PERCEPTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM SOLVING ACTIVITIES IN SECONDARY INDUSTRIAL ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MONTANA by William David Lodermeier A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Technology Education MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana August 1989 11 APPROVAL of a professional paper submitted by William David Lodermeier This professional paper has been read by each member of the graduate committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. ChairpersotfTGraduate Committee Approved for the Major Department Date 7/ji/kz Head , Maj(^r Department Approved for the College of Graduate Studies I9jr± Date Graduate dean iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this professional paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this paper are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this paper may be granted by my major professor or, in his absence, by the Dean of Libraries when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in this paper for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature Date iv This paper is dedicated to the memory of my father, Edwin Joseph Lodermeier. V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Kenneth Bruwelheide and Dr. Ardys Clarke for their invaluable assistance and guidance as instructors and as members of my graduate committee. A special thank-you is extended to my major advisor, Dr. Doug Rolette, for his professional expertise, guidance, time, and his genuine interest in my development as an educator. Thanks is also extended to Dr. Bruwelheide for his advice and personal interest throughout my graduate program. Finally, I wish to gratefully acknowledge my wife, Carlene, for the many hours she spent providing encouragement, and my children, Luke and Allison, for their understanding during the hours I was away from home. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPROVAL 11 STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ' v TABLE OF CONTENTS vi LIST OF TABLES ix ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER: 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of the Study 3 Objectives 4 Need for the Study 4 Definition of Terms 7 Limitations 9 Summary 9 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11 Importance of Problem Solving 11 Historical Development of Problem Solving 13 Problem Solving in the Industrial Education Setting 14 Theoretical Basis for Thinking 15 What Is Problem Solving? 17 Problem Classifications-Structure . 17 Well-Structured Problems 18 Semi-Structured Problems 19 111-Structured Problems 19 Summary 20 3. METHODOLOGY 22 Population and Sample 22 Instrument Design 22 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Page Development and Testing of Problem Solving Statements 25 Data Collection 26 Data Analysis 27 Summary 27 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA 28 Introduction 28 Instructor and Student Demographics and Computer Usage Data 29 Instructor and Student Data 29 Computer Usage Data 30 Instructional Content Data 33 Problem Solving Statement Data ... 38 Industrial Arts Well-Structured Division .... 39 Technology Education Well-Structured Division 41 Industrial Arts Semi-Structured Division .... 43 Technology Education Semi-Structured Division . . 45 Industrial Arts 111-Structured Division .... 47 Technology Education 111-Structured Division . . . 49 Mean Rankings of the Six Problem Solving Divisions 51 Mean Rankings of the Thirty-Six Problem Solving Statements 52 Summary 58 5. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59 Summary 59 Findings 60 Conclusions 61 Recommendations 61 REFERENCES CITED 63 APPENDICES: A. Judging Panel Participants 68 B. Judging Panel Rating Form . . 70 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page C. Cover Letter, Directions, and Definition of Terms to Judging Panel 73 D. Cover Letter to State Specialist of Trade and Industrial Education 77 E. Problem Solving Survey Instrument 79 F. First Mailing Cover Letter 82 G. Second Mailing Cover Letter 84 H. Postcard Follow-up 86 I. Sources for Problem Solving Statements ... 88 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Instructional categories and problem types identified by division 24 2. Years of teaching experience for industrial education teachers .... 29 3. Industrial education programs offered at various grade levels . . . 30 4. Student/instructor access to computer(s) for IA/TE activities 30 5. Types of computer hardware declared by industrial education programs 31 6. Types of computer software applications utilized by industrial education programs 32 7. Frequency of computer software applications utilized by industrial education programs 33 8. Teacher responses to the percentage of instructional time spent in Industrial Arts education content areas 35 9. Teacher responses to the percentage of instructional time spent in Technology Education content areas . . 36 10. Problem solving statement divisions and division rubrics 38 11. Numerical values and range of limits for degree of occurrence or importance 39 12. Frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the Industrial Arts Well-Structured Division ...... 40 X LIST OF TABLES-Continued Table Page 13. Frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the Technology Education Well-Structured Division 42 14. Frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the Industrial Arts Semi-Structured Division 44 15. Frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the Technology Education Semi-Structured Division 46 16. Frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the Industrial Arts 111-Structured Division 48 17. Frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the Technology Education 111-Structured Division 50 18. Mean rankings of the six problem solving divisions based on occurrence and importance 51 19. Mean rankings of the 36 problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance 53 20. Sources of the 36 compiled problem solving statements by author, year, and page numbers 89 xi ABSTRACT The major purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of Montana secondary industrial arts and technology education instructors relative to the degree of importance and occurrence placed on different problem solving activities in their classrooms. The objectives for this study were: (1) to identify what activities instructors use to teach problem solving, (2) to determine the perceptions of instructors concerning occurrence of problem solving in the industrial arts or technology education program, and (3) to determine the perceptions of the instructors concerning their personal rating of the degree of importance of problem solving activities in the industrial arts or technology education program. The problem solving statements were developed from a collection of different resources to represent the three types of problem solving structures and the two instructional categories. The problem solving section was validated by a judging panel, and input was provided for the instructional content, student, and instructor sections by the Specialist of Trade and Industrial Education of Montana. Data for this study were collected from 141 Montana industrial arts and technology education instructors through a mailed questionnaire which yielded a 58.3 percent usable return. The results conclude that: (1) problem solving activities that occur the most frequently and are considered by the industrial arts and technology education teachers to be of highest importance are activities that utilize either routine, repetitive, and mathematical procedures, or that utilize heuristic approaches to solve problems that involve the use of tools, processes, and materials; and (2) problem solving activities that occur the least frequently and are considered the least important are activities that exercise either creative problem solving processes or routine, repetitive, and mathematical approaches to solve problems relating to technological systems, their resources, processes, and impacts on society. