No description available.

This study compares engineering expert problem-solving on a highly constrained routine problem and an ill-defined complex problem. The participants (n=7) were recruited from two large public Research I institutions. Using a think aloud methodology, the experts solved both routine and non-routine problems. The protocols were transcribed and coded in Atlas ti. The first round of coding followed a grounded theory methodology, yielding interesting findings. Unprompted, the experts revealed a strong belief that the ill-defined problems are developmentally appropriate for PhD students while routine problems are more appropriate for undergraduate students. Additional rounds of coding were informed by previous problem solving studies in math and engineering. In general, this study confirmed the 5 Step Problem Solving Method used in previous challenged based instruction studies. There were observed differences based on problem type and background knowledge. The routine problem was more automatic and took significantly less time. The experts with higher amounts of background knowledge and experience were more likely to categorize the problems. The level of background knowledge was most apparent in the steps between conducting an overall energy balance and writing more problem specific relationships between the variables. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for improving undergraduate engineering education. / text

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between High School learners‟ mathematics-related belief systems and their approaches to mathematics non-routine problem-solving. A mixed methods approach was employed in the study. Survey questionnaires, mathematics problem solving test and interview schedules were the basic instruments used for data collection. The data was presented in form of tables, diagrams, figures, direct and indirect quotes of participants‟ responses and descriptions of learners‟ mathematics related belief systems and their approaches to mathematics problem solving. The basic methods used to analyze the data were thematic analysis (coding, organizing data into descriptive themes, and noting relations between variables), cluster analysis, factor analysis, regression analysis and methodological triangulation. Learners‟ mathematics-related beliefs were grouped into three Learners‟ mathematics-related beliefs were grouped into three categories, according to Daskalogianni and Simpson (2001a)‟s macro-belief systems: utilitarian, systematic and exploratory. A number of learners‟ problem solving strategies were identified, that include unsystematic guess, check and revise; systematic guess, check and revise; trial-and-error; logical reasoning; non-logical reasoning; systematic listing; looking for a pattern; making a model; considering a simple case; using a formula; numeric approach; piece-wise and holistic approaches. A weak positive linear relationship between learners‟ mathematics-related belief systems and their approaches to non-routine problem solving was discovered. It was, also, discovered that learners‟ mathematics-related belief systems could explain their approach to non-routine mathematics problem solving (and vice versa). / Mathematics Education / D.Phil. (Mathematics Education)

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between High School learners‟ mathematics-related belief systems and their approaches to mathematics non-routine problem-solving. A mixed methods approach was employed in the study. Survey questionnaires, mathematics problem solving test and interview schedules were the basic instruments used for data collection. The data was presented in form of tables, diagrams, figures, direct and indirect quotes of participants‟ responses and descriptions of learners‟ mathematics related belief systems and their approaches to mathematics problem solving. The basic methods used to analyze the data were thematic analysis (coding, organizing data into descriptive themes, and noting relations between variables), cluster analysis, factor analysis, regression analysis and methodological triangulation. Learners‟ mathematics-related beliefs were grouped into three Learners‟ mathematics-related beliefs were grouped into three categories, according to Daskalogianni and Simpson (2001a)‟s macro-belief systems: utilitarian, systematic and exploratory. A number of learners‟ problem solving strategies were identified, that include unsystematic guess, check and revise; systematic guess, check and revise; trial-and-error; logical reasoning; non-logical reasoning; systematic listing; looking for a pattern; making a model; considering a simple case; using a formula; numeric approach; piece-wise and holistic approaches. A weak positive linear relationship between learners‟ mathematics-related belief systems and their approaches to non-routine problem solving was discovered. It was, also, discovered that learners‟ mathematics-related belief systems could explain their approach to non-routine mathematics problem solving (and vice versa). / Mathematics Education / D.Phil. (Mathematics Education)