RAUSCH ET AL.

: PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK

A version of this paper is published in International Journal of Lifelong Education

DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2015.1060023

Problem solving in everyday office work—A diary study on differences

between experts and novices

Andreas Rausch, Thomas Schley, and Julia Warwas

University of Bamberg (Germany)

Authors note

Andreas Rausch, Department of Business Education and Educational

Management, University of Bamberg, Germany.
Thomas Schley, Department of Business Education and Educational
Management, University of Bamberg, Germany.
Julia Warwas, Department of Business Education and Educational Management,
University of Bamberg, Germany.

This research was supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andreas Rausch,

Department of Business Education and Educational Management, University of
Bamberg, Kapuzinerstrasse 16, 96047 Bamberg (Germany). E-mail:
andreas.rausch@uni-bamberg.de
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 1

Abstract

Contemporary office work is becoming increasingly challenging as many routine

tasks are automated or outsourced. The remaining problem-solving activities may

also offer potential for lifelong learning in the workplace. In this study we analysed

problem solving in an office work setting using an Internet-based, semi-standardised

diary to collect data close to the process. Thirteen employees in commercial

departments of an automotive supplier participated voluntarily; they recorded sixty-

four domain-specific problem cases in total. Typical problems were moderately

complex but rather urgent. They were detected by means of monitoring, augmented

feedback, or feedback from others. The problems detected provoked states of high

arousal, including both negative and positive emotions. We found that seeking

support from others was the most common approach to problem solving, and that in

general problem solving offered considerable learning possibilities. Experts were

confronted with more complex problems than novices, they more often solved

problems using their domain-specific knowledge, but they also preferred social

support. Surprisingly experts reported higher negative emotional states after having

detected a problem than novices. The results, the diary method, and the limitations of

the study are discussed.

Keywords: problem solving, workplace learning, expertise, diary method

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 2

Problem solving in everyday office work—

A diary study on differences between experts and novices

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the ideal workplace was designed

according to the principles of so-called scientific management (Taylor, 1911).

Workplaces were set up for the execution of highly structured, repetitive tasks and

there was no flexibility. Management tasks were reserved to a few men at the top of

the hierarchy; the majority of the staff was neither expected nor allowed to learn at

work. Since then workplaces in developed economies have undergone radical

changes and despite the recent renaissance in Tayloristic management, expressed

for instance in the ISO standardization for quality assurance, many repetitive routine

tasks have been automated or outsourced to low-wage countries. The ever-changing

demand for products and services and the ever-increasing competition in global

markets necessitates effective industrial management. Many of routine office tasks

have been automated, for instance by means of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

software, which has resulted in waves of redundancies amongst low-skilled, white-

collar workers. Work in the back offices of industrial and service companies today

involves more problem solving and handling non-recurring exceptions. This requires

workers deal with complexity and understand the principles that underlie their work,

rather than simply follow routine procedures (Candy & Matthews, 1998; Tynjälä,

2013). Jonassen (2004) described the situation thus, ‘In professional contexts,

people are paid to solve problems, not to complete exams’ (p. XXI). Hence, problem-

solving skills have recently received considerable attention. Two basic approaches

can be distinguished. The first approach focuses on domain-general, cross-curricular

cognitive skills as predictors of problem solving. Greiff and colleagues, for instance,

define complex problem solving (CPS) skills as an essential prerequisite to

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 3

successfully deal with complex environments that change dynamically and involve a

large number of interconnected and partially intransparent causal influences (Greiff,

Wüstenberg, Holt, Goldhammer, & Funke, 2013). The second approach emphasises

the importance of domain-specific individual prerequisites such as expertise or more

generally, prior domain-specific experience and domain-specific knowledge.

Complex work demands and the related problem-solving activities also

facilitates learning in the workplace. Problem-solving activities initiated to achieve

work-related goals also produce informal learning as an intentional or unintentional

by-product (Billett, 1998; Eraut, 2004; Poell, van der Kroft, & Wildemeersch, 1998;

Rausch, 2013). Problem solving in the workplace is a requirement in many roles and

frequent problem solving promotes acquisition of domain-specific problem-solving

skills. Thus, problem solving in the workplace appears to be a promising approach

towards the challenges of lifelong learning. However, little is known about the

characteristics of everyday problems in the workplace and how they are solved.

Our research focused on problem solving in the context of everyday office

work. In this exploratory study we investigated problem characteristics, problem

detection, approaches to solving problems and learning outcomes; we also

investigated differences between experienced employees (domain experts) and

apprentices (novices). We used a semi-structured diary to collect data in order to

gain insight into problem-solving processes. Below we discuss theoretical

understanding of problem solving in the field of office work and the relationship

between problem solving, workplace learning and emotions. We describe the

rationale for our research, give details of our methods and sample and present our

results. In the final section we draw conclusions from our results and discuss the

limitations of this study with regard to future research.

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 4

Problem solving in the workplace

Duncker (1945) defined a problem as a situation in which someone has a goal,

but does not know how to reach it, due to a perceived barrier. Problem solving has

been defined as (a) goal-directed thinking involving construction of mental

representations of a problem, possible solutions and approaches to achieving a

solution and (b) goal-directed actions by which the chosen approach is implemented

(Jonassen & Hung, 2012; Reeff et al., 2005). A problem solver must be capable of

analysing the available information, planning a sequence of actions, and generating

instructions for him or herself. When implementing a plan of action the problem

solver must reflect on his or her actions to check that these instructions are

appropriate and, if necessary, modify them (Dörner & Schölkopf, 1991; Schley & van

Woerkom, 2014).