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Today all students are faced with challenges and problems at an unprecedented rate. Technology education programs should reflect this change. The need to replace traditional content methods with current problem solving and critical thinking approaches which reflect changes in technology is addressed by Barnes (1989, p. 25): The study of technology provides the means to develop problem solving and creative/critical thinking abilities thus producing a technologically literate citizen. This concept is paramount, since the purpose of education is to prepare children for the future in which they will live. With knowledge and technology doubling every two and a half years, technology educators cannot any longer continue to prepare teachers or to educate children through traditional content methods. The industrial education profession is changing to reflect the knowledge and technology explosion, as noted by Balistreri (1987), Pul lias (1987), and Oaks (1987). Because our industrial education programs reflect our technological world, it is the role of educators to offer our students the best possible education in this area. It grows increasingly evident that up-to-date teaching approaches and curriculums should be used by instructors to educate our students with the approp¬ riate skills. Through carefully selected activities, students can increase their problem solving and decision making skills. In order for Montana students to be competitive, industrial arts and technology 2 education programs should offer challenge and appropriate instruction in problem solving techniques. To reflect the knowledge and technology explosion currently occurring in society, Kemp and Schwaller (1988), in Papers from the 37th Yearbook: Council on Technology Teacher Education, describe six specific approaches and delivery systems for teaching technology education. These six approaches are: (1) conceptual learning, (2) interdisciplinary, (3) social/cultural, (4) problem solving, (5) integrating the systems of technology, and (6) interpretation of industry. The problem solving approach is explained by Kemp and Schwaller (1988, p. 21) as follows: Problem solving is another major approach to teaching technology education. Problem solving has become a basic survival skill in today's society. Technology education teachers should provide an educational atmos¬ phere in which students can gain skills in problem solving. If this is done, the students' level of tech¬ nological literacy will be increased. When using the problem solving approach, teachers become facilitators who provide solvable problems for the students. The technology education teacher has the opportunity to present complex concepts in the laboratory and have students verify these concepts through a problem solving style of teaching. Baker and Dugger (1986), Johnson (1987), and Tidewater Technology Associates (1986) have discussed the considerable importance placed on problem solving in our profession in the past few years and the need to create an environment that offers the necessary problem solving teaching approaches. The researcher was unable to find literature providing evidence of measurable instruments that determined the degree placed on occurrence and importance for structured problem solving activities. 3 To attempt to determine what problem solving activities were shaping the industrial education curriculums, the researcher categorized the structure of these activities by curriculum content and problem types. The curriculum included traditional and non-traditional problem solving statements. Three types of problem solving activities were identified (VanGundy, 1988). The types are well-structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured. It is critical to recognize that technology education is evolving from traditional (industrial arts) curriculums. This change is a reflec¬ tion not only of the present world, but of the future. The evolution has caused both progression and regression within the profession. The researcher has taken care not to separate the two curriculums into individual entities, but rather to treat them as one evolving from the other. The curriculum content of Jackson's MW Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory (Hales, 1980) represents the establishment of a common content base that is widely accepted by industrial educators. The revision and acceptance of the curriculum suggested by Jackson's Mill reflects the evolution in the knowledge and skills needed by contemporary society. Problem solving is a skill that links the student with an interactive curriculum which conveys the changing technological world. Purpose.. Qf.the. Study The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of Montana industrial arts and technology education instructors relative to the degrees of occurrence and importance of the three levels of problem 4 solving (well-structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured) in their instructional programs. Objectives The objectives for this study were: (1) To identify what activities instructors use to teach problem solving. (2) To determine the perceptions of instructors concerning occurrence of problem solving in the industrial arts or technology education program. (3) To determine the perceptions of the instructors concerning their personal rating of the degree of importance of problem solving activities in the industrial arts or technology education program. Need for the Study As our society moves from its present post-industrial context to a super industrial-information society, our students must be equipped with practical thinking skills to function productively. One of these skills is problem solving. Problem solving will help provide the proper know¬ ledge base for individuals to function adequately and adapt to the changing world in which we live. Shane (1981, p. 356) addresses this point: To help our youth to survive and live humanely, we must recognize that the most important social decisions in human history must be made soon, within the next 20 to 25 years. They can only be made wisely by educated persons. Technology education can make a significant contribution to the learning process in the area of problem solving (Baker and Dugger, 1986). A careful look at Montana's secondary industrial arts and technology 5 education programs should indicate whether a systematic approach to teaching problem solving is being utilized. The early reports of Schmitt and Pelley (1966) summarized that industrial arts instructors place a medium degree of emphasis on problem solving activities relating to materials and processes. Knowing how to teach problem solving was rated moderately difficult for instructors. A study by Bame and Miller (1980) rank-ordered the 12 purposes of indust¬ rial arts, 10 of which