
168. Larkin, J.H., Cognition in Learning Physics, American Journal of
Physics, vol. 49, no. 6, 1981, pp. 535541.
169. Woods, D.R., Novice vs. Expert Research Suggests Ideas for Im-
plementation, PS Corner, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 18, no. 1,
1988, pp. 7779; no. 2, 1988, pp. 138141; no. 3, 1989, pp. 193195.
170. Larkin, J.H., Processing Information for Effective Problem Solving,
paper, American Association of Physics Teachers, Chicago, IL, Feb.,
1977; Larkin, J.H., Developing Useful Instruction in Thinking Skills, unpub-
lished manuscript, Department of Physics, University of California, Berke-
ley, CA., 1975, and Reif, F., J.H. Larkin, and G.C. Brackett, Teaching
General Learning and Problem Solving Skills, American Journal of Physics,
vol. 44, no. 3, 1976, pp. 212217.
171. Reif, F., and J.I. Heller, Knowledge Structures and Problem
Solving in Physics, Educational Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, 1982, pp.
102127.
172. Ko, E.I., and J.R. Hayes, Teaching Awareness of Problem Solv-
ing Skills in a Chemical Engineering Course for Freshmen, Journal of En-
gineering Education, vol. 83, no. 4, 1994, pp. 331335.
173. Felder, R.M., et al., A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Stu-
dent Performance and Retention: V: Comparisons with traditionally-
taught students, Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4, 1998,
pp. 469480, http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/
Papers/long5.html.
174. Wales, C.E., Does How We Teach Make a Difference? Engi-
neering Education, vol. 69, 1979, pp. 384398.
175. Patel, V.L., and C.L. Frederiksen, Cognitive Processes in Com-
prehension and Knowledge Acquisition by Medical Students and Physi-
cians, Tutorials in Problem-based Learning: New Directions in Teaching the
Health Professionals, H.G. Schmidt and M.L. de Volder, eds., Van Gorcum,
Maastricht, 1984.
176. Perkins, D.N., and G. Salomon, Are Cognitive Skills Context-
Bound, Educational Researcher, Jan.Feb. 1989, pp. 1625.
177. Paul, R., Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a
Rapidly Changing World, 2nd edition, Foundation for Critical Thinking,
Santa Rosa, CA, 1992.
178. Reif, F., Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and Teaching
Important Scientific Thought Processes, American Journal of Physics, vol.
63, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1732.
179. Larkin, J.H., Spatial Reasoning in Solving Physics Problems, De-
partment of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
1983.
180. Woods, D.R., et al., Major Challenges to Teaching Problem
Solving, Annals of Engineering Education, vol. 70, no. 3, 1979, pp.
277284.
181. Thomson, A., Teaching Thinking in Grades 4 to 6, PS News,
vol. 87, 1993, pp. 8714-17.
182. Woods, D.R., MPS 31, Defining Real Problexsms and MPS 54, Goals,
Mission and Vision, http://chemeng.mcmaster.ca/innov1.htm, April 1999.
183. Stonewater, J.K., Introduction to Reasoning and Problem Solving,
College of Engineering, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, 1976.
Journal of Engineering Education 453
 184. Solow, D., How to Read and Do Proofs, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY, 1982.
185. Woods, D.R., Problem Based Learning: Resources to Gain the Most
from PBL, Woods, Waterdown, distributed by McMaster University
Bookstore, Hamilton, ON, 1999.
186. Woods, D.R., MPS 4, Strategy, http://chemeng/mcmaster.ca/
innov1.htm, MPS program, April 1999.
187. Heppner, P.P., The PSI Manual, 210 McAlester Hall, University
of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, 1986; Available as the Problem
Solving Inventory, PSI, from Psychological Assessment Resources.
188. Fogler, H.S., Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
189. Fogler, H.S., and S.L. LeBlanc, Strategies for Creative Problem
Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
190. Wankat, P.C., Equilibrium Staged Processes, Elsevier, New York,
NY, 1988.
191. Beckman, O., et al., Energilara, Almquist and Wiksell, Stock-
holm, 1984.
17, 18. [Guided design] 1. Recognize problem, 2. State basic ob-
APPENDIX
Example Strategies
1. [Science] 1. General orientation (recognize the problem
exists and be positive in approach), 2. Problem definition
and formulation, 3. Generation of alternatives, 4. Deci-
sion making, 5. Verification.
2. [Science] 1. Understand nature of the problem, 2. Un-
derstand ideas contained in the problem, 3. Procedures
used, 4. Attitude towards the solution.
3. [Science] 1. Preparation, 2. Incubation, 3. Inspiration,
4. Verification.
4. [Science] 1. Difficulty felt, 2. Problem clarified and de-
fined, 3. Search for clues is made, 4. Various suggestions
appear and are tried out, 5. Suggestion solution is accept-
ed, 6. The solution is tested.
5. [Entrepreneurship] 1. Idea generation or identify the
problem, 2. Initial screen, 3. Complete the problem
statement and define critical steps, 4. Translate, 5. Sketch
a diagram, 6. Sketch or guess a better answer, 7. List as-
sumptions and try simplest analysis, 8. Estimate the solu-
tion, 9. Evaluate and explore implications.
