The qualitative differences in problem-solving procedures and thinking structures Tsai, C. C. (1996). The qualitative differences in problem- solving procedures and thinking structures between science and nonscience majors. School Science & Mathematics, 96 (6), Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen Reporter: Lee Chun-Yi Doctoral Student at Department of Information and Computer Education, National Taiwan Normal University.

Literature Review Chi, Glaser, and Rees (1982) concluded that there were three main methods for characterizing the differences between experts and novices in scientific domains: –diagnoses of misconceptions, –analyses of similarities among elements in the domain and –information processing analyses of how problems are solved.

Literature Review Diagnoses of misconceptions –students' prior knowledge plays an important role for meaningful learning (Osborne& Freyberg, 1985; Brickhouse,1994; Shepardson and Moje,1994; Kuiper, 1994).

Literature Review Analyses of similarities among elements in the domain –Novice organized their knowledge by surface features of the domain, rather than by important principles (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1980; Caillot, 1985; Vosniadou & Brewer,1987). –Vosniadou and Brewer (1987) believed that these differences came from the idea that science majors organized their knowledge in terms of abstract relational schemata that did not exist for nonscience majors.

Literature Review Information processing analyses of how problems are solved. –Experts solve the problem in a straightforward way whereas novices solve it in a means-end manner ( Larkin's research, 1983; Maloney, 1985).

Research Motivation Do experts and novices think and proceed qualitatively differently when confronting a problem, and what are the real differences in terms of the thinking structures between experts and novices. –Many studies previously cited seem to make some "unfair" comparisons since their study tasks should rely heavily on academic scientific knowledge. –The findings of these expert/novice differences may arise merely from the "quantity" of reasoners' scientific knowledge, not the quality or the nature of their thinking per se.

Task The interviewees were asked to design a series of questions, and a plan or a method to explore the following issue: "How can you determine whether the interviewer prefers the taste of Coke or the taste of Pepsi?"

Subjects and Data Collection The final sample for this study consisted of 5 science majors (including 2 females and 3 males) and 6 nonscience majors (including 3 females and 3 males). Their average age was 26.3, ranging from 23 to 28. During the interviewing periods, subjects were asked to "think aloud" for the whole procedure. A bottle of both Coke and Pepsi were physically on site for each interview while the researcher tried the method designed by the interviewee if requested. All conversations were recorded by tape-recorder, then transcribed.

Results Assertion 1: Nonscience majors tended to begin with personal experience questions whereas science majors promptly designed an experiment. Assertion 2: Nonscience majors tended to confirm the expected answer whereas science majors tended to explore some questions with unknown answers.

Results Assertion 3: Nonscience majors preferred to process the procedures by creating the plan mentally in advance, whereas science majors preferred to proceed by doing, adjusting the plan as the procedures progressed. Assertion 4: Science majors would consider the assumption and the validity of the test while nonscience majors rarely touched upon such considerations.

Results Assertion 5: Nonscience majors tended to be curious about how they would fare if given the same testing situation whereas science majors completed only the required task of the researcher.

Discussion The five assertions are likely to be related to each other. Gender in this study would not be a factor highly influencing these assertions. The reasoner's epistemology or academic experiences may have strongly influenced these problem- solving processes, actions and thinking structures.

Implications The findings of this study support some essential differences in thinking structures and problem- solving procedures between science majors and nonscience majors and certain characteristics of thinking processes exist within each group of the subjects. We could interpret this finding in two ways. –First, after receiving different instruction, science majors and nonscience majors employ different thought structures and procedures to solve the same problem. –The second possibility is that these characteristics are innate in science majors and nonscience majors.

Implications In regard to the first prospect, we should urge our educators to include more socially oriented issues into the science curriculum as well as to introduce more scientific thinking in nonscience disciplines. As to the second prospect, that the thought processes of science majors are naturally different from that of nonscience majors, when we wish to teach these two groups the same topics during elementary and secondary education, we should provide class activities with different learning styles to facilitate their understanding.

Implications In this present study, nonscience majors could mentally implement problem-solving procedures in advance whereas the concreteness of planning seems important to science majors, which means that nonscience majors could reason a question more abstractly than science majors based on this point. Science majors are more likely to consider the assumption of the blind test, possibly an indicator concerning abstract rationalization. It is difficult to judge which group of people would employ schemata more abstract for solving certain common problems.

The End Any question about my topic?