were taken from the Schmitt and Pelley (1966) study. Of the 12 purposes selected for ranking, on a scale of 1 through 12, the development of problem solving skills was ranked number 6. Not until the last five years have systematic procedures for problem solving techniques appeared in the industrial education literature. There is a need to identify a procedure to help classroom instructors teach problem solving in the typical technology education classroom (Baker and Dugger, 1986). Barnes (1989) speaks of problem solving as a universal model for transferring knowledge. Holistic in nature, this approach takes into account the unknown and/or changing technologies and integration and application of other school disciplines. The relationship between science and technology is interactive as well. Technology education students should have a feel for what science and technology are about so they can observe the relationship among the many components of technology. "Problem solving is basic to all aspects of technology; education must teach problem solving skills to ensure that our citizens will be able to adapt to the ever-changing world, to meet personal needs as well as needs of society as a whole" (Tidewater Technology Associates, 1986, p. 15). 6 The 1986 space shuttle disaster was a poignant reminder that individuals are needed at all levels who possess an understanding of technological systems. In addition, society needs individuals capable of finding viable solutions to a variety of challenges. These needs have prompted many leaders to suggest that education now implement methods of teaching that can enhance the problem solving abilities of young Americans. The tech¬ nology education laboratory provides a rich environment for students to develop an understanding of technology and the capacity for solving technological problems. (Hatch, 1988, p. 88) Brightman (1980, p. 4) states that business management places high priority on solving problems and the need to know how to do so. Problem solving is one of the most essential skills of the effective manager, and yet little attention has been paid to problem solving as a field of study. In fact, organizations and individuals frequently construct road¬ blocks to effective problem solving. It is not that some people are better at it than others, but most importantly, problem solving can be learned. Problem solving often is not learned because it is not taught. Bransford and Stein (1984, p. 3) expand on this point: In school, for example, we are generally taught what to think rather than how to think. This is not due to some great conspiracy to 'hide the secrets of thinking and problem solving from the general public.' Instead, many teachers are simply unaware of the basic processes of problem solving even though they may unconsciously use these processes themselves. It therefore never occurs to them to make these processes explicit and to teach them in school. The need to teach problem solving processes systematically is con¬ firmed on the basis that we live in a changing technological society where critical thinking skills are needed, and maintain that the industrial education curriculum is evolving to meet these changes. 7 Definition of Terms For purposes of this study, the following terms will be interpreted as stated below. (1) Industrial Arts Education Program (IA): Those occupations by which changes are made in the form of materials to increase their value for human use; an area of education dealing with socioeconomic problems and occupational opportunities involving experience with a wide range of materials, tools, processes, products, and occupations typical of an industrial and technological society; a curriculum area in general education in which students may create, experiment, design, and plan while dealing with issues related to technology (Good, 1973). (2) Industrial Education: A generic term including those programs dealing with industry and technology. This term encompasses indust¬ rial arts, technical education, technology education, and trade and industrial education. (3) Technology Education Program-CTE): "An integrated discipline design¬ ed to develop technological literacy as part of the past, present, and future technological systems; their resources, processes, and impacts on society" (New York State Education Department, 1987, P. 2). (4) Problem Solving: "Using basic thinking processes to resolve a known or defined difficulty: assemble facts about the difficulty and determine additional information needed; infer or suggest alternate solutions and test them for appropriateness; potentially reduce to 8 simpler levels of explanation and eliminate discrepancies; provide solution checks for generalizable value" (Cohen, 1971, p. 5). (5) Well-Structured Problems: These problems are characterized by the availability of all the information needed to close a problem gap. Such a situation is typified by its routine, repetitive aspects and usually can be solved using standard operating procedures that provide ready-made solutions (VanGundy, 1988). These problems are relatively narrow in scope and usually have only one correct answer. The problem solver must arrive at the one best solution. Algorithms are typically used to solve these types of problems. As defined by Morris (1973), an algorithm is any mechanical or recursive computa¬ tional procedure. An example of this type of problem is determining voltage to a given situation (Hatch, 1988). (6) Semi-Structured Problems: This problem type falls between well- structured and ill-structured types of problems. Typically, a combination of standard operating procedures and creative responses will be required to solve this type of problem (VanGundy, 1988). These problems have more than one correct answer. Heuristics are used to solve this problem type and are characterized as rules-of- thumb or guidelines that increase the likelihood of successfully solving a problem. A typical heuristic approach to solving a problem would consist of using a sequence of steps similar to: (a) recogniz¬ ing the problem, (b) defining the problem, (c) selecting a strategy, (d) attempting to solve by acting on a strategy, and (e) drawing conclusions and checking results. An example of this type of problem is performing tasks in order of importance (Hatch, 1988). 9 (7) 111-Structured Problems: This problem type provides the problem solver with little or no information on the best way to develop a solution. Because no clear-cut procedures exist for closing a problem gap, the problem solver must improvise and use custom-made solutions (VanGundy, 1988). These types of problems have a variety of potentially correct solutions. They require divergent thinking and utilize creative problem solving techniques. This type of problem is almost never solved by looking for an algorithm, nor will heuristics ensure an acceptable solution. An example of this type of problem is the development of a better means of transporting people in an urban setting (Hatch, 1988). Limiiflliims The following limitations were placed on this research: (1) Data were collected from junior high and senior high school indust¬ rial arts and technology education programs in Montana. (2) The problem solving activity statements were chosen and designed to best represent as many of the instructional content areas as possible. Summary Technology education has evolved dramatically in the past few years from traditional (industrial arts) programs whose main instructional focus was materials, processes, and products. Present program emphasis has refocused its curriculum to reflect technological advancements, technological systems, technological impacts, and societal changes and 10 needs. To incorporate the present curriculum content of technology education, the profession has identified six specific teaching approaches and delivery systems. These different teaching approaches will reinforce and strengthen the skills needed by students in the study of technology. Problem solving is identified as one of the teaching approaches that assists with the development of creative and critical thinking skills. 