6. [Science] 1. Define, 2. Plan, 3. Carry out the plan,
4. Look back.
7. [Engineering] 1. Identify the objectives, 2. Identify im-
portant variable, 3. Use dimensionless analysis, 4. Identi-
fy apparatus to be used, 5. Plan tests, 6. Plan data collec-
tion activities, 7. Interpret control curves, 8. Evaluate,
9. Decided how to report results.
8. [General hypothesis testing] 1. Observe and gather data,
2. Formulate hypothesis, 3. Design test of hypothesis,
4. Interpret data, 5. Evaluate ? is hypothesis confirmed?
9. [Physics] 1. Set up the problem, 2. Analyze physics,
3. Analyze mathematics.
10. [General] 1. Fact finding, 2. Problem finding, 3. Idea
finding, 4. Solution finding, 5. Acceptance finding.
11. 12. [General] 1. Mess finding, 2. Data finding, 3. Problem
finding, 4. Idea finding, 5. Solution finding, 6. Accep-
tance finding.
454 Journal of Engineering Education
13, 14. [General] 1. The mess, 2. Fact finding, 3. Idea finding,
4. Solution finding, 5. Acceptance finding.
15a. [General Creative problem solving] 1. Define the prob-
lem, 2. Introspection, 3. Internal/past experience infor-
mation retrieval, 4. External information retrieval (Inter-
net, library), 5. Idea generation, 6. Modify ideas to make
them practical, 7. Selection of best idea, 8. Develop work
plans, 9. Implement selected work plan.
15b. [General Synectics] 1. Problem-centered phase (prob-
lem as given, understand problem, immediate response,
problem as understood), 2. Idea generation by Fantasy
phase using triggers, 3. Second problem-centered phase,
force fit fantasy into reality and 4. Evaluate.
16. [Engineering] 1. Choose a point of view, 2. Compose the
problem, 3. Assess composed problem, 4. Choose most
valuable problem to try to solve, 5. Sort information,
6. Propose potential solutions, 7. Evaluate, 8. Recom-
mend action.
jective, 3. Gather information, 4. State constraints, facts,
assumptions, 5. Generate possible solutions, 6. Evaluate
and make decision, 7. Analysis, synthesis and evaluation
of the solution, 8. Report results and recommend action.
19. [Guided decision making] 1. Identify the problem,
2. State the problem, 3. Gather information, 4. List as-
sumptions, facts, 5. List possible solutions, 6. Choose the
best solutions, 7. Analyze, 8. Synthesize, 9. Evaluate the
plan, 10. Implement the plan, 11. Check the results.
20. [Guided decision making] 1. Define the situation,
2. State the goal, 3. Generate ideas, 4. Prepare a plan,
5. Take action, 6. Think about thinking.
21a. [General, word problems] 1. Read the problem state-
ment, 2. Check the units, 3. Build relationships, 4. Solve,
5. Check the result.
21b. [General, word problems] 1. Goal, 2. Situation, 3. Plan,
4. Action/solve, 5. Check.
22. [Business] 1. Problem formulation, 2. Data collection, 3.
Abstraction, 4. Quantitative modeling, 5. Deduction, 6.
Analysis, 7. Interpretation, 8. Data collection and verifi-
cation.
23. [Science] 1. Define the problem, 2. Plan the attack,
3. Execute the plan, 4. Check, 5. Learn and generalize.
24. [Engineering Design] 1. Recognition, 2. Preparation, 3.
Analysis, 4. Synthesis, 5. Evaluation, 6. Implementation,
7. Communication.
25. [Engineering Design] 1.Recognition and definition,
2. Preparation, 3. Analysis, 4. Synthesis, 5. Evaluation,
6. Presentation.
26. [Mathematics] 1. Analysis (understand, simplify, refor-
mulate), 2. Design the structure, the argument, decom-
pose from global to specific, 3. Explore, to look for essen-
tially equivalent problems, slightly modified problems
and broadly modified problems, recycle to analysis to
gather more information, 4. Implementation, step by
step execution with local verification, 5. Verification via
specific and general tests.
27. [Philosophy General] 1. Difficulty felt, 2. Difficulty lo-
cated and defined, 3. Possible solutions suggested,
4. Consequences, 5. Solutions accepted.
October 2000
 28. [Philosophy] 1. Need or difficulty observed, 2. Problem
formulated, 3. Available information surveyed, 4. Solu-
tions formulated, 5. Solutions critically examined, 6. New
ideas formulated, 7. New ideas tested and accepted.
29. [Group process] 1. Orientation, decide what the situa-
tion is like, 2. Evaluation, deciding what attitudes should
be taken toward the situation, 3. Control, deciding what
to do about it.
30. [Group process] 1. Personal-need oriented not group-
oriented, 2. Maintain the group task. Group-oriented but
routine, 3. Group focussed work with new methods of at-
tack, goal establishment and idea testing, 4. Creative in-
tegrative interpretation with immediate relevance to pre-
sent problems and group task.
31. [Group process] 1. Forming, attempt to identify the task,
2. Storming, emotional response to the task, 3. Norming,
expressing opinions, 4. Performing, solutions emerge.
32. [Group process] 1. Orientation, 2. Conflict, 3. Emer-
gence, 4. Reinforcement.
33. [Scientific method] 1. Observation and experiment, 2.