Problems can be categorised on the basis of complexity, complex problems

are characterised by the presence of many interconnected variables, polytely (i.e. the

pursuit of multiple and conflicting goals), lack of transparency and dynamic

development (i.e. the situation changes even without intervention) (Dörner, 1997;

Frensch & Funke, 1995; Funke, 2012). Complex problem solving is defined as a

successful interaction with the problem environment. A successful interaction

involves acquiring new knowledge about the problem situation by exploring it and

applying this newly acquired knowledge to achieve the desired goal state (Funke,

2001; Greiff et al., 2013). However, complexity is not an objective feature of a

situation but subjectively perceived (Dörner, 1997) because it depends on prior

experience and prior knowledge in the problem domain. Thus, we consider problem

situations on a subjective continuum between simple and complex, instead of making

a strict distinction.
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 5

Problems can also be classified on a continuum between well-structured and

ill-structured. Ill-structured problems have unclear goals, multiple criteria for

evaluating solutions and hence multiple solutions or even no solution at all and one

or more problem elements is unknown (Jonassen, 1997) whereas ‘well-structured

problems have a well-defined initial state, a known goal state or solution, and a

constrained set of known procedures for solving a class of problems’ (Jonassen,

2012, p. 2691). It has been argued that most of the problems in everyday practice

are ill-structured and difficult to solve (Jonassen, 2012), but we consider this

conclusion too general and so our first research objective was to characterise the

problems encountered by employees in commercial back-office departments and

how they were perceived.

In addition to the formal structure of a problem there two additional aspects of

problems which we consider crucial for categorising and interpreting problems in the

workplace, context and scope (Reeff, Zabal, & Klieme, 2005). The context of a

problem relates to the domain to which it belongs, and in the workplace context this

raises the issue of responsibility, in that - other than in a test setting - not every

individual will be responsible for resolving a given problem. For example, a power

outage in an office is a serious problem but dealing with it is not usually part of the

office workers’ duties; informing the department responsible or calling an electrician

for help would normally be a sufficient response.

The scope of a problem was defined by Reeff et al. (2005) as the extent of the

response required, from a single, discrete action to multiple sequences of action. We

prefer to describe this aspect of problems as ‘level’ as it relates, in the terminology of

the German tradition of action-theoretical approaches (Hacker, 2003), to the position

of a problem within a hierarchic, sequential model of action regulation. For instance,

comparison of bids from potential suppliers can present problems on very different
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 6

levels, not knowing how to calculate acquisition prices is clearly a high-level problem,

whereas not being able to find the sum function in the spreadsheet software is a low-

level problem. The issue of level has been little discussed in the context of problem

solving. This distinction between high- and low-level problems corresponds roughly

to the distinction between mistakes and slips or lapses that is recognised in research

on errors in the workplace (Reason, 1990).

The influences of the context and the level of a problem result in

methodological challenges when researching the characteristics of problems and

problem solving in the workplace because they can lead to misinterpretation of data.

Problem solving and emotions in the workplace

Research on problem solving is rooted in cognitive psychology, however the

role of emotion and motivation has increasingly attracted attention. There has been

interest in determining which emotions promote or hinder problem solving. The data

are inconsistent, but negative emotions have been found to have advantages in very

restrictive situations where the attentional load is high and exact processing is

required, whilst positive emotions appear to be helpful in situations that require

creative, collaborative problem solving (Isen, 2000; Schwarz & Skurnik, 2003;

Spering, Wagener, & Funke, 2005). Schwarz and Bless (1991) reported that negative

emotions, especially intense negative emotions, increase the tendency to avoid a

problem by shifting attention to easier tasks. This may be particularly important in

work settings where there are often opportunities to reduce one’s effort or escape the

problem by asking for help or passing the problem on to someone else. One might

argue however, following Rausch’s (2012) discussion of emotions and errors, that

problems by definition induce negative emotions, because they arise from a

perceived discrepancy between an undesirable current state and a desirable target

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 7

state. Our second research objective was therefore to investigate emotional

responses to problematic situations in the workplace.

Problem solving and learning in the workplace

Yet another difference between problem solving in the workplace and in most

psychological experiments and educational tests is the social context. Workplaces

are sites of vital social interactions and many everyday work problems are solved

through teamwork (Candy & Matthews, 1998), however this raises the issue of

attribution of competence and the norms relating to approaches to problem solving. It

is clear that certain approaches are more desirable than others in a workplace

context if we consider the extremes of a hypothetical continuum between the lone

fighter - someone who tries to solve problems alone and unaided - and the

freerider - someone who immediately seeks to pass any problem on to colleagues. A

lone fighter runs the risk of failing or reaching a sub-optimal solution, by shunning

assistance lone fighters not only restrict their own learning opportunities, they also

fail to disseminate their solutions and problem solving skills. From a normative

perspective the ‘lone fighter’ approach seems permissible for specialists whose role

in the workplace is highly individual (e.g. a single lawyer in a medium-sized

company). Freeriders do not function as problem solvers and they do not learn from

others because they pass on problems completely and immediately rather than

dealing with them; this approach seems acceptable if the problem is outside the

scope of one’s duties, for instance it is due to an error that can only be corrected in

another department. It is clear that in most situations, where the problem lies within

one’s responsibility the optimum response is somewhere between that of the lone

fighter and freerider. Cooperative, collaborative problem solving is a powerful

strategy for achieving high performance and fostering learning. In our view, learning
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 8

from cooperative, collaborative problem solving requires that the problem solver

remains the process owner even when other people are involved in each step of the

problem-solving process:

• Planning: The problem solver receives assistance in devising a plan of

action, but the plan is implemented by him or herself.

• Implementation: The problem solver receives assistance in implementing

the plan, but mentally follows and reconstructs the action sequence.

• Evaluation: The problem solver implements the plan unaided, but others

provide feedback.

Ultimately, the point is whether the problem solver activates, develops, or acquires a

solution (i.e., a productive action scheme) for the problem situation. This requirement

refers to knowledge acquisition as part of complex problem solving (see above).

Table 1 presents a classification of the sources of productive action schemes

(Rausch, 2011, p. 98; translated by the authors) based on the ideas of Hacker and

Skell (1993) and Dörner (2008).

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 9

Table 1.

Sources of productive action schemes (Rausch, 2011, p. 98).

The classification of the sources of productive action schemes presented in

Table 1 is meant to be exhaustive; but different sources may be used in combination.

Complex problem solving is particularly likely to require the use of multiple sources

and multiple loops. Our third research objective was to determine which sources of

productive action schemes are utilised in problem solving in the workplace.