11 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Importance of Problem Solving The interest in problem solving as a part of industrial education has accelerated in recent years. The largest notable movement in education to promote problem solving was the establishment of the Invent America program in 1986 by the U.S. Patent Model Foundation, a non-profit organi¬ zation. The creation of this program was founded on the need for our country to remain competitive on the world market by providing students with opportunities to learn and apply higher level thinking skills at the elementary level. Competitive in nature, Invent America is structured to provide hands-on experience and processes to invent solutions to everyday problems. There were over 10,000 elementary schools participating in the inventor's competition as of 1987, while there are plans for including high schools, colleges, and universities in the future (Metz, 1987). The magazine TIES (Technology, Innovation & Entrepreneurship for Students) lists in its calendar of events 33 professional meetings, conferences, and conventions that deal specifically with creativity, innovation, thinking strategies, and problem solving (Anderson, 1989, pp. 47-48). The Future Creative Problem-Solving Workshop, Odyssey of the Mind World Finals, and the Fifth National Conference on Thinking are some of the seminars offered that integrate math, science, and technological 12 concepts to enhance critical thinking skills. Workshops in teaching problem solving with elementary students, teaching problem solving with microelectronics, and problem solving in structures, mechanisms, and computer control were offered to educators at the 51st Annual Interna¬ tional Technology Education Association's Conference held in Dallas, Texas, March 20-23, 1989 (Starkweather, 1989). The accelerated interest in problem solving is a by-product of new teaching approaches introduced into technology education curriculum, reflecting the changes and technological advancements taking place in industry and society. "With knowledge and technology doubling every two and a half years, technology educators cannot any longer continue to prepare teachers or to educate children through traditional content methods" (Barnes, 1989, p. 25). Other reasons for emphasizing problem solving include expectations of future employers in addition to assuring our citizens the ability to adapt to the ever-changing world for their personal needs as well as the needs of society. The study of problem solving is a relatively new area of interest in the industrial education profession. The researcher found conceptual literature dealing with problem classifications, problem solving method¬ ology, and structure, but was unable to find concrete data and tested hypotheses relating to problem solving classifications, methodology and structure in the field under study. An early study indicated that problem solving activities related to materials and processes had a medium degree of importance in the classroom, while the knowledge of how to teach problem solving was rated moderately difficult for instructors (Schmitt and Pelley, 1966). Another 13 study (Bame and Miller, 1980) rank-ordered 12 purposes of industrial arts while placing the development of problem solving skills as sixth in the level of importance. The researcher did not find any studies dealing with the following areas of concern: (1) what types of problem solving activities occurred, (2) what level of difficulty was placed on activities, and (3) the importance placed on the activity by the instructor. Historical Development of Problem Solving Until recently, problem solving was not considered a field of study. The first documented formal course designed to teach problem solving was in journalism in 1931. Six years later, General Electric Company devel¬ oped a problem solving course for its technicians. During the 1950's, Alex Osborn developed a brainstorming technique that was adapted by many companies, the armed forces, and the federal government. It was not until that time that problem solving was accepted as a legitimate field of study (Brightman, 1980). In the early 1960's, the Synectics Corporation was formed by William J.J. Gordan. The corporation's main functions were: (1) solving design engineering problems, (2) training professional problem solving groups, and (3) developing inner-city educational materials based on creative thinking. By 1980, the Synectics Corporation was conducting over 100 problem solving seminars annually around the world for banking institu¬ tions, governments, and service and manufacturing industries (Brightman, 1980). Brightman (p. 3) offered his feelings about education's role relative to the problem solving process: 14 In the field of education, the training of problem solvers is still in its infancy. While there have been many programs directed at the elementary level and secondary level in education, there has been an appalling lack of work at the university level. A recent encouraging sign is the implementation of problem solving courses in the curricula of several medical schools; however, more must be done to develop professional problem solvers. It was not until the mid-1980's that industrial education literature started to have articles that dealt specifically with problem solving procedures and techniques (Baker and Dugger, 1986; Johnson, 1987; Tide¬ water Technology Associates, 1986). The relevance of problem solving is addressed by the Council on Technology Teacher Education (Kemp and Schwaller, 1988), which contributed an entire chapter on problem solving as an instructional approach. The chapter discusses the need and import¬ ance of problem solving, the role of technology education instructors, problem structures, and techniques for solving problems (Hatch, 1988). Problem Solving in the Industrial Education.-$.et.tjiig Citing the need and opportunity to provide structured problem solving activities in the industrial education laboratory, Baker and Dugger (1986, p. 13) comment: Technology education teachers need to recognize that simply stating that problem solving activities are provided is not enough. An attempt to provide struc¬ tured problem solving activities should be made in order that the students receive the maximum benefit from their experiences. Technology education (indust¬ rial arts) is unique in that it is an ideal area to provide structured problem solving experiences. Not only can opportunities be provided to recognize and generate possible solutions to problems, but opportun¬ ities also abound to test the possible solutions. 