Analysis, synthesis of an hypothesis, 3. Inference, 4.
Comparison and analogy.
34. [Scientific method, SM-14] 1. Curious observation, 2. Is
there a problem? 3. Goals and planning, 4. Search, ex-
plore and gather the evidence, 5. Generate creative and
logical alternative solutions, 6. Evaluate the evidence, 7.
Make the educated guess, create an hypothesis, 8. Chal-
lenge the hypothesis, 9. Reach a conclusion, 10. Suspend
the judgement, 11. Take action, with supporting ingredi-
ents, 12. Motivation and sensitivity, 13. Personal attrib-
utes, 14. Thinking skills, methods and processes.
35. [Business] 1. Problem concisely formulated, 2. Localize,
analyze the important parameters, 3. Construct morpho-
logical box containing all potential solutions, 4. Evaluate
solutions, 5. Optimize solutions selected and apply.
36. [Physics] 1. Type the problem, identify the area or con-
cept it deals with, 2. Identify the knowns and unknowns,
3. Identify relationships or operations to go from the
knowns to the unknowns, 4. Use the relationships with
the knowns to find the unknowns, 5. Review quickly the
content of the problem and your approach.
37. [General] 1. State the problem, 2. Get the facts, 3. Focus
on the important facts, 4. Generate ideas, 5. Choose the
best idea.
38. [Business] 1. Intelligence: problem recognized, informa-
tion gathered and definition is formulated, 2. Design, de-
velopment of the problem, 3. Choice, solution alterna-
tives are selected and implemented.
39. [General] 1. Aware, 2. Search to define problem, 3. Idea
generation, 4. Choose idea, 5. Implement.
40. [General] 1. Existence of a gap in the environment, 2.
Identification of a gap, as perceived to be affected by or-
ganizational objectives, previous actions, training and ex-
perience, reward system and roles and norms, 3. State ini-
tial perception of the problem, 4. Solve problem based on
motivation, problem solving ability and ability to imple-
ment solutions, 5. Results in an effect on the initial state.
41. [General] 1. Identify cause, 2. Consider alternatives, 3.
Implement decision.
October 2000
42. [General] 1. Formulate the problem, 2. Interpret the
problem, 3. Construct courses of action, 4. Make deci-
sion, 5. Implement.
43, 44. [General] 1. Problem finding (choose model, compare
with reality, identify difference, select differences), 2.
Problem solving (consider alternatives, evaluate conse-
quences, select an operator, execute an operator).
45a. [General] 1. Problem exploration, 2. Knowledge explo-
ration, 3. Preliminary review, 4. Design and implementa-
tion, 5. Evaluation and review.
45b. [General] 1. Fact finding (problem search and data gen-
eration), 2. Evaluation (information synthesis, screening
and choice).
46. [Business] 1. Review and adjust rational conditions, per-
ceptions and attitudes, 2. define problem: group identifi-
cation of needs and values, 3. Search process, 4. Reach
consensus as to decision and action.
47. [Business] 1. Problem definition, 2. Full problem review,
3. Develop range of alternatives, 4. Debate alternatives, 5.
Search for solutions, 6. Evaluate solutions, 7. Weigh al-
ternatives, 8. Review, 9. Discuss, 10. Select.
48. [Business] 1. State of the environment, 2. Evaluation by
superior based on potential effects on organization, per-
sonality of superior and actions of others, 3. Problem
solving actions of candidate based on personality, actions
of others, opportunity to act, evaluation by superior, ef-
fects on organization.
49. [Business] 1. Evaluation, 2. Objectives, 3. Appraisal, 4.
Decision, 5. Implementation, 6. Recycle to evaluate.
50. [Business] 1. Sizing up, 2. Objectives, 3. Analyze poli-
cies, control, leadership, industrial relations, 4. Decide
action.
51. [Business] 1. Evaluation, 2. Problem sensing, 3. Problem
definition, 4. Generate alternatives, 5. Evaluate, 6. De-
cide on action, 7. Plan action, 8. Do action, 9. Recycle to
evaluate.
52. [English, writing] 1. Preparation: initial awareness, for-
mulation of difficulty as a problem, exploration of the
problem, 2. Incubation, subconscious, 3. Illumination:
imaginative leap to possible solution or hypothesis, 4.
Verification: test of hypothesis {similar to #3}.
53. [Architecture] 1. Analysis, design brief be issued, situa-
tion explored, problems structure perceived and trans-
formed, boundaries located, subsolutions described and
conflicts identified, 2. Synthesis, subsolutions combined
into alternative design, 3. Evaluation, alternative designs
evaluated and final design selected.
54. [Physics] 1. Set up the problem, visualize, diagrams, list,
2. Digest the problem, elaborate, abstraction, comparison
to get connections, synthesis, working back from the an-
swer, 3. Solve, equations systematically, 4. Check with ei-
ther a result or agonize and recycle.
55. [General] 1. Goals, 2. Causes, 3. Symptoms, 4. Obsta-
cles, 5. Tools for overcoming obstacles, 6. Problem mod-
els, 7. Tests for success.
56. [Xerox-General] 1. Identify and select the problem, 2.
Analyze the problem, 3. Generate potential solutions, 4.
Select and plan solution, 5. Implement the solution, 6.