Table 1 also illustrates the relationship between problem solving and learning

in the workplace. Ellström’s (2001) taxonomy of learning environments set out

workplace characteristics, which foster learning. These characteristics were similar to

the characteristics of complex problems described above. It seems that more

complex workplaces are more likely to promote higher-order learning, such as

investigative or creative learning. Our fourth research objective was to characterise

the learning achieved as a result of problem solving.

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 10

The role of experience in problem solving

Performance on domain-specific problems usually depends on experience in the

domain. Excellent performers are referred to as experts (Tynjälä, Nuutinen,

Eteläpelto, Kirjonen, & Remes, 1997). Expert performance is characterised by (1)

effective categorisation of problems; (2) monitoring of problem resolution; (3)

compilation of procedures and chunking of concepts; (4) correct diagnosis of

problems using principles and (5) selection of effective solution strategies (Billett,

1998). The degree of competence required to be considered an expert depends on

how expertise is defined. An absolute definition of expertise will generally refer to an

objective standard of exceptional performance which requires a decade or more of

effort and deliberate practice (e.g., chess or football). A relative definition simply

distinguishes at group level between the superior performance of the ‘expert’ group

and the inferior performance of the ‘novice’ group (Chi, 2006). This latter approach

seems suitable especially for domains in which there is no international visibility for

outstanding performance (e.g. accounting). We have adopted a relative definition of

expertise based on practical experience in the domain (Tynjälä et al., 1997; van Gog,

2012). Our fifth research objective was to distinguish between novices (i.e. trainees

with limited domain experience) and experts (i.e. skilled employees) in terms

problems tackled, emotional response to problems, approach to problem solving and

what is learnt from problem-solving.

Research questions

This was an exploratory study of office work at an industrial company, which

addressed the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: What are the typical characteristics of office work problems?

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 11

• RQ2: How are problems typically detected and what are the typical emotional

responses?

• RQ3: What approaches are typically used to solve everyday office work

problems?

• RQ4: What is commonly learnt as a result of problem solving in office work?

• RQ5: What are the differences between experts and novices in terms of

problems tackled, emotional response to problems, approach used and

learning from problem solving (RQ1 to RQ4)?

Method

Diary method

To gain insight into everyday problem solving in office work, data should be

collected as near to the process as possible, we therefore decided to use a semi-

standardised online diary to collect data. In diary studies, respondents are usually

required to report on predefined events, behaviours, or judgments according to

guidelines at a given time, in their natural setting. Diaries are useful when the

phenomena of interest cannot be measured by observation or when people find it

difficult to report on them retrospectively (Rausch, 2014). Use of diaries as a

research instrument is increasing, but to date there have been no diary studies of

problem solving in work settings. We used online diaries (a custom-built Internet

application using HTML, Java Script, PHP, and mySQL) because computers with

Internet access were available and our participants were comfortable using the

medium. The diary was structured according to the typical phases of the problem-

solving process. Most of the items are phrased fairly generally so that the diary can

be used to record problem solving in a variety of domains (e.g. one response to a

question about ‘what helped to solve the problem’ was ‘My own specific knowledge
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 12

and skills in this domain’). Only a few items were adapted to the context of office

work in commercial departments (e.g. using ‘suppliers’ and ‘customers’ as examples

for external parties). The diary is reproduced at Appendix 1.

The first diary section requested a description of the problem, including an

assessment of its frequency (responses on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = ‘several

times a day’ to 5 = ‘less than once per month’), possible consequences for oneself,

for other people in the company, for the company as a whole, for external

stakeholders (e.g. suppliers, customers) and any others. Urgency was to be

assessed on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘no time pressure at all’ to 6 =

‘very high time pressure’. The second section asked respondents to indicate their

emotional state at the time the problem was detected using a circumplex model of

emotions (Rausch, 2012; see Figure 2, Appendix 1). Several emotional states were

arranged in a circle diagram, the valence of the emotion was represented on the x-

axis and the level of arousal on the y-axis. Participants were asked to select up to

three emotional states out of eight and indicate the intensity of each on a scale from

1 = ‘a little’ to 3 = ‘very’; all unselected states were coded 0. The third section

consisted of seven closed items assessing problem complexity. Three items asked

about potential causes. The fourth section consisted of questions about the solution

to the problem. Participants were asked to assess the quality of the solution on a six-

point Likert scale (1 = ‘very bad’ to 6 = ‘very good’), we also requested a free-text

description of the solution. Seven additional items were based on the set of potential

solution sources (Table 1), the utility of each potential solution source was to be

assessed on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘no help at all’ to 6 = ‘a great help’. In the

fifth section participants were asked to rate how much they had learned from their

involvement with the problem on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘nothing at all’ to 6 =
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 13

‘a lot’ and provide a free-text description of what they had learned. Altogether, the

diary elicited data on nearly 50 variables per problem.

Research design

Data were collected between May and June 2012. Volunteer participants were

asked to fill in the diary over about four weeks and were requested to record one or

two problems per day for about ten workdays.

Previous field tests had been conducted to ensure that the online diary was

compatible with the company’s technical infrastructure and could be used without

problems. Participants attended a workshop prior to the diary period to ensure that

they were technically competent at using the online diary and, more importantly, to

give them a common understanding of the term ‘domain-specific problem’, for

example that it excluded all kinds of interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.

The research design also included administration of self-report questionnaires

before and after the diary period. These questionnaires elicited biographical

information, personality data (Big Five), information on vocational interests and error

orientation and included several scales measuring reflective ability. The second

questionnaire also included an assessment of the online diary and its usability. Both

questionnaires were administered online. This report focuses on the diary data.