15 Johnson (1987) suggests that industrial education labs give students a unique opportunity to learn about and experience higher-level thinking. Citing the change in problem solving applications with the evolution of curriculum content, Johnson (p. 15) comments: Once, we found it appropriate to focus primarily on materials and process through courses in drafting, woodworking, and metalworking. Now it grows increas¬ ingly evident that up-to-date curricula should focus on industrial and technical systems. With a curric¬ ulum that reflects this perspective, industrial educators can help their students become technologi¬ cally literate and gain the skills they will need to cope with the changes in our industrial and techno¬ logical society. Theoretical Basis for Thinking Determining what is meant by thinking, or developing a model of the thinking process, is difficult for educators. "Currently, there is a great deal of interest in improving student thinking abilities, but there is also considerable confusion about what thinking is, the kinds of experiences or programs that advance it, and the implications of such efforts for school personnel and policies" (Presseisen, 1985, p. 43). Thinking skills can be viewed along a continuum beginning with basic thinking skills and then developing into higher order, more complex thinking process skills. A model for basic thinking process skills with appropriate characteristics is presented by Presseisen (1985, p. 45): 1. Causation: Establishing cause and effect, assess¬ ment -- predictions, inferences, judgment, evalu¬ ations. 2. Transformations: Relating known to unknown char¬ acteristics, creating meaning -- analogies, meta¬ phors, logical inductions. 16 3. Relationships: Detecting regular operations — parts and wholes, patterns, analysis and synthe¬ sis, sequences and order, logical deductions. 4. Classification: Determining common qualities -- similarities and differences, grouping and sort¬ ing, comparisons, either/or distinctions. 5. Qualifications: Finding unique characteristics-- units of basic identity, definitions, facts, problem/task recognition. These five basic thinking skills are essential for the complex thinking process skills to occur. The higher order skills are addressed by Cohen (1971, p. 5): 1. Problem Solving: Resolve a known difficulty. 2. Decision Making: Choose a best alternative. 3. Critical Thinking: Understand particular mean¬ ings. 4. Creative Thinking: Create novel or aesthetic ideas/products. The basic thinking skills are essential for developing and using the more complex thinking skills. Young learners develop competence in the essential skills during their early years of schooling. As students enter middle and junior high school, they are introduced to more complex processes in specific content matter. Presseisen (1985) writes that different subject areas offer higher order or complex thinking processes that draw upon the essential thinking skills. Presseisen (pp. 45-46) further comments: Some complex thinking processes may be more relevant to certain subject areas than to others. For example, problem-solving thinking skills seem ideal for mathe¬ matics or science instruction. Decision making may be useful for social studies and vocational studies. Creative thinking might enhance all subjects. Most important, the goals of the specific complex process and objectives of the learning in the particular subject area should be parallel and reinforcing. 17 What Is Problem Solving? To establish an origin for what problem solving is, definitions for problems and problem solving are given. According to The American Heri¬ tage Dictionary, in its very basic form, "a problem is a question or situation that presents uncertainty, perplexity, or difficulty" (Morris, 1973, p. 1043). VanGundy (1988, p. 3) states, "A problem is any situa¬ tion in which a gap is perceived to exist between what is and what should be." Problem solving, as described by Cohen (1971, p. 5) and used for this study, is: Using basic thinking processes to resolve a known or defined difficulty: assemble facts about the diffi¬ culty and determine additional information needed; infer or suggest alternate solutions and test them for appropriateness; potentially reduce to simpler levels of explanation and eliminate discrepancies; provide solution checks for generalizable value. Problem Classifications-Structure The procedure or method for solving a problem lies in the classifica¬ tion or structure of the problem. Several problem solving structures are identified in the literature. Proactive and reactive problem structures are discussed by Baker and Dugger (1986), the ill-structured/well- structured continuum is presented by Brightman (1980), and well- structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured classifications are introduced by VanGundy (1988). Proactive problem solving activities are addressed as preparation activities, such as checking, correcting, planning, selecting, and vary¬ ing. These activities are considered important exercises, but caution 18 should be taken so the instructor does not give the answers prior to the students solving them. Reactive problem solving activities are reactions to situations that are not working properly. Heuristics, which utilize guidelines to lead to solutions, are used to solve proactive and reactive problems (Baker and Dugger, 1986). Another classification of problems is identified along an ill- structured/wel1-structured continuum. Problems are considered well-structured when they are repetitive, routine, well-defined, and can be solved solely by standardized or automated procedures. 111- structured problems are novel, elusive, and slightly out-of-focus messes in the sense that a problem is often ambiguous and poorly understood. (Brightman, 1980, p. 6) To find solutions for ill-structured problems, students are required to use judgment, intuition, creativity, general problem solving processes, and heuristics. VanGundy (1988, p. 4) states, "Most problems can be classified according to their degree of structure." The classifications of problems are well-structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured. By structuring problems into classifications, one can observe the characteristics of the problem and use the appropriate approach or technique to solve the problem. Well-Structured Problems Typically, well-structured problems can be solved with algorithms. Algorithms are mechanical or mathematical based procedures and if applied correctly will produce the right solution. The range of well-structured problems is usually limited and such problems have only one correct answer. In discussing the relevance of well-structured problems in 19 technology education programs, Hatch (1988, p. 90) states, "Once learned, however, they are no longer useful in developing the skills of a problem solver." Semi-Structured Problems Semi-structured problems are generally solved by employing a heur¬ istic problem solving approach. Although the literature addresses the heuristic approach only for solving semi-structured problems, this approach may be utilized for ill-structured problems as well. Many five- to seven-step heuristic models are identified containing similar charac¬ teristics (Bransford and Stein, 1984; Brightman, 1980; Koberg and Bagnell, 1981; Kurulik and Rudnick, 1984). The components of a typical heuristic approach are: (1) identify the problem, (2) define and represent the problem, (3) explore possible strategies, (4) act on strategies, and (5) look back and evaluate the effects of your activities. Ill-Structured Problems The problem solving techniques utilized to resolve ill-structured problems are usually in the form of