Evaluate the solution.
Journal of Engineering Education 455
 57a. [General] 1. Recognize general problem context, 2. Ana-
lyze the problem, 3. Describe or define the specific problem
to be solved, 4. Design solution alternative, 5. Select and
implement best solution alternative, 6. Evaluate solution.
57b. [Art] 1. Perception of a general problem, 2. Problem-task
identification, 3. Examine potential approaches, 4. Con-
tact with the media, 5. Act the creation, 6. Complete the
task, 7. Critique.
57c. [Education] 1. Identify the problem, 2. Analyze the
problem, 3. Formulate a concise, clear and accurate hy-
pothesis, 4. Test the hypothesis, 5. Evaluate.
57d. [History] 1. Identify the problem, 2. Analyze the prob-
lem, 3. Define the specific historical problem to be solved,
4. Investigate historical problem, 5. State and test ex-
planatory hypothesis concerning the historical situation,
6. Evaluate relationship between historical situation and
contemporary process or institution.
57e. [Applied mathematics] 1. Recognize general problem, 2.
Analyze the problem, 3. Design tentative mathematical
models, 4. Select the best mathematical model, 5. Evalu-
ate model solution.
57f. [Theoretical mathematics] 1. Identify the general ques-
tion, 2. Analyze the problem, 3. State a tentative theorem
to be proven by deductive methods, 4. Prove theorem by
deductive reasoning, 5. Formulate the established rela-
tionships, 6. Evaluate the theorem as it is related to the
general question.
57g. [Nursing] 1. Assessment, 2. Planning, 3. Implementa-
tion, 4. Evaluation.
57h. [Scientific method] 1. Identify the general, broad ques-
tion, 2. Design the specific question/hypothesis for a
given investigation, 3. State hypothesis to be tested by
controlled experiment, 4. Design experimental procedure
to test and verify the hypothesis, 5. Conduct repeated tri-
als of experimental test, 6. Analyze data, 7. Formulate
conclusions in the form of the possibility statement con-
cerning the validity of the hypothesis, 8. Evaluate conclu-
sions as related to the broad question of the investigation.
57i. [Library Science] 1. Identify the problem, 2. Identify the
basic objective, 3. Return to the problem situation, 4.
Generate possible solution, 5. Evaluate solutions and
make a decision, 6. Implement the solution and evaluate
its effectiveness.
57j. [Music] 1. First insight, 2. Specification of the problem
task, 3. Preparation, 4. Incubation, 5. Illumination, 6.
Verification, 7. Performance, 8. Critique.
58a. [KT-Situation analysis] 1. Recognize concerns, 2. Sepa-
rate into tractable subproblems via 5W2H, 3. Set priority,
4. Locate, 5. Select PA, DA or PPA.
58b. [KT-Problem analysis, PA] 1. State deviation, 2. Specify
precise deviation via is and is not for 5W2H, 3. Distin-
guish between is and is not, 4. Identify what changes have
caused distinctions, 5. Possible causes, 6. Testing, 7. Veri-
fication.
58c. [KT-Decision analysis, DA] 1. State decision, 2. List ob-
jectives, results produced and resources used, 3. Classify
objectives, musts and wants, 4. Rank the wants, 5. Gener-
ate alternatives, 6. Evaluate the musts and wants, 7. Final
choice.
456 Journal of Engineering Education
58d. [KT-Potential problem analysis, PPA] 1. Identify poten-
tial problem, 2. Separate what could go wrong in each
subproblems and set priority, 3. Anticipate possible caus-
es, 4. Assess probabilities, 5. Take preventative action, 6.
Set contingency plans, 7. Set controls.
59. [Science-SAP] 1. Read the problem carefully, 2. Make a
scheme, 3. Is it a familiar or standard problem? 4. Write
down possibly useful key relations from subject funda-
mentals, 5. Check that the relations pertain to this prob-
lem, 6. Convert the problem situation to a familiar prob-
lem, 7. If not soluble, then check whether it is knowledge
that is lacking through key relations or assumptions, 8.
Execute routine operations, 9. Check answer against esti-
mation of the unknown, 10. Check whether you made
mistakes, 11. Check that all the problem is solved.
60. [Science-SAP] 1. Analysis, read, mark, sketch, data,
symbols, reword, estimate, get overall picture, 2. Trans-
formation, select relations, check relevance, transform, 3.
Explain or answer, 4. Check.
61. [Nursing] 1. Discover, 2. Delve, 3. Decide, 4. Do, 5. Dis-
criminate.
62. [Nursing] 1. Perception, 2. Interpretation, 3. Interven-
tion, 4. Evaluation.
63. [Nursing] 1. Assessing, 2. Planning, 3. Implementing, 4.
Evaluation.
64. [Education] 1. Assessing, 2. Planning, 3. Implementing,
4. Evaluating.
65. [Industry] 1. Define the problem, 2. State the objective,
3. List the alternatives, 4. Determine the restrictions, 5.
Gather information, 6. Eliminate unsuitable alternatives,
7. Select the solution, 8. Implement the solution.
66. [Sociology] 1. Analyze varied facets of the problem, 2.
Select an appropriate available resource, 3. Understand
how the outcomes depend on the response.