Sample

Thirteen out of twenty-one employees (9 females, 4 males; 8 trainees, 5 skilled

employees) participated in the study. All participants worked in the back-office

departments of an internationally active automotive supplier in Germany. At the

beginning of the study the trainees had been working in their respective departments

for 4 weeks on average (min = 2; max = 8; SD = 2.45); the skilled employees had

been working there for 2.3 years on average (min = 1; max = 3; SD = 0.84). This
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 14

enormous difference in experience was the basis on which they were classed as

novices and experts (Chi, 2006; van Gog, 2012). The average age of the trainees

was 18.5 years (min = 17; max = 20; SD = 1.20). The average age of skilled

employees was 23.2 years (min = 20; max = 27; SD = 2.49). Overall 64 problems

were recorded (trainees: 33; skilled employees: 31), each participant recorded an

average of 4.92 problems (min = 2; max = 7; SD = 2.02). In the post-diary

questionnaire participants were asked to assess the extent to which various reasons

had contributed to their not having recorded more problem cases on a five-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’. The reason

most strongly endorsed was ‘There were no more problems to record’ (mdn = 5; M =

4.33; SD = 1.16), followed by ‘I had no time for more entries’ (mdn = 4; M = 3.42; SD

= 0.90). Participants did not report any problems using the software.

Data analysis

The qualitative data, i.e. the free-text responses were subjected to qualitative

content analysis, following the procedure described by Mayring (2007). We have

given examples of categories where appropriate and reported inter-rater reliabilities

(Cohen’s kappa). Content analysis was performed by two raters, one of the authors

and a graduate student with considerable previous experience of the procedure. We

have reported median (mdn), mean value (M) and standard deviation (SD) as well as

minimum (min) and maximum (max) for quantitative data. Where appropriate we also

assessed the normality of the distribution of data using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test

with the Lilliefors correction. The points on the Likert scales used in the diary were

intended to be equidistant and we treated the scales as interval scales; this may be a

strong assumption for some variables. We have reported mean values and standard

deviations whilst recognising that these statistics may be of limited validity for
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 15

describing the distributions of some data. Mean differences were assessed with the

Mann-Whitney U test. Effect size was assessed using Cohen’s d; d > 0.20 indicates a

small effect, d > 0.50 indicates a medium effect and d > 0.80 indicates a large effect

(Cohen, 1988). In view of the exploratory nature of the research we used p < 0.10 as

the criterion for significance; the Bonferroni-Holm correction was used to control for

alpha error inflation. Correlations were analysed using Spearman’s correlation

coefficient. All quantitative analyses were conducted using SPSS 21.0.

Results

Characteristics of office work problems (RQ1)

The 64 recorded problems covered a wide variety of everyday workplace

problems. Some of the free-text descriptions illustrate the range of problems

recorded (translated from the original German by the authors):

• ‘Workshop participants had been invited to a room that was already booked for

that time. An alternative room could not be found and the date of the workshop

was getting closer.’

• ‘An order had to be entered into the ERP (enterprise resource planning

software), but this was not possible because of the overrun credit limit.’

• ‘The number of remaining days of annual leave entered on a holiday form was

not consistent with what the software was showing.’

• ‘Additional product information was necessary for shipping overseas, but you

needed to be an engineer to fill in the forms.’

Inductive qualitative content analysis of these free-text descriptions produced five

categories of problem source, (1) lack of experience: 39%; (2) organisational barrier:

19%; (3) technical barrier: 15%; (4) conflict of opinion: 11%; (5) conflict of resources:

9%. Five cases (8%) did not fit any category. We found however that there were two
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 16

major problems with this approach, first, problem selection, priorities and the details

given in the free text description were entirely controlled by participants and the data

were very subjective and in some cases minor changes to these variables would

have resulted in a problem being classified differently. Second, the classification of

the text material was not satisfactory; this was reflected in a low Cohen’s kappa, =

.56.

One of the problem characteristics of interest was frequency. Participants were

asked how frequently they encountered the type of problem they were reporting, with

responses given on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = ‘several times a day’, 2 = ‘once a

day’, 3 = ‘once a week’, 4 = ‘once a month’ to 5 = ‘less frequently’. Most of the

problems occurred roughly once a week (33%), or roughly once a month (30%). Less

than 5% of the problems occurred several times a day and 14% roughly once a day.

The remaining problems (19%) were classified as occurring less than once a month.

In their assessment of the negative consequences of the problem for

themselves, colleagues, the entire company and external stakeholders participants

indicated that the negative consequences were greatest for the entire company;

however these data were positively skewed, reflecting generally low ratings of the

negative consequences for all parties (floor effect). In contrast problems were

generally assessed as being fairly urgent (mdn = 4; M = 3.92; SD = 1.16; urgency

was rated on a six-point Likert scale from 1 = ‘no time pressure at all’ to 6 = ‘very

high time pressure’).

We operationalised complexity in seven items with three response options,

‘yes’; ‘partly’ or ‘no’ (e.g. ‘There were several conflicting goals’). Whilst recognising

that complexity is perceived subjectively, this was an attempt to obtain comparable

ratings of complexity across the sample of recorded problems. The indicators of

complexity were equally weighted to give a single index ranging from 0 = ‘no
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 17

complexity’ (i.e. all items were rated ‘no’) to 1 = ‘maximum complexity’ (i.e. all items

were rated ‘yes’). Eight problems had a complexity index score of less than 0.10 (M =

0.30; SD = 0.19; min = 0.00; max = 0.79) and one case actually had a score of 0.00.

Given that participants had been asked to record typical problems on a daily basis

the moderate mean complexity score was not surprising, but because the instrument

was new no reference values were available. Complexity and urgency were

moderately correlated (r = .25, p = .04).

Problem detection and emotional states (RQ2)

Free-text responses to the question about how the problem was detected were

classified into four categories: (1) ‘monitoring’ i.e. alertness during a task and careful

re-examination after task execution (44% of problems); (2) ‘augmented feedback’ i.e.

specific feedback from a technical system e.g. alarm messages, error prompts,

problem reports etc. (27% of problems); (3) ‘feedback from colleagues’ (25% of

problems); (4) ‘feedback from external people’ (2 problems; 3%). There was only one

problem for which we were unable to classify the method of detection. Inter-rater

reliability of the classification of method of detection was satisfactory (Cohen’s kappa

= .71).

A second question in this section asked about the emotional states that

followed the detection of a problem. Table 2 gives descriptive statistics for emotional

states associated with problem detection.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of emotional states at the time the problem is detected.