creative responses or a form of heuristics. Ill-structured problems are identified closely with the design process and creative problem solving. Solutions to ill-structured problems may utilize any or all of the complex thinking process skills of problem solving, decision making, critical thinking, or creative thinking. Intelligence, design, and choice are three elements that make up a well-known model for solving ill-structured problems. "In the 20 Intelligence stage, the problem is recognized and information gathered for formulating a problem definition; in the design stage, problem solu¬ tions are developed; in the choice stage, the solution alternatives are selected and implemented" (VanGundy, 1988, p. 5). When applying any of the 40 problem solving techniques listed by VanGundy (1988), care must be taken with structured problem solving procedures so creative processes are not inhibited. Summary The review of literature addressed the importance placed on problem solving in public schools as well as the industrial education profession. With the emphasis of problem solving strengthening in the technology education profession, problem solving structures and problem solving approaches must be identified. The problem solving structures that were identified are: (1) proactive and reactive problem structures (Baker and Dugger, 1986), (2) ill-structured/well-structured continuum (Brightman, 1980), and (3) well-structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured (VanGundy, 1988). Algorithms, heuristics, and creative problem solving techniques are problem solving approaches utilized to solve given problem structures, although some solutions may be found using any problem solving approach to a given structure. Generally algorithms are used to solve well- structured problems which usually have one correct answer. Heuristics, which utilize a set of guidelines to lead to a solution, are used to solve semi-structured problems which may have more than one correct solution. Creative problem solving and design processes are utilized for 21 solving ill-structured problems which may have a multitude of correct solutions. The literature suggests that strong efforts are being made to enhance and provide problem solving techniques and applications for elementary and secondary schools through professional meetings, organiza¬ tions, and conferences. 22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This study used a survey instrument designed to determine what types of problem solving activities were occurring in secondary industrial arts and technology education programs in Montana and the importance the instructors placed on those activities. Population and Sample The population for the research involved all industrial arts and technology education instructors who taught in Montana secondary programs during the 1988-89 school year. A complete list of all industrial education personnel was obtained from the State Specialist of Trade and Industrial Education, Mr. Jeff Wulf, Office of Public Instruction, Helena, Montana. From approximately 450 industrial education personnel, 242 instructors were classified by the State Specialist as secondary level industrial arts and/or technology education teachers. The industrial education personnel not used for the survey were classified as secondary trade and industry instructors, university level instructors, and voca¬ tional center instructors. Instrument Design The ideas for and formulation of the survey instrument (Appendix E) were developed from the knowledge and information gained during the review 23 of literature. This study was conducted with a mailed questionnaire designed by the researcher. The instrument was assembled in three sections. The first section of the survey instrument pertained to the cur¬ riculum content presented in courses offered by the teacher respondents. The curriculum content was grouped by title for the two instructional categories of industrial arts (IA) and technology education (TE), and definitions were given for each. Each category contained specific teaching areas. The respondent was asked to indicate what percentage of time was allotted for teaching in each area. The procedure for completing the industrial arts category followed the progression of identifying: (1) the IA curriculum category, (2) the IA curriculum areas (mechanical drafting, metalworking, woodworking, etc.), and (3) what percentage of time is designated in that area of instruction. Ten instructional areas were listed under the IA category. The procedure for completing the technology education category was similar to that for the industrial arts category. The four clusters of communications, construction, manufacturing, and transportation were listed under the TE instructional category, with 20 subgroups (graphic communications, building systems, power systems, etc.) (Hales, 1980). The second section of the survey instrument consisted of 36 problem solving activities in statement form. The purpose was to identify how often the problem solving activity occurred in a nine-week period and the respective level of importance the instructor placed on each activity. The level of occurrence for each problem statement was measured by teacher response to a six-category Likert scale. The degree of importance placed 24 on the problem statement was measured by teacher response to another six-category Likert scale. For each problem statement, NR represented no rating, 1 represented the lowest rating, and 5 represented the highest rating. / The problem solving statements were designed to represent the instructional categories of industrial arts and technology education, and the three problem types of well-structured, semi-structured, and ill- structured. During the development and testing phases of the problem solving statements, the problem statements remained in their designated divisions. The problem solving section of the final survey instrument placed each problem statement in random order. The procedure for assign¬ ing numbers to problem solving statements was determined by drawing random numbers from a bowl. The 36 problem statements are representative of the six divisions shown in Table 1. Table 1. Instructional categories and problem types identified by division. Division Title Instructional Category Problem Type Industrial Arts Well-Structured lA-based Technology Education Well-Structured TE-based Industrial Arts Semi-Structured lA-based Technology Education Semi-Structured TE-based Industrial Arts 111-Structured lA-based Technology Education 111-Structured TE-based Well-structured Well-structured Semi-structured Semi-structured 111-structured 111-structured The third section of the survey instrument contained student and instructor demographics and classroom computer usage data. Student enrollments were indicated for grade 7 through grade 12. Teaching experience was indicated by selecting a classification of 1-5 years, 6-10 25 years, 11-16 years, 17-25 years, or 26 or more years. The computer data area addressed instructor and student access to computers, types of hardware available, and software application. Development and Testing of Problem Solving Statements The basis for the design and formulation of the problem solving statements was selected from various industrial arts/technology education activity guides, teacher handbooks, textbooks, and workbooks (Appendix I). Forty-eight problem solving activities were compiled into six divisions, with eight statements per division (Appendix B). Ideas and direction for the design of the survey instrument were provided by the researcher's graduate committee during its development. The faculty in the Montana State University Department of Agricultural and Technology Education proofread and checked the problem solving statement section for readability prior to sending the rating form to the judging panel. A five-member judging panel was selected and asked to participate in testing the content validity of the problem solving statement portion of the instrument. The selection of the panel was based on each member's individual contributions and professional activities relating to problem solving in the industrial arts/technology education profession (Appendix A). Each panel member was contacted by telephone on February 13, 1989, was apprised of the research being done, and agreed to participate on the panel. On February 16, 1989, the members were sent directions and judging panel/rating forms to rate the validity of each problem solving statement (Appendices B and C). 