67. [General] 1. Analyze the problem, break into parts, judge
relative importance, assess value and validity of the com-
ponents, classify identify interrelationships, 2. Rely on
prior experience, 3. Formulate tentative solutions, 4. Se-
lect best solution.
68. [General] 1. Selective attention, 2. Sustained analysis, 3.
Analogizing, 4. Suspension of closure, 5. Autocensor-
ship, test the solution covertly before affirmation.
69. [General] 1. Understand the problem, 2. Explore alter-
natives, 3. Establish goals, tactics, strategies.
70. [Engineering] 1. Preparation, objective setting, analysis,
data gathering, 2. Incubation, organize data, induction, 3.
Verification, planning, pre-checking, activating.
71. [General] 1. Define the question, 2. Define the alterna-
tives, 3. Gather information about alternatives, 4. Rate
the overall worth of each alternative, 5. Select the best al-
ternative, 6. Test the conclusion.
72. [Business] 1. Formulate the problem, 2. Construct the
model, 3. Test the model, 4. Derive a solution to the model,
5. Test and control the solution, 6. Implement the solution.
73. [Mathematics] 1. Form an image of the problem situa-
tion and make the necessary assumptions, 2. Search for
relevant quantities to describe the problem situation, 3.
Search for relevant relationships, 4. Design a plan of solu-
tion, 5. Execute the plan, 6. Evaluate.
October 2000
 74a. [CoRT] 1. Target, 2. Expand, 3. Contract.
74b. [CoRT] 1. Purpose, identify, 2. Input, the situation,
scene, setting, 3. Solutions, generate alternatives, 4.
Choice, decide on the best, priorities, criteria, conse-
quences, 5. Operation, implement.
75. [Girl Guides] 1. Investigate, 2. Select, 3. Plan, 4. Partici-
pate, carry out the plan, 5. Evaluate.
76. [Leadership] 1. Problem identification, 2. Solution gen-
eration, 3. Evaluation, 4. Decision making, 5. Implemen-
tation, 6. Evaluation.
77. [General, DO IT] 1. Define, 2. Open yourself to many
possible solutions, 3. Identify the best solution, 4. Trans-
form it into action effectiveness.
78 [Chemistry] 1. Define, 2. Select the appropriate informa-
tion, 3. Combine the separate pieces of information, 4.
Evaluate.
79. [General] 1. Prepare, 2. Analyze, 3. Produce, 4. Verify, 5.
Reapply.
80. [Physics] 1. Focus the problem, 2. Describe the Physics,
3. Plan the solution, 4. Execute the plan, 5. Evaluate the
answer.
81. [Physics] 1. Visualize the problem, 2. Describe the prob-
lem in physics terms, 3. Plan a solution, 4. Execute the
plan, 5. Check and evaluate.
82. [General] 1. Comprehend the problem, 2. Represent the
problem in formal terms, 3. Plan a solution, 4. Execute
the plan, 5. Interpret and evaluate the solution.
83. [Education] 1. Presenting, 2. Defining, 3. Formulating
hypotheses, 4. Verifying hypotheses.
84. [Chemistry] 1. Clarify and define the problem, 2. Select
the key equation, 3. Derive the equation for the calcula-
tion, 4. Collect data, check units and calculate, 5. Review,
check and learn from the solution.
85. [Physics] 1. Read- review, 2. Define, 3. Plan, 4. Do it, 5.
Look back.
86. [General] 1. Smoke out the issues, 2. State your purpose,
3. Set your criteria, 4. Establish priorities, 5. Search for
solutions, 6. Test the alternatives, 7. Troubleshoot your
decision.
87. [Engineering] 1. Understand the problem, 2. Create a
model, reformulate into a quantitative representation, 3.
Develop a solution strategy, 4. Apply the strategy, 5. Ver-
ify the solution.
88a. [PBL] 1. Identify the learning objectives, 2. Interact with
the problem, 3. Identify the self-directed learning ques-
tions, 4. Self-directed study, 5. Apply the acquired infor-
mation back to the problem, 6. Review and synthesize
what has been learned, 7. Evaluate.
88b. [Clinical skills] 1. Perceive and interpret data, 2. Accu-
rately formulate the problem based on the evidence avail-
able, 3. Generate hypotheses, 4. Ask questions to elimi-
nate, verify and rank hypotheses, 5. Decide when
sufficient evidence has been gathered and if the appropri-
ate diagnosis has been made, 6. Decide.
89. [Environment] 1. Goal setting, 2. Translate goals into
objectives, 3. Data collection, 4. Data analysis, 5. Genera-
tion of alternative solutions, 6. Forecasting the outcomes
of the solutions, 7. Evaluation of alternatives, 8. Select
the best solution, 9. Implementation, 10. Inspection.
October 2000
90. [Mathematics] 1. Entry, 2. Attack, 3. Extend, 4. Review.
91. [Mathematics] 1. Analysis, 2. Interpretation, 3. Recogni-
tion, 4. Procedures, 5. Synthesis, 6. Evaluation.
92. [General] 1. Acceptance, 2. Analysis, 3. Definition, 4.
Ideation, 5. Idea Selection, 6. Implementation, 7. Evalu-
ation.
93a. [Engineering] 1. Define the problem, 2. Collect informa-
tion, 3. Generate a solution, 4. Redefine and implement a
solution, 5. Verify and test the solution.