Item Position mdn M SD Min Max

Motivated / delighted / curious (pos/high) 1   0.91   1.05   0 3

Confident / happy / glad (pos/high) 0   0.66   0.95   0 3

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 18

Contented / accepted / proud (pos/low) 0   0.14   0.56   0 3

Calm / even-tempered / daydreaming (pos/low) 0   0.41   0.97   0 3

Bored / dull / uninterested (neg/low) 0   0.08   0.45   0 3

Unhappy / gloomy / sad (neg/low) 0   0.33   0.89   0 3

Irritated / annoyed / angry (neg/high) 0   0.75   1.27   0 3

Nervous / worried / afraid (neg/high) 0   0.81   1.22   0 3

Notes: recorded problems: n = 64; neg = negative emotional state; pos = positive emotional state; high = high
arousal; low = low arousal (scale ranged from 1= ‘a little’ to 3 = ‘very’, a maximum of 3 out of 8 emotional states
could be selected for each problem, unselected states were coded ’0’).

Surprisingly, problem detection not only resulted in the anticipated negative

emotional states, such as irritation, annoyance, anger, nervousness, worry, fear, but

was also associated with positive emotional states, such as feeling motivated,

delighted, curious, confident, happy or glad. High arousal was common to nearly all

emotional responses; emotional states associated with low arousal were rarely

reported. The relatively high standard deviation for this variable - and the fact that the

full range of possible answers was used - indicated that detecting a problem could

evoke a wide variety of emotional responses. Unsurprisingly, feeling nervous, worried

or afraid was correlated with the urgency of a problem (r = .28, p = .02) and with its

complexity (r = .30, p = .02). Negative emotions were reported to be stronger when

the problem was detected as a result of feedback from others (categories 3 and 4)

rather than as a result of one’s own activities (categories 1 and 2), the opposite

pattern was found for positive emotions but the differences were not significant.

Approaches to office problem solving (RQ3)

Participants were asked to assess the quality of the solution using a six-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘very bad’ to 6 = ‘very good’. The solution was rated 1 or
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 19

2 for only 2% of problems, whereas for more than 50% of problems it was rated 5 or

6 (mdn = 5; M = 4.78; SD = 1.14). Table 3 summarises data on factors contributing to

the solution of problems in descending order of importance.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics for factors contributing to the solution of a problem.

Items (in descending order of contribution) mdn M SD Min Max

Support from others 6 4.77 1.76 1 6

My previous experience with similar problems 4 3.97 1.51 1 6

My intense thinking, deliberation and reflection 4 3.72 1.41 1 6

My specific knowledge and skills in this domain 4 3.67 1.46 1 6

My search through various sources of information 3 3.12 1.86 1 6

My use of trial and error 2 2.36 1.59 1 6

Good luck 1 1.67 1.38 1 6

Notes: recorded problems n = 64; six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘no help at all’ to 6 = ‘a great help’.

Social support was reported to be the most important factor in solving

problems in the workplace, followed by previous experience, intense deliberation,

specific knowledge and skills and information retrieval, which were similarly rated.

Trial and error played only a marginal role in solving the problems in our sample. We

also asked participants about the extent of their own contribution to the solution to

the problem, which, on average, they rated as rather high (mdn = 4; M = 4.35; SD =

1.17; min = 1; max = 6).

Learning from office problem solving (RQ4)

The final section of the diary asked the participants how much they had

learned from dealing with the problem. The answers indicated that problems

generally presented substantial possibilities for learning although, once again, the
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 20

standard deviation was high (mdn = 4; M = 3.76; SD = 1.59; min = 1; max = 6).

Unfortunately content analysis of the free-text descriptions of what was learned

proved problematic because the responses did not align well with the deductively

derived classification system. This consisted of five categories: (1) learned a new

task; (2) learned new operations/ variants /aspects of a task; (3) developed a routine

procedure for a task, (4) learned general behaviour patterns and (5) learned nothing

at all. Nearly all descriptions fell into categories 2 (62%) and 3 (30%) and inter-rater

reliability was unsatisfactory (Cohen’s kappa = .51).

Interestingly, participants’ assessment of how much they had learnt from a

problem correlated with their rating of problem complexity (r = .30, p = .02) and was

also correlated with feeling nervous, worried or afraid (r = .31, p = .02). Participants’

assessment of how much they had learnt from a problem was not correlated with

their assessment of their personal contribution to the solution (r = .00, p = .99).

Differences between experts and novices (RQ 5)

This section addresses the differences between the skilled employees we

classed as ‘experts’ and the trainees we classed as ‘novices’ in problem solving

during everyday office work. Table 4 gives comparisons of group means for the

variables investigated.

Table 4

Comparisons of means between experts and novices.

Experts Novices

mdn M SD mdn M SD p d

Problem characteristics

Frequency of problem type 4 3.71 0.90 3 3.18 1.21 .08 0.48

Urgency 4 4.16 1.07 4 3.70 1.21 .07 0.40

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 21

Complexity -- 0.37 0.22 -- 0.24 0.13 .02 0.77

Emotional state at time of

problem detection

Motivated/ delighted/ curious 0 0.84 1.07 1 0.97 1.05 .61 0.12

Confident/ happy/ glad 0 0.42 0.89 1 0.88 0.96 .02 0.49

Content/ accepted/ proud 0 0.13 0.50 0 0.15 0.62 .97 0.02

Calm/ even-tempered/
0 0.42 0.99 0 0.39 0.97 .92 0.03
daydreaming

Bored/ dull /uninterested 0 0.16 0.64 0 0.00 0.00 -- --

Unhappy/ gloomy/ sad 0 0.32 0.87 0 0.33 0.92 .96 0.01

Irritated/ annoyed/ angry 0 1.19 1.45 0 0.33 0.92 .01 0.75

Nervous/ worried/ afraid 0 1.06 1.32 0 0.58 1.10 .12 0.41

Problem solution

Quality of solution 5 4.88 1.13 5 4.69 1.17 .52 0.16

Participant’s contribution 4 4.17 1.19 4 4.48 1.15 .45 0.27

Sources of action schemes

Support from others 5 4.27 1.87 6 5.20 1.56 .02 0.55

My previous experience with

5 4.23 1.30 4 3.75 1.65 .28 0.31
similar problems

My intense thinking,
5 4.16 1.31 3 3.34 1.40 .03 0.60
deliberation and reflection

My specific knowledge and

4.5 4.27 1.08 3.5 3.19 1.55 .01 0.77
skills in this domain

My search through various

1 2.04 1.69 4 4.00 1.51 .00* 1.24
sources of information

My use of trial and error 1 1.90 1.30 2 2.73 1.73 .09 0.52

Good luck 1 1.62 1.24 1 1.72 1.51 .84 0.07

Learning outcomes

extent of learning 4 4.15 1.49 4 3.44 1.63 .15 0.45

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 22

Notes: problems nExperts = 31; problems nNovices = 33; p = p-value for Mann-Whitney U test; d = Cohen’s d; * =
significant at p < .10 after Bonferroni-Holm correction.