26 The statements were ranked on the basis of the numerical tabulation and comments provided by the panel. After interpretation of the data, six problem solving statements were assigned to each of the six divisions. The final selection of problem statements was based on judging panel comments, numerical tabulation, and graduate committee review. The problem statements were placed in the final survey format by random placement. The Specialist of Trade and Industrial Education for the State of Montana was sent a survey instrument on February 20, 1989, to review and add recommendations (Appendix D). Suggestions from the State Specialist involved adding the percentage of time taught for each of the two instruc¬ tional areas of industrial arts and technology education. Data Collection An introductory letter providing the purpose of the study and directions for completion of the questionnaire was sent on March 8, 1989, to the entire population, along with a self-addressed, stamped envelope (Appendix F). The population consisted of 242 industrial arts and technology education instructors. The instruments were alphabetically and numerically coded with invisible ink to ensure accuracy and efficiency upon decoding. The returned questionnaires were Identified with an ultra¬ violet lamp. Return percentages were tabulated on a daily basis. This effort yielded 66 returns from a mailing of 242 instruments, representing a return rate of 27 percent on March 26, 1989. A follow-up letter and second questionnaire were sent on March 27, 1989, to the non-respondents, approximately three weeks after the initial 27 mailing (Appendix 6). This effort yielded 71 additional returns, bringing the return rate to 56 percent on April 9, 1989. On April 10, 1989, the second and final follow-up reminder was mailed to the remaining non-respondents (Appendix H). This effort yielded 16 returns. Thus, of the 242 problem solving survey instruments mailed, the total number returned was 153, representing a 63 percent rate of return. Twelve of the returned instruments were unusable because they were not completed properly, reducing the total number of usable instruments for data analysis to 141, which represented a 58.3 percent usable rate of return as of April 25, 1989. Data Analysis The data were processed using dBase III Plus, Version 1.1 (Stultz, 1988) and MSUSTAT: Statistical Analysis Package^ Version 4.2 (Lund, 1988) statistical software on an IBM-compatible XT microcomputer. The data obtained were used to develop the tables for this study and are presented in Chapter 4. Summary. This study consisted of surveying the entire population of 242 secondary industrial arts and technology education instructors in the state of Montana. The instrument used in the study was designed by the researcher to detect the occurrence of and instructor importance placed upon problem solving activities related to classroom instruction. Data were collected via a mailed survey instrument with a total usable return response rate of 58.3 percent. 28 CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction Industrial education instructors in Montana public schools comprised the population for this study. A survey instrument was designed to determine what types of problem solving activities were occurring in secondary industrial arts and technology education programs and the importance the instructor placed on those activities. The problem solving section of the instrument was tested by a panel of professional teachers active in the problem solving teaching area (Appendix C). This study was conducted using the following three objectives: (1) To identify what activities instructors use to teach problem solving. (2) To determine the perceptions of instructors concerning occurrence of problem solving in the industrial arts or technology education program. (3) To determine the perceptions of instructors concerning their personal rating of the degree of importance of problem solving activities in the industrial arts or technology education program. Industrial education instructors at the 242 Montana schools identi¬ fied as having industrial arts and/or technology education programs were sent questionnaires. A total of 141 (58.3%) usable questionnaires were returned. 29 The research results are presented in three sections: (1) instructor and student demographics and computer usage data, (2) instructional con¬ tent data, and (3) problem solving statement data assembled by divisions. Instructor and Student Demographics and Computer Usage Data Instructor and Student Data The years of teaching experience of industrial education instructors in Montana are presented in Table 2. Data in Table 2 indicate that 31 (22%) of the instructors taught for five years or less. In comparison, 32 (23%) of the teachers have taught for 11 to 16 years. The group containing the smallest number of responses is the "26 or more" category, with 4 (3%) instructor responses. Table 2. Years of teaching experience for industrial education teachers (N*141). Number of Years Taught No. Percent 5 years or less 31 22 6 to 10 years 24 17 11 to 16 years 32 23 17 to 25 years 50 35 26 or more years 4 3 The industrial education programs offered at various grade levels are presented in Table 3. Seventh grade is the least taught, as indicated by 62 (44%) of the respondents. The largest offerings of industrial educa¬ tion programs are indicated by 108 (77%) responses for the eleventh grade and 107 (76%) for the twelfth grade. 