January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the elements of thinking in solo and paired problem-solving contexts
Element Code Solo Paired
Frequency Mean SD Frequency Mean SD
Inf(M) 20 1.11 1.88 14 .78 1.48
Cid 1 .06 .24 0 .00 .00
E 2 .11 .32 6 .33 .69
PE 0 .00 .00 2 .11 .32
OS 4 .22 .55 12 .67 1.24
Inference 9 .50 .79 27 1.50 1.50
VJ 115 6.39 6.84 218 12.11 6.00
VJ(M) 84 4.67 2.52 30 1.67 1.57
VJ(CId) 8 .44 .62 12 .67 .84
VJ(E) 0 .00 .00 8 .44 .71
VJ(PE) 1 .06 .24 1 .06 .24
VJ(OS) 40 2.22 2.10 58 3.22 2.26
Q(I) 0 .00 .00 66 3.67 2.33
Q(E) 6 .33 .97 43 2.39 2.40
Q(H) 3 .17 .51 1 .06 .24
Q(Cl) 0 .00 .00 7 .39 .70
SA 1 .06 .24 75 4.17 2.80
PD 1 .06 .24 7 .39 .80
Clarification 0 .00 .00 6 .33 .77
TE 295 16.39 9.92 595 33.06 13.16
Repeated measures analyses of variance were subsequently conducted to detect any significant differences between
the number of elements of participants’ reasoning when thinking alone and in a dyad. According to the analyses,
significant within-subject effects were found for cognitive and emotional elements; that is, Inference (F = 5.23, p <
.05), Value judgments not supported by evidence (F = 25.32, p < .01), Value judgments supported by evidence in the
form of information given in the reading materials (F = 12.79, p < .01), Value judgments supported by evidence in
the form of an emotion (F = 8.00, p < .05), Evaluative questions (F = 13.83, p < .01), Social acknowledgment (F =
119.04, p < .01), and Clarification (F = 9.00, p < .05). The analyses did not reveal any significant between-subject
effects.
Discussion
The paper reports on the results of a mixed-method exploratory study that sought to better understand how
participants with different personal epistemological beliefs reasoned about an ill-structured issue individually and
then with others in dyads. According to the qualitative results of this study there was not a systematic connection
between epistemological beliefs and ill-structured problem solving in either solo or paired contexts. For example,
there were participants who scored low on the epistemological beliefs questionnaire but achieved high individual
performance on the ill-structured problem, and participants who scored high on the epistemological beliefs test and
achieved low individual problem-solving performance. Similarly, participants with low epistemological beliefs
scores achieved high group performance, and participants with high epistemological beliefs scores achieved low
group performance. There were also instances where participants with high epistemological beliefs scores achieved
high individual problem-solving performance but very low group problem-solving performance. Thus, according to
the results of this study, it seems that ill-structured problem solving entails some unique characteristics that influence
one’s reasoning about the problem.
The results from the analysis of the transcripts showed fundamental differences between solo and paired thinking.
One difference was that while participants when thought about the problem alone did not always reason within a
well-supported point of view, all participants in their dyads clearly reasoned within a point of view. This of course
can be explained by the fact that participants in their dyads explicitly asked each other about their point of view
before they began the discussion. Another major difference between individual and paired thinking was that when
12