Comparisons of means initially revealed several significant differences, but

after applying the Bonferroni-Holm correction for multiple comparisons the only

significant difference between experts and novices was for ‘My search through

various sources of information’. Conclusions based on group differences are

therefore tentative.

In our sample experts considered that they had faced more complex problems

than the novices reported encountering, this effect was of medium size; there were

no significant group differences in urgency or frequency of problem type. Further

exploratory analyses revealed that experts rated the potential negative

consequences of their problems as greater for the company (p = .00; d = 1.79) and

for external stakeholders (p = .00; d = 0.93) than novices. It appears that problems

assigned to or selected by skilled employees potentially have a larger negative

impact than those dealt with by trainees.

Experts reported more high arousal, negative emotional states after detecting

problems than novices; but in interpreting this result it is important to consider the

subjective difference in the complexity of problems dealt with by the two group, it is

likely that many of the ‘problems’ faced by novices would not bother the experts and

would not have been categorised as ‘problems’.

Experts and novices provided similar ratings for solution quality and personal

contribution to the solution. In identifying sources of productive action schemes

experts considered that their specific knowledge and their intense deliberation were

more important whereas novices relied more on searching for information and

support from others, although support from others was also the source of choice for
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 23

experts. There was no group difference in assessment of how much they learnt from

dealing with problems.

Discussion and conclusion

This study analysed everyday problem solving in back-office departments; a

diary procedure was used in order to gain in situ insight into problem solving. Skilled

employees, ‘experts’, and trainees, ‘novices’, were asked to keep a record of

everyday domain-specific problems in a specially designed online diary application.

Thirteen participants recorded information about 64 problems.

In our sample the typical problem occurred roughly once a week or once a

month and had few potential negative consequences although the time pressure was

often high. Drawing on relevant literature we developed a complexity index ranging

from 0 = ‘no complexity’ to 1 = ‘maximum complexity’. The mean complexity score for

problems reported in this study was moderate, 0.30, indicating that the problems

were not perceived as very complex. Participants were requested to report on a daily

basis however, so it is unsurprising that only a few of the problems recorded were

rated as very complex.

Everyday problems were usually detected through monitoring one’s own

performance, augmented feedback from technical systems or feedback from others.

Problem detection was associated with high arousal in both negative and positive

emotional states. Problem detection as a result of feedback from others was more

likely to trigger negative emotional states than detecting a problem oneself. Feelings

of nervousness and worry were also connected to the perceived complexity and

urgency of the problem.

We found that the most common approach to solving domain-specific

problems was to seek support from others; neither trial and error nor information
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 24

retrieval strategies were much used. On further reflection it is not very surprising that

trial and error is not a common approach to problem solving in the workplace; in the

workplace unlike in the laboratory, the consequences of trying a potential solution

may be serious and irreversible. Doubtless there are plenty situations in which trial

and error is advisable, for instance when searching for the appropriate way to enter a

formula in a spreadsheet, however it is likely that such situations seem so

insignificant that they are not even perceived as ‘problems’, let alone as worth

mentioning in a problem diary. Although trial and error is used in the workplace it is

not the method of choice for problem solving.

One might question whether seeking support from others should be

considered problem solving. Does ‘getting by with a little help from your friends’ still

constitute problem solving or does it reflect an attempt to escape the problem by

passing it to someone else following failure of personal problem solving activities?

The problem is still solved, but one might conclude that the individual who detected

and recorded it did not solve it. This is an important point when considering the

acquisition of competence. The availability of expertise and the eagerness of experts

to provide guidance are seen as important factors in workplace learning (Billett,

1995), so from this perspective it is not surprising that individuals often make use of

social support when solving problems. In the Introduction we emphasised that for an

individual to be considered to have learnt something from a problem it is enough that

he or she, at the least, mentally follows the solution even if it is not implemented by

him or herself. It was therefore not surprising that in this study perceived learning

from a problem was not correlated with personal contribution to the solution.

In general participants’ responses indicated that problem solving in the

workplace presents substantial opportunities for learning. Therefore, problem-solving

requirements in the workplace are a powerful means of lifelong learning. Perceived

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 25

learning from a problem was correlated with perceived complexity and also with

nervousness and worry at the time the problem was detected. This implies that one

develops vocational or professional competence by dealing with complexity. Negative

emotional states associated with complexity suggest a slow increase of challenges

along a ‘workplace curriculum’ which structures and sequences experiences to

promote workplace learning (Billett, 2011).

Differences between experts and novices

Comparison of experts and novices in our sample revealed few differences.

Unsurprisingly experts faced more complex problems and they were more likely than

novices to solve problems using domain-specific knowledge and skills. For novices

social support was by far the most important problem-solving resource. However,

cooperation and collaboration remain important sources for problem solving even for

skilled employees. Of course experts have a much larger repertoire of routines

covering situations that might be experienced as problems by novices, but when they

do not have a routine for handling a situation they too will seek help from others.

Surprisingly, experts reported more negative emotional states after detecting a

problem than novices. One might have expected that trainees with only a few weeks

of experience would feel, for instance, more nervous. There are several plausible

explanations for this finding. Further exploratory analyses showed that experts

considered that the potential negative consequences of the problems they handled

were significantly greater than novices' assessment of the consequences of the

problems they handled. The perceived significance of the problems confronted by

experts is greater; however it may be that trainees are simply not aware of the full

range of negative consequences or they might think that, as trainees, they will not be

held responsible for those consequences and therefore worry less. Experts’ negative
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 26

emotional responses may also function as an alarm system for possible hazards (see

‘affect-as-information theory’, Storbeck & Clore, 2008 and ‘situation awareness

theory’, Endsley, 1995) and thus reflect their competence. It is also possible that

skilled employees face generally higher time pressure and a higher workload than

trainees and that this is reflected in a more negative emotional response to problems.

