Composition-based problem solving as a function of expertise /
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Thesis Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
1990.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | ProQuest, Abstract Link to OAKTrust copy Link to ProQuest copy |
| Abstract: | The study undertaken for this dissertation was a first step towards understanding differences in problem-solving ability between individuals whose primary educational backgrounds were in social sciences and those whose primary educational backgrounds were in technical science areas. The underlying theory in this study was that the problem-solving ability of an individual is influenced by, to a considerable extent, if not a function of one's specific knowledge base (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1986; Chase and Simon, 1973; Chi, 1978; Chi & Kaeske, 1983; Gagne', 1985; Glaser, 1984; Greeno, 1980; Hutchinson, 1985; Pellegrino & Glaser, 1982; Pietransinski, 1969; Siegier & Richards, 1982; Simon, 1980; Turna & Reif, 1980). Furthermore, this study assumes that writing is problem solving (Flower, 1980). The purpose of this study was to explore differences in problem-solving performances between individuals whose specific knowledge domains are in the areas of "soft" (social) sciences and those whose specific knowledge domains are in the areas of "hard" (technical-physical and biological) sciences. In addition, the present study sought to determine differences in feedback effects between these two categories of subjects investigated in this study. Performance differences were achieved by comparing averages. Difference on feedback effect was judged on the basis of performance change from quiz 1 to exam 2. Results generated from this study were: 1. Problem solving appeared to be more of an individual than group function. 2. The "hard" science subjects tended to perform better as a group, while the "soft" science subjects tended to perform better as an individual. 3. The "soft" science subjects appeared to perform best in logic and insight but performed less well in substantiveness, whereas the "hard" science subjects appeared to perform best in substantiveness and synthesis, but performed less well in logic and insight. 4. On the basis of question type, the "soft" science subjects outperformed the "hard" science subjects in type 3 (inferential) questions, whereas, the "hard" science subjects outperformed the "soft" science subjects in type 2 (literal-inferential) questions. 5. In all cases, feedback appeared to have greater effect on the performance of "soft" science subjects. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Typescript (photocopy). Vita. "Major subject: Adult and extension education." |
| Physical Description: | xxii, 206 leaves ; 29 cm |
| Bibliography: | Includes bibliographical references. |