93b. [Engineering] 1. Define the problem, 2. Gather perti-
nent information, 3. Generate multiple solutions, 4. An-
alyze and test a solution, 5. Test and implement the solu-
tion.
94. [General] 1. Problem setting, 2. Question, 3. Alterna-
tives, 4. Information, 5. Synthesis, 6. Conclusion.
95. [Life Skills] 1. Describe the problem situation, 2. Define
the problem, collect facts, ask questions, 3. Choose a so-
lution, brainstorm, apply criteria, 4. Apply the solution,
plan and carry out, 5. Evaluate the results.
96. [Physics] 1. Problem description and analysis, obtain a
basic description, obtain a theoretical description, explore
what if ? 2. Synthesis of a solution, decompose the
problem using heuristics, explore by anticipating the con-
sequences, plan and progressively revise, satisfy the con-
straints, 3. Assessment. Through out all this there is in-
tense interaction with the Subject knowledge that
consists of form/content and structure.
97. [Art] 1. Receive problem, 2. Define, 3. Relax, clear mind,
4. Enter cycle between left and right brain mental activi-
ties, 5. Express yourself, 6. Test and perhaps recycle.
98. [Art] 1. Motivate, 2. Fact find, 3. Define, 4. Ideate a so-
lution, 5. Select a solution, 6. Implement a solution, 7.
Evaluate.
99. [IDEAL] 1. Identify, 2. Define, 3. Explore, 4. Act, 5.
Look and learn.
100. [Writing] 1. Plan, set goals, generate ideas, organize
ideas, 2. Monitor, 3. Translate, 4. Review.
101. [Writing] 1. Prewriting, 2. Precomposing, 3. Writing, 4.
Sharing, 5. Revising, 6. Editing, 7. Evaluation.
102. [Nursing] 1. Assessment, 2. Diagnosis, 3. Intervention,
4. Evaluation.
103. [General] 1. Scanning, 2. Formulating, 3. Appraising, 4.
Developmental willingness/readiness to problem solve, 5.
Plan, 6. Implement, 7. Evaluate.
104. [Business] 1. Define the problem, 2. Generate alternative
solutions, 3. Evaluate and select alternative, 4. Implement
and follow up on the solution.
105. [General] 1. Read, 2. Explore, 3. Select a strategy, 4.
Solve, 5. Review and extend.
106. [Police] 1. Define the problem, 2. Identify social interests
and costs, 3. Document the current response, 4. Explore
alternatives, 5. Identify criteria, 6. Choose.
107. [Chemistry] 1. Define, 2. Hypothesis formulation, 3.
Verification.
108. [Chemistry] 1. Read the problem, 2. Read it again, 3.
Write down what you hope is the relevant information, 4.
Draw a picture, make a list, write an equation to help you
begin to understand, 5. Try something, 6. Try something
else, 7. See where it gets you, 8. Read the problem again,
Journal of Engineering Education 457
 9. Try something else, 10. See where that gets you. 11.
Test intermediate results to see whether you are making
any progress toward an answer, 12. Read the problem
again, 13. When appropriate, strike your head and say,
Son of ..., 14. Write down an answer, 15. Test to see if
the answer makes sense, 16. Start over if you have to.
109. [Systems] 1. Problem definition, 2. Choice of objectives,
3. System synthesis, 4. Systems analysis, 5. System selec-
tion, 6. Systems development up to the prototype, 7. Sys-
tems realization.
110. [Systems] 1. Define, 2. Formulate measures of effective-
ness, 3. Generate alternatives, 4. Evaluate alternatives, 5.
Select proposed system.
111. [Systems] 1. Set objectives, 2. Generate alternatives, 3.
Determine costs and resources, 4. Create model, 4. Cre-
ate criterion.
112. [Systems] 1. Design on what system has to be designed,
2. Generate options, 3. Mathematical and experimental
evaluation based on a measure of effectiveness, 4. Select de-
sign, 5. Construct, test, train, evaluate the prototype.
113. [Systems] 1. Situation felt, 2. Gather information to cre-
ate a rich description of the current situation, 3. Adapt a
variety of different points of view, 4. Create conceptual
models based on a selected point of view, 5. Compare
model with situation to identify opportunity for change,
Validate with the owner of the problem, 6. Identify fea-
sible and desirable changes, 7. Implement action plan.
114. [General] 1. Problem finding, 2. Fact finding, 3. Prob-
lem definition, 4. Idea finding, 5. Evaluation and selec-
tion, 6. Plan, 7. Gain acceptance, 8. Action.
115a. [Inquiry] 1. Initial response, 2. Identify inquiry question,
3. Explore options and issue, 4. Collect data, 5. Synthe-
size data, 6. Assess the results, conclusion and recycle as
necessary, 7. Express the conclusion, 8. Evaluate.
115b. [Problem solving] 1. Problem setting, 2. Identify inquiry
question, 3. Explore alternatives, 4. Collect data, 5. Syn-
thesis, 6. Assess the conclusion, 7. Do it, solve the prob-
lem, 8. Evaluate.
115c. [Writing] 1. Initial experiences, 2. Identify inquiry ques-
tion, 3. Create viewpoint, explore facts needed to support
the view, 4. Collect data, 5. Synthesis, 6. Express conclu-
sion, 7. Evaluate.