Limitations

The diary procedure we used enabled us to collect nearly contemporaneous

data on workplace problem solving rather than relying on retrospectively

administered questionnaires. High variability in the volume of data produced by

participants is typical when using diary procedures; some participants recorded more

problems than others. This may have resulted in biases, such that particular problem

types, emotional responses to problems or approaches to problem solving were

under- or over-represented in our sample. Multi-level analysis can be used to control

for problems of this type, but our sample was much too small to use this approach.

Furthermore, the validity of some between-subjects comparisons may be limited. For

instance, problem complexity is subjectively perceived depending on prior experience

in the domain; nevertheless we believe that the measure of complexity we developed

for this study is an easy to use instrument that facilitates comparisons of perceived

complexity. The supplementary free-text fields were of limited value as the scarcity

and diversity of text often impeded analysis. In most instances the inter-rater

reliability of content analysis of free-text fields was rather poor and we therefore

refrained from further interpretation. This is an important limitation as we remain

convinced that content analysis of domain-specific problems has the potential to

provide important insights. We assume that in this study a somewhat limited

understanding of the term ‘problem’ reduced what would otherwise have been a
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 27

higher response rate because, when asked why no further problems had been

recorded, most participants stated that there had not been any other problems. We

assume that many problems, especially those that are solved quickly, remain

unrecognized. We used a preliminary workshop in an attempt to forestall definitional

problems but future research should make further efforts to ensure that participants

share the researchers’ definition of ‘problem’. The small sample size was a major

limitation and the generalisability of our findings is therefore questionable. This was

an exploratory study however; our results should provide a foundation for further

research on problem solving in the workplace.

Conclusion and future research

Dealing with complexity is an important requirement in a large proportion of

contemporary workplaces in modern industrial societies. Problems in the workplace

are domain-specific because the solutions to problems in the workplace usually

require domain-specific knowledge, algorithms, tools etc.; to gain a deeper

understanding of these problem-solving processes we need to further investigate

problem solving in the workplace. In this study we used a diary procedure to

investigate office problem solving at an industrial company. Using a fairly general

diary format that fits a wide range of problems, as we did, precluded the collection of

rich data on the specific details of problems. Further field work, for instance

observations, expert interviews or, in the case of Vocational Education and Training

(VET), curriculum analyses, is needed to build an understanding of the content

structure of a given domain. Such domain models are required for the development

of instruments for assessing vocational and professional competence, but they also

support curriculum development and the design of workplaces under the perspective

of lifelong learning.
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 28

Further research should investigate the influences of general dispositions such

as intelligence, complex problem solving skills (CPS) or Big Five personality factors

and domain-specific competences such as domain knowledge and prior experience

on problem solving in the workplace. Combining these strands of research would

make an important contribution to our understanding of human problem solving in

real-life contexts.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to our former Master students Benjamin Brosi, Matthias Hoffmann,

and Sebastian Schubert who were able assistants in this study.

References

Billett, S. (1995). Workplace learning: Its potential and limitations. Education and Training,

37(5), 20-27.

Billett, S. (1998). Understanding workplace learning: Cognitive and sociocultural

perspectives. In D. Boud (Ed.), Current issues and new agendas in workplace

learning (pp. 43-59). Leabrook, SA: National Centre for Vocational Education

Research. doi: 10.1108/00400919510089103

Billett, S. (2011). Workplace curriculum: practice and propositions. In F. Dochy, D. Gijbels, M.

Segers, & P. van den Bossche (Eds.), Theories of learning for the workplace (pp. 17-

36). London: Routledge.

Candy, P., & Matthews, J. (1998). Fusing learning and work: Changing conceptions of

workplace learning. In D. Boud (Ed.), Current issues and new agendas in workplace

learning (pp. 12-29). Leabrook, SA: National Centre for Vocational Education

Research.

Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics. In K. A.

Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of

expertise and expert performance (pp. 21-30). Cambridge, MA: University Press.
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 29

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörner, D. (1997). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations.

Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Dörner, D. (2008). Bauplan für eine Seele [Blueprint for a soul]. Reinbek bei Hamburg:

Rowohlt.

Dörner, D., & Schölkopf, J. (1991). Controlling complex systems; or, expertise as

’grandmother's know-how’. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general

theory of expertise. Prospects and limits (pp. 218-239). Cambridge, MA: University

Press.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113.

doi:10.1037/h0093599

Ellström, P.-E. (2001). Integrating learning and work: Problems and prospects. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 421-435. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1006

Endsley, M. R. (1995): Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human

Factors, 37, 32-64. doi: 10.1518/001872095779049543

Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26,

247-273. doi: 10.1080/158037042000225245

Frensch, P. A., & Funke, J. (1995). Definitions, traditions, and a general framework for

understanding complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex

problem solving. The European perspective (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Funke, J. (2001). Dynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Thinking &

Reasoning, 7(1), 69-89. doi: 10.1080/13546780042000046

Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the

Sciences of Learning (pp. 682-685). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-

4419-1428-6
PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 30

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Holt, D. H., Goldhammer, F., & Funke, J. (2013). Computer-based

assessment of Complex Problem Solving: concept, implementation, and application.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 407-421. doi:

10.1007/s11423-013-9301-x

Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work

processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105-130.

doi: 10.1080/13594320344000075

Hacker, W., & Skell, W. (1993). Lernen in der Arbeit [Learning in the workplace]. Berlin:

Federal Institute for Vocational Training.

