234 JOHN H. FLAVELL Keep track of past solution efforts, their outcomes, and the information they yielded, using external records if it makes sense to do so (and if that perverse ‘adult will let you); actively “remember” to remember, monitor, and update information and actively bring this information to bear on the problem. If children and other fallible organisms (¢g,, adults) could somehow be induced to produce and react appropriately to the functional equivalents of such impere tives and questions, I believe they would be far better problem solvers. Resnick and Glasor soem to make a similar point: “A job now ahead is to devise means of instructing people in the processes we have hypothesized as general to problem solution, and to evaluate the effects of such instruction across a variety of task environments [page 229].” Finally, some priceless suggestions to Resnick and Glaser about the conduct of future research. Nothing is more conducive to a self-righteous sense of scientific altruism than to make sage, ex cathedra pronouncements as to how others should do their research; it also takes remarkably little effort and “intelligence.” First, follow your own prescriptions about how to solve problems. Make your research goals as clear and specific as possible and try to make each experiment tell you something you really wanted to know concerning these goals. 1 think some of the research moves reported have been at least a bit tangential to the main objective. Second, don’t be quite so exclusively oriented toward external behaviors and external environments. Try to find out what is running through the child’s mind as he or she wends his or her way through the task. I have found that one can sometimes get good leads simply by asking them what they are trying to do at various points. Interrogation procedures are likelier to be productive with older ‘than with younger subjects, of course, Third, don’t overestimate the correspondence between your information: processing type flow diagrams (e.g., Fig. 1) and cognitive reality. While I realize you are well aware of the dangers of doing this, models do have a way of taking fon an air of reality through sheer use and familiarity. I suspect that a lot of hhuman thought, even in problem-solving situations, may be erratic and inconsis tent in direction, subject to multiply embedded interruptions and detours, and generally replete with vague, difficult-to-model ideas. Fourth, consider trying to devise problem situations which are still more naturalistic, even more “ethological-ecological” than the school-type tasks you have been working with. For example, children are constantly solving soca interactional as well as nonsocial problems; indeed, some of your subjects were apparently trying to solve a social problem when you thought they were trying to solve @ nonsocial one (page 224). Similarly—my idée fixe again—it would be interesting to see how children would handle problems when given free accesso external stores of relevant information. One possibility that combines your inclinations with mine would be to study the way children do homework problems. The investigator's role in relation to the child in such a study would of