116. [Gifted] 1. Preparation stage, 2. Incubation stage, 3. Illu-
mination stage, 4. Verification stage.
117. [General] 1. Sense problem and challenges, 2. Recognize
real problem, 3. Produce alternative solutions, 4. Evaluate
ideas, 5. Implement.
118. [Engineering] 1. Identify or select the problem, 2. Ana-
lyze the problem, 3. Generate potential solutions, 4. Se-
lect, 5. Implement, 6. Act to prevent a reoccurrence of the
problem.
119. [Education] 1. Gather the facts, 2. Define the problem,
3. Analyze the problem, 4. Generate ideas, 5. Elaborate
ideas, 6. Select a solution, 7. Elaborate the solution.
120. [Engineering] 1. Ask the right question to identify the
real problem, 2. Identify all possible solutions, 3. Evaluate
alternatives, 4. Choose and implement.
121. [General] 1. Define the objectives of the task, 2. Note the
information given in the problem itself, 3 Plan a strategy,
458 Journal of Engineering Education
determine the rules which would operate to solve the
problem, 4. Check your work as you are doing it, 5.
Check your work after you have completed it.
122. [Engineering] 1. Read; I want to and I can, 2. Define the
situation, 3. State the objective, 4. Explore the options, 5.
Plan, 6. Do it, 7. Look back.
123. [Chemistry] 1. Understand the problem, 2. Plan, 3. Exe-
cute, 4. Verify.
124. [General] 1. Prepare, 2. Discover, 3. Create, 4. Plan.
125. [General] 1. Understand the issues, 2. Find solution, 3.
Plan your action.
126. [Reasoning] 1. Statement, 2. Quick start, 3. Analysis, 4.
Incubation, 5. Dialectic, 6. Implementation.
127a. [General] 1. Recognize the problem, 2. Represent the
problem, 3. Devise and choose a solution plan, 4. Execute
the plan, 5. Evaluate the solution.
127b. [Decision making] 1. Define the goal, 2. Identify the al-
ternatives, 3. Analyze the alternatives, 4. Rank the alter-
natives, 5. Judge the highest-ranked alternative, 6. Choose
the best alternative.
127c. [Conceptualizing] 1. Identify examples, 2. Identify com-
mon attributes, 3. Classify attributes, 4. Interrelate cate-
gories of attributes, 5. Identify additional examples and
non-examples, 6. Modify concept attributes and struc-
ture.
127d. [Problem solving] 1. Define the problem by becoming
aware of a problem, making it meaningful and manage-
able, 2. Hypothesize a solution, 3. Test the hypothesis, 4.
Evaluate the hypothesis, 5. Tentative conclusion, 6. Con-
clude.
128. [Design] 1. Observe the context and identify the prob-
lem, 2. Investigate and do research, 3. Generate and de-
velop ideas, 4. Select and detail, 5. Make mock ups and
models, 6. Make the design, 7. Evaluate.
129. [General] 1. Identify the problem, 2. Analyze, 3. Evalu-
ate alternatives, 4. Test and implement, 5 Standardize.
130. [General] 1. Define the problem, 2. Analyze potential
causes, 3. Identify potential solutions, 4. Select the best,
5. Develop an action plan, 6. Implement and evaluate
progress.
131. [General-SOLVE] 1. Select the problem, 2. Observe it
very carefully, organize and define the problem, 3. Learn
all you can by questioning all parts of the problem by ask-
ing 5WH, 4. Visualize possible solutions, select one and
refine it, 5. Employ the solution and monitor the results.
132. [Research] 1. Problem formulation, 2. Fact finding
analysis, 3. Incubation, 4. Decision, 5. Action.
133. [Invention] 1. Idea conception, 2. Carry out, 3. Imple-
mentation.
134. [Engineering] 1. Analysis of problem situation, 2. Syn-
thesis of solutions, 3. Evaluation and decision, 4. Opti-
mization, 5. Revision, 6. Implementation.
135. [Engineering] 1. Investigate direction, 2. Establish mea-
sures, 3. Develop methods, 4. Optimize solution, 5.
Complete solution, 6. Convince others.
136. [Military] 1. Problem identification, 2. Problem research,
3. Problem definition, 4. Idea hopper, 5. Idea filter, 6.
Idea tester, 7. Formulate plan for change, 8. Coordinate,
9. Action.
October 2000
 137. [Engineering] 1. Problem inquiry, 2. Specify goals, 3.
Determine means, 4. Optimize solution, 5. Construct
and verify, 6. Convince others.
138a. [Work study] 1. Select, 2. Examine, 3. Develop, 4. In-
stall, 5. Maintain.
138b. [General] 1. Define problem, 2. Find solutions, by either
the analytical or creative approach, 3. Choose a solution,
4. Implement.
139a. [Problem solving] 1. What is the problem? 2. What are
the possible solutions? 3. What solutions are best? 4.
How can I achieve them?
139b. [Decision making] 1. What makes a decision necessary?
2. What are my options? 3. What options are the best? 4.
How can I do it?
140. [Problem solving-MPS] 1. Define, 2. Think about it, to
figure out what the problem is really about, 3. Plan, 4. Do
it, 5. Look back.