Isen, A. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.),

Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 417-435). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured

problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 45, 65-94. doi:10.1007/BF02299613

Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems. An instructional design guide. San

Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Problem typology. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences

of Learning (pp. 2683-2686). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-

Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2012). Problem solving. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

the sciences of learning (pp. 2680-2683). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-

1-4419-1428-6

Mayring, P. (2007). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse - Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative

content analysis - Basics and techniques] (9th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

Poell, R. F., Van der Krogt, F. J., & Wildemeersch, D. A. (1998). Solving work-related

problems through learning projects. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 17,

341-351. doi: 10.1080/0260137980170506

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 31

Rausch, A. (2011). Erleben und Lernen am Arbeitsplatz in der betrieblichen Ausbildung

[Emotions and learning in the workplace within in-firm vocational education and

training]. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-93199-9

Rausch, A. (2012). Errors, emotions, and learning in the workplace – Findings from a diary

study within VET. In E. Wuttke & J. Seifried (Eds.), Learning from errors at school and

at work (pp. 111-126). Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

Rausch, A. (2013). Task characteristics and learning potentials—Empirical results of three

diary studies on workplace learning. Vocations & Learning, 6(1), pp. 55-79. doi:

10.1007/s12186-012-9086-9

Rausch, A. (2014). Using diaries in research on work and learning. In C. Harteis, A. Rausch,

& J. Seifried (Eds.), Discourses on professional learning: On the boundary between

learning and working (pp. 341-366). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-

7012-6_17

Reason, J. T. (1990). Human error. Cambridge, MA: University Press.

Reeff, J.-P., Zabal, A., & Klieme, E. (2005). ALL problem solving framework. In T. S. Murray,

Y. Clermont, & M. Binkley (Eds.), International Adult Literacy Survey—Measuring

adult literacy and life skills: New frameworks for assessment (pp. 192-227). Ottawa,

ON: Ministry of Industry.

Schley, T., & van Woerkom, M. (2014). Reflection and reflective behaviour in work teams. In

C. Harteis, A. Rausch, & J. Seifried (Eds.), Discourses on professional learning: On

the boundary between learning and working (pp. 113-139). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:

10.1007/978-94-007-7012-6_7

Schwarz, N., & Bless, B. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of

affective states on analytic reasoning. In J. Forgas, (Ed.), Emotion and social

judgment (pp. 55-72). London: Pergamon.

Schwarz, N., & Skurnik, I. (2003). Feeling and thinking: Implications for problem solving. In J.

E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 263-

290). Cambridge, MA: University Press.

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 32

Spering, M., Wagener, D, & Funke, J. (2005). The role of emotions in complex problem-

solving. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 1252-1261. doi: 10.1080/02699930500304886

Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal

influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 2, 1824-1843. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00138.x

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.

Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations

and Learning, 6, 11–36. doi: 10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z

Tynjälä, P., Nuutinen, A., Eteläpelto, A., Kirjonen, J., & Remes, P. (1997). The acquisition of

professional expertise—A challenge for educational research. Scandinavian Journal

of Educational Research, 41, 475-494. doi: 10.1080/0031383970410318

Van Gog, T. (2012). Expertise. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning

(pp. 1238-1240). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6

Appendix 1

Items used in the Internet-based problem diary (translated by the authors).

A) Description of the problem

A1) Please give a brief, accurate summary of the problem (without mentioning names

or other confidential details). [free text field]

A2) How often are you faced with this kind of problem?

- several times a day

- once a day

- once a week

- once a month

- less frequently

A3) Please assess the possible negative consequences of this problem (from 1 = ‘no

negative consequences’ to 6 = ‘very negative consequences’; or 0 = ‘I cannot assess

the consequences’). Negative consequences for…

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 33

… yourself

… other people in the company

… the company as a whole

… external stakeholders (e.g. suppliers, customers)

… other

A4) Please assess the urgency of the problem (from 1 = ‘no time pressure at all’ to 6

= ‘very high time pressure’; or ‘0’ = ‘I cannot assess the urgency.’).

B) Detection of the problem and emotional experiences

B1) Please describe how you became aware of the problem (without mentioning

names or other confidential details). [free text field]

B2) Please specify how you felt at the moment when you became aware of the

problem. Choose up to three emotional states. Marking a large circles at the outer

edge represents a strong feeling Small circles near the centre represent weaker

feelings (from 1 = ‘a little’ to 3 = ‘very’; emotional states, which were not chosen were

coded as 0).

Figure 2. Circumplex model of emotions (Rausch, 2012, p. 118)

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 34

C) Analysis of the problem

In the following questions we are interesting in how you initially assessed the problem

(before it was solved).

C1) Which of the following descriptions was applicable to the problem situation?

(‘yes’, ‘partly’ or ‘no’)

- Initially, I did not know how to solve the problem.

- Initially, I did not know the exact nature of the problem.

- Initially, I did not know the exact magnitude of the problem.

- Initially, I did not know what a good solution would look like.

- There were several conflicting goals.

- Many variables were inter-related.

- The situation was dynamic (i.e. changing without outside input)

C2) What were the causes of the problem? (‘yes’, ‘partly’, ‘no’)

- I caused the problem.

- A colleague caused the problem.

- The problem was caused by external factors.

- Other [free text]

D) Dealing with the problem

Please answer the following questions only if the problem has been solved.

D1) Please describe in detail how, when and by whom the problem was solved

(without mentioning names or other confidential details). [free text field]

D2) Some questions about solving the problem

How do you rate the quality of the solution? (from 1 = ‘very poor’ to 6 = ‘very good’; or

0 = ‘I cannot assess it.’)

Which of these factors contributed to solving the problem? (from 1 = ‘no help at all’ to

6 = ‘a great help’)

- My own specific knowledge and skills in this domain.

- My previous experience with similar problems

PROBLEM SOLVING IN EVERYDAY OFFICE WORK 35

- My intense thinking, deliberation and reflection

- My use of trial and error

- My search through various sources of information

- Support from others

- Good luck

How important was your personal contribution to solving the problem? (from 1 = ‘I did

not contribute at all’ to 6 = ‘very important’; or 0 = ‘I cannot assess it.’)

E) Gained experience

E1) How much have you learnt from dealing with this problem? (from 1 = ‘nothing at

all’ to 6 = ‘a lot’)

E2) Please describe what exactly you have learned (without mentioning names or

other confidential details). [free text field]