In the psycho-jargon around problem-solving, we seem innately to consider only single moves or, at best, rather small clusters of moves. Apparently, we do not innately see, or even feel we could usefully think about, non-specific problem structures or problem spaces in general (Kahney 1986). Without prompting, we do not seem to consider the consideration of problems per se; we do not think about the construction of our problem and whether there may be clues to its solution there, as a matter of course. We do not naturally think about similar problems and whether there are any lessons to be taken from them - we plunge instantly into thinking about possible moves in the problem which is before us right now. It is to counteract this tendency that so many courses instruct us how to think about our subject in general terms rather than look at the facts within it. (Vide management-speak?) It is the difference between information and understanding.

We can usefully think in terms of novices and experts in this context. Initially, and in many circumstances, we are all novices, of course. Novices and experts have different amounts of subject knowledge, but they also represent problems completely differently. A novice instantly sets about solving a particular problem as soon as it is set. This, inevitably, means concentrating at once on detail, which, equally inevitably, means ignoring structure. The novice immediately plunges into the wood and begins looking carefully and intently at and among trees. Not many trees can be seen at any one time and it is difficult to see any distance. There is a bewildering amount of detail, but not many clues as to the relevance, or otherwise, of any of it for him. The light is poor in there, and no path seems any more hopeful than any other. Some turn out not even to be real paths. The sense of direction is soon lost. Under such circumstances, the novice can only plan small strategems which will take him a short way, and hope for the best. It is seldom absolutely clear whether any path is really relevant to the ultimate goal. It is often necessary to retrace steps and abandon particular paths. Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether a path has been tried before or not. It is inevitably largely a trial and error approach. Our novice will quickly forget most relevant details of the problem and will soon lose the sense of the route he took to reach the solution upon which (let us hope) he may stumble. When he does, it will be almost completely accidentally.

While the novice is blundering speculatively back and to in the dark wood the expert has remained outside, thinking about problem structure, perhaps even walking away from the wood to some higher ground for a better overview. He will deliberately consider other woods he has been in, and the general and specific structures of problems they have posed. He will review his knowledge of woods in general and specifically. He will think about structure, but also about solution - what does he really want from addressing this particular wood and is it worth addressing? He may take time for a cup of tea and some peace of mind. He may look up information on his laptop which he foresees he will need. He will, in fact, deliberately employ meta-cognition. The expert may enter the wood in a while, but will then be concerned only with particularly meaningful trees, or patterns of trees, or topographical features, or alignment to the sun, or wind direction, or the tracks of particular animals … The expert will have seen whether it is worth working in this wood at all and, if so, what to look for, why and where. He will only be looking for, and at, particular features and he will know what they all mean for him. There will be few surprises in there.

Our novice is stuck with very local trial and error searching - our expert understands. He understands the particular problem, but he also understands the generalities of this kind of problem. He recognises the probability that this wood is similar to other woods in important respects and the need to consider this deliberately. He will eventually proceed swiftly, and directly, to his goal and will very likely learn something which will be of value when he next has to enter a wood, particularly if he finds any part of the problem tricky. He will find the whole episode challenging and interesting. He will have noticed many salient features of the wood, because he knows which features are and which are not. He will be able to understand and remember interesting details of this particular wood and will be able to use these if a need arises in future. He will also remember to remember them if it does.

Working in that wood as a novice, however, is enervating, oppressive and a little frightening. The novice may even feel humiliated and cowed. He will have only a rather general impression of the wood. He will notice and recall very few important details, and little of what he recalls will make much sense. Almost none of it will be memorable, or remembered. Once out in the daylight, his wish to experience other woods, and his confidence in his ability to handle a wood-related situation, is likely to be small. Perhaps we do not believe, as Ronald Reagan once remarked, that once you’ve seen one tree you’ve seen them all, but it begins to feel exactly like this. Woods have probably come to seem rather belittling, even hostile environments. His opinion of himself has probably fallen. As a woodsman it certainly will have. The longer it takes him to solve this wood, the more his negative responses (to this wood and woods in general) will predominate. As Simon says ‘The human information-processing system is capable of, and willing to endure, very little trial and error search’ (1985 p. 259). One major difference, therefore, between the novice and the expert, is that the one will soon run out of steam and become frustrated and even perhaps actually averse; the other will remain interested, especially if he feels he has been challenged. Novices risk demotivation the more difficulty they encounter, experts become ever more motivated by it. (And see an interesting article by Yau (2005) examining the reading behaviours and attitudes of an expert and a novice reader.)