141. [General-MPS] 1. Engage: I want to and I can, 2. De-
fine-the-stated problem, 3. Explore to create an accurate
internal representation of the real problem, 4. Plan, 5. Do
it, 6. Look back with transitions between stages.
142a. [Decision making] 1. Identification, recognition and
framing of decision, 2. Generation of alternatives, 3.
Evaluation of alternatives, 4. Selection of alternative and
action with extensive recycle throughout.
142b. [Problem solving] 1. Preparation or familiarization, 2.
Production of solution paths that define the problem
space, 3. Evaluation, with the use of 4. Incubation, in-
sight and persistence throughout.
143. [Problem solving] 1. Read text, 2. Interpret concept, 3.
Retrieve relative information from LTM to create a rep-
resentation and network of relationships, 4. Construct a
solution plan, 5. Carry out the plan, 6. Evaluate the solu-
tion.
144. [Education] 1. Setting, 2. Defining, 3. Gap filling, 4.
Verifying.
145. [Problem solving] 1. Read and analyze the problem sce-
nario, 2. List what is known, 3. Develop a problem state-
ment,4. List what is needed, 5. List possible actions, 6.
Present findings.
146. [Chemistry ABCDE] 1. Analyze, 2. Brainstorm for a
plan, 3. Calculate, 4. Defend, by checking and presenting
a solution, 5. Evaluate, the solution and what have you
learned?
147. [Physics] 1. Start with what is asked for; ignore the given
material, 2. Ask How would I find out? What is it?, 3.
Work left-right, top-down.
148. [Computer] 1. Identify and define the problem, 2. Ana-
lyze the causes, 3. Set targets, 4. Solve and implement,
and 5. Measure, track and control.
149. [General] 1. Brainstorm topic related problems, 2. Iden-
tify an underlying problem, 3. Brainstorm solutions to
the underlying problem, 4. Develop criteria to judge their
solutions, 5. Evaluate solutions to determine the best so-
lution. 6. Describe the best solution.
150. [GPS] 1. Read problem statement, 2. Translate input, 3.
Create the internal representation of the problem, 4.
With input from the subject-knowledge domain, select a
problem solving heuristic or method, 5. Apply heuristic,
October 2000
and change the representation as needed, 6. Evaluate re-
sults and recycle.
151. [Pharmacy] 1. Patient encounter, gather data and identi-
fy issues, 2. Identify drug-related problem, 3. Identify
best therapeutic outcomes, 4. Generate therapeutic op-
tions and optimize action and monitoring program, 5.
Formulate dose, formulation, regimen and duration, 6.
Do it, prescribe drugs and instructions, 7. Monitor.
152. [Pharmacy PHARMA] 1. Pharmaceutical problem, 2.
Harmonize patient and pharmacotherapeutic outcomes,
3. Alternatives, 4. Recommendations, 5. Monitoring
plan, 6. Action.
153. [Industry] 1. Become aware of the problem and use a
team approach, 2. Describe the problem 5W2H, 3. Im-
plement and verify containment actions, 4. Define and
verify root causes, 5. Verify corrective actions, 6. Imple-
ment permanent corrective actions, 7. Prevent recur-
rence, 8. Congratulate your team.
154. [Architecture, RIBA] 1. Assimilation, accumulation of
information, 2. General study, general nature of the
problem and investigate possible solutions, 3. Develop-
ment and refinement of one of the tentative solutions iso-
lated in phase 2, 4. Communication.
155. [Environment] 1. Recognize need for waste reduction, 2.
Plan and organize, 3. Assess options, 4. Test feasibility, 5.
Implement.
156. [Environment] 1. Determine need to change, 2. Evaluate
opportunity, 3. Determine need, 4. Initial commitment,
5. Get prepared, 6. Gain support, 7. Gain commitment,
8. Initial steps, 9. Plan, gather information, set goals, and
commit resources, 10. Implement, 11. Evaluate.
157. [Environment] 1. Identify alternatives, 2. Identify opti-
mum, 3. Define and describe alternatives, 4. Set criteria
and identify evaluation methodology, 5. Carry out the
evaluation and identify preferred option, 6. Compare
preferred option with do nothing alternative, 7. Prepare a
strategy for the preferred system.
158. [Medicine] 1. Gather initial data from the patient, 2.
Perception, 3. Analysis, 5. Problem synthesis, initial in-
formation is synthesized into a patient problem, 6. Multi-
ple hypotheses generation, 7. Inquiry strategy, 8. Clinical
skills questions and examinations, 9. Recycle.
159. [Marketing] 1. Idea, 2. Preliminary assessment, 3. Con-
cept, 4. Development, 5. Testing, 6. Trial, 7. Launch.
160. [Engineering] 1. Recognize social need or economic op-
portunity, 2. Conception, 3. Analysis, 4. Detailed process
and equipment design, 5. Implementation, construction,
6. Operation.
161. [Engineering] 1. Idea, 2. Preliminary market study,
patent search, process calculations and economics, 3. Lab
scale study, 4. Intermediate process calculations and eco-
nomics, 5. Detailed market research, pilot plant opera-
tion, equipment specifications, supplier quotations and
process optimization and evaluation.
Journal of Engineering Education 459