Kounios and Beeman (2014) stated that insight is a sudden change in the formation of a specific concept with other types of knowledge representations which often leads to the solution of a problem. Insights are usually accompanied by a sudden burst of emotion which would include a highly positive surprise. However, in contrast, analytic solutions are not supplemented by an emotional response (Salvi et al. 2016). Once you have achieved an insight solution, Topolinski and Reber (2010) argued that insight solution is a feeling which is later hypothesised to be a consequence of a higher fluent processing which will then propel into an unconsciousness idea into awareness. Insight has been derived from the Gestalt approach which stated that problem-solving behaviour is often both reproductive and productive. Lv (2015) suggests that this system is based on the notion that the understanding of the problem will appear promptly in an Aha! Moment. The Aha effect is the sudden appearance of a solution through insight which is often shown when individual experiences a problem (Kounios and Beeman, 2009; Topolinski and Reber, 2010).The problem I have imagined is something which could frequently happen to a university student. Being at university, it is vital that you have excellent time management skills however this sometimes does not occur. Imagine this, you wake up and realise your alarm has not gone off and you are now running late for your lecture. You usually get a bus into university. However, there has been an accident on the road, so the buses are running late, you consider driving in however you have no parking permit to park on campus, so you are unsure as to what to do. The initial state is the university student has woken up late and is now running late for her lecture. The goal state is to try and attend the lecture. The mental operators which are involved in this problem are that the buses are running exceptionally behind, and the student cannot drive in due to not having a university parking permit. However, the insight required to solve this problem is that the student stays at home and studies at home using the online lecture and asking her friend to send her some notes.There are two ways in which we could consider the above problem. One way is to view it in concern to Representational Change Theory (RCT). In accordance to RCT, proposed by Ohlsson (1992), argues that we will encounter a mental block when we solve a problem and this is because we initially would have represented the problem wrongly. RCT states to achieve insight, that the problem representations would need to be changed in either 1) constraint relaxation; the releasing the unwarranted constraining assumptions (Chu and MacGregor, 2011), 2) Re-encoding; the problem represented is reinterpreted and 3) Elaboration; adding new information to the problem representation. The notion of constraint relaxation was tested by Knoblich et al. (1999) about the matchstick arithmetic problem. Each participant was asked to move a single matchstick to produce a correct question which replaced the initial false one. Type A problems required to change two values in the equation while Type B problems were a lot harder which involved a less noticeable change in the representation of the equation. Furthering this, Knoblich et al. (2001) expanded their earlier research and suggested that by recording eye movements, participants initially had spent far too much time fixated on the number thus participants initial representation was based on their assumption that the values had been changed. Knoblich et al. (1999) propose the idea that there are two ways which could be used to solve problem representations: 1) chunk decomposition and 2) problem re-representation. Luo et al. (2006) stated that chunk decomposition is the disintegration of whole objects into a smaller meaningful manner. This regrouping is sometimes essential in problem-solving. The constraint itself in this problem is that you’re trying to find the best way to get into university. Furthering to RCT, Öllinger et al. (2014) provided an extension with the theory and suggested the nine-dot problem which involved drawing four straight lines which go through all nine dots without lifting your pencil off the page. In the past researchers had been confused by the findings; however Öllinger et al. (2014) found that insight had to be followed by a reasonable search process should the problem be solved which shows that’s using just constraint relaxation is not always sufficient to solve a problem.Conversely, MacGregor et al. (2001) proposed the Progress Monitoring Theory (PMT) to explain insight and how problems can be solved. He argued that individuals will often assess the difference between the current state of the problem and the goal state and then compare this with the number of moves which are remaining. In addition to this, he argues that when there is a significant distance which can occur between the current state and the goal state and that when there is a small number of moves remaining, then it is more than sure the criterion failure will be reached. The criterion failure is what happens when you fail to achieve the minimum distance required and so when this occurs; there is a high possibility that other solutions will be sought.Heuristics are strategies or mental shortcuts which are intended to reduce the intermediate states however they do not guarantee the goal state which is to be reached. Using PMT often involves two steps to show how problems can be tackled. The first being that mental stimulation in which the individual will usually predict the solution of future moves and the second, whether the individual will be able to evaluate these moves against the criterion.MacGregor et al. (2001) argued progress monitoring by using the nine-dot problem. Participants were given one line of their solution to assist them in. Results showed that performance was worse in the condition where participants had the illusion of showing progress suggesting that constraint relaxation is not adequate to solve the problem.Research by Payne and Duggan (2011) furthered the idea of progress monitoring theory by the unsolvable water-jug problem. Participants were given either a small or large number of problem state. Results showed the participants had abandoned the problem quickly when the problem had a lower number of states as we could see progress towards a solution was not possible.Many researchers have helped to develop and further our understanding of insight. Chu and MacGregor (2011) identified one of the aspects with differentiates insight from other problems is the notion of the sudden “Aha!”. RCT has shown to focus on memory retrieval while PMT focuses on heuristics. By looking at the current problem, we can ascertain that the student reaches criterion failure via heuristics in trying to seek alternative methods to get to university. By using the RCT, specifically constrain relaxation of ‘studies’ and ‘lecture’, the student experiences insight from the problem by studying at home using the lecture available online and asking another student to send notes.Overall both PMT and RCT signifies different parts of the solution production process. However, it is important to note, that for each theory to work well, it is extremely dependant on the problem itself. Jones (2003) detailed that PMT looks at the how the problem is solved which leads up to up to insight while RCT looks at how insight is achieved afterwards.