30 Table 3. Industrial education programs offered at various grade levels (N=141). Industrial Edn. Industrial Edn. Programs Offered Pr.ognMs_Mt_Qffer.ed Grade Level No. Percent No. Percent 7th Grade 62 44 79 56 8th Grade 71 50 70 50 9th Grade 92 65 49 35 10th Grade 100 71 41 29 11th Grade 108 77 33 23 12th Grade 107 76 34 24 Computer Usage Data Several forms of computer information were collected. The groups of computer information included student and instructor access to computers, types of hardware possessed, types of software application, and frequency of software application in the industrial education program. Table 4 presents student and instructor access to computers for IA/TE activities. Evidence shows that instructors have more access to computers than their students. Only 81 (57%) of the IA/TE programs offer access for student computer use, while 102 (72%) of the programs offer computer access to teachers. Table 4. Student/instructor access to computer(s) for IA/TE activities (N=141). Access to Computers Yes Percent No Percent 81 57 60 43 102 72 39 28 Students Instructors 31 The data in Table 5 indicate the types of computer hardware declared by industrial education program instructors. Of the instructors surveyed, 104 (74%) indicate their programs do possess computer hardware and 37 (26%) say their programs do not. Of the 104 (74%) instructors who indicate their programs have computer hardware, from Table 4 it can be seen that 102 (72%) of the instructors actually have access to computers. The reason for this is that two instructors have obsolete computers. Table 5. Types of computer hardware declared by industrial education programs (N=141). Computer Hardware Types No. Percent* Apple II 83 59 Macintosh 6 4 IBM 19 14 IBM Compatible 26 18 Other 2 1 One use 80 57 Combination of two 19 14 Combination of three 5 4 No. programs w/computer hardware 104 74 No. programs w/o computer hardware 37 26 ♦Total computer combination usage exceeds 100% due to rounding. According to data in Table 5, Apple II computers make up the majority of computers used for IA/TE activities, as indicated by 83 (59%) of the respondents. The least number of responses indicating specific computer hardware types declared by industrial education programs are those possessing Macintosh (6, or 4%) and computers in the "other" category (2, or 1%). Individual computer use occurs with 80 (57%) programs, while 19 32 (14%) of the programs use a combination of two computers and 5 (4%) of the programs use a combination of three different types. The types of computer software applications are addressed in Table 6. The most frequent use of software is for word processing, occurring in 85 (60%) of the programs. The smallest software application group is tele-communications, accounting for 10 (7%) of the programs. Thirty- seven (26%) of the respondents indicate they are using other forms of software applications in their programs. Table 6. Types of computer software applications utilized by industrial education programs (N=141). Computer Software Type No. Percent* Word Processing 85 60 Computer-Aided Drafting (CAD) 61 43 Graphics 37 26 Tele-communications 10 7 Other 37 26 *Total exceeds 100% because respondents have more than one choice. Table 7 presents data showing frequency of computer software applica¬ tions currently in use by industrial education programs. A modest number of programs (38, or 27%) do not have computer applications. The majority of computer applications occur in 41 (29%) programs, with one application only. As many as 19 (14%) of the programs are using three applications, while only 6 (4%) programs have five or more applications available. 33 Table 7. Frequency of computer software applications utilized by indust¬ rial education programs (N=141). Frequency of Application No. Percent No application 38 27 One application 41 29 Two applications 31 22 Three applications 19 14 Four applications 6 4 More than five applications 6 4 Instructional Content Data Data were collected for the instructional categories of industrial arts education and technology education. Each category contained specific teaching areas. The respondents provided the percentage of time taught for each content area. Table 8 displays the percentage of time taught in the industrial arts content areas. The highest incidence of teachers providing instruction in any industrial arts content area is 103 teachers in woodworking. Wood¬ working also has the largest number of instructors designating the highest percentage of time, with 6 instructors teaching 100 percent, 3 teaching 90 percent, 4 teaching 80 percent, 3 teaching 70 percent, 5 teaching 60 percent, and as many as 16 teaching 50 percent of the time. As shown in Table 8, the instructors offer instruction in mechanical drafting the second most frequently, with 1 instructor teaching 50 percent, 8 teaching 40 percent, 19 teaching 30 percent, 40 teaching 20 percent, and 22 teaching 10 percent of the time. Industrial arts content 34 areas that are taught the least are reported by 119 instructors not teaching electronics, 119 not teaching in the "other" category, and 118 not teaching crafts. As indicated in Table 8, a sum of 503 instructor- related industrial arts content area offerings exist in Montana. Teacher responses to the percentage of instructional time spent teaching in the technology education content area are displayed in Table 9. The highest incidence of instruction is in the area of building design, with a total of 22 instructors responding. The least taught content areas in technology education are those in the communications cluster, with only 2 instructors teaching offset and photography. As shown in Table 9, the total number of instructor-related technology education content area offerings is 234. Ta bl e 8. Te ac he r re sp on se s to th e pe rc en ta ge o f in st ru ct io na l tim e sp en t in In du st ri al A rt s ed uc at io n co n te nt a re a s (N =1 41 ). 35 4- O to C i— O) 'r- rd • O 3 C I— S- "r- 0) ro O "O +-> +-> to OJ e e O C Qi *—i o h- HH I— <_> cr* oo m CNJ r^. CM CM o co o in ID co in o co CM CM CM S3 o o i O O o O o o o IO O o f—• i i i i o i CO o o o o o o co O o cr» i -e i c i > *«a- o o o o CM CO m o o •r- in o +J c U 0) 3 ^5 3 S- o cr CO o o »-H T“"4 IO CM o -♦-> in 0) l—H to s- c: LL. l-H o 0) in in f-H 00 CM in r-H m 4- *** to »-H O c o 0) Q. o o to 00 r** CO cr» CM CM OO 00 r-H to CO 0) r-H f-H r-H +■» QC c 0) l o o l o 00 IO 00 o r-H IO IO IO s- CM l CM "d- CM CM CM 0) l CL l l o l CM m CM CM OO CO IO IO oo f-H l l r-H r—t f—4 f-H CM r-H r-H 0) l l c I CM CO oo «-H 00 in 00 00 oo o l 00 oo I-H r—H m 00 00 CO r-H ^■H Z V r—t r—1 l-H r-H oo to c to 0) •1— s- to c oo c 1— o s. •r— c 0> r— •r- 3 rd •r- +-> cd oo c -*-> s- c E c o O •r— o DO i- o 00 •r— s- rd c C O to o 1 •a 4-> 4- rd •r— 3e -M o i— o 3 sz "Td -a ■O 4- < +-> •r“ CD C o +-» r— o rd l-H 3 3 -C 4-> o IA co n te nt a re a s o ff er ed : Ta bl e 9. T ea ch er r es po ns es to th e pe rc en ta ge o f in st ru ct io na l tim e sp en t in T ec hn ol og y E du ca tio n c o n te nt a re a s (N =1 41 ). 36 4- rtJ o e i— o> S- *r— DVO Z O C T- +J > C r- S- JZ: -r- CD +-> O "a 4-i 4-> to OJ C C O C CD H-4 O h- *—• h— O o CD O CO CD 4-> O 3 s. ■M CO CD D rO CD CJ S. CD Q. CO 55 o CM 55 O 55 m 55 CM to n» CD s. < c CD +J c o o LU m CM OO CM CM f'. CM CO CO ID O Cv CM r-t r-! co co io co r*^ oo O O r-H O O O f—I o o o o o oooooo O O r—( o O CM CM O O CM CM CM O O O O CM '—* CM •—l CM O O O >> CJ CD 3 CT CD S- CD to c o CL CO CD Dd CM t-H CM O CM O r>. Lf) in CM o LO m oo o o o CO O) CM 0% OO CM CM CM CO CO CO ^ •—I *—I i—1 i—I «—( i—• *—• o o »—• o o ID 1—1 o CO o i—• m ^ LO r—I CM -M- r-l r—I oooooo ■M- O CO O r-H CM in o CM ^ CM CO CO <5^- o oo in oo in i—t ^ oo oo m co co I—I CO CO CM CO CO CM CO CO CO CO CO 4-> C flJ o C O -r- O •<- 4-> •«- e <0 • • +->3 0 r0 g -i— O S C •r- O 3 COE c o> •r- to E CD -*-> to 3 E to to • • c E to O >, • • (D >» D o E a o JZ c a to C •r— 0*1- Q. o DO to •r- O C to ro •r- DO C D)r— s. r0 o o s- +-> C *r- C <0 3 U r— C- *r- +■> D> o •»— >» OVr- -r- +-> •r— ro+JJDCDOS- 3 ■o CD c -o S- S- O C 3 O CL to +-> CD s- i— > r— CD CD cO 3 to CD Cd 4- o JZ: +-> •i- S- C -r- +J x: 4- O CJ •r- |— S- 4- JZ +-» to 3 3 O 3 CO +-> 3 > UJ o o a. o c o o CO CO N CO Z O C CO 2d o> c •r— to to 0) o o s- a> o> a. c c DO *r- -r- DO to C CJC C r— *r— T- l/> -i— S. nJ +J T- Q. CD +-> tO O C 03 CD r0 f0 -r- JD +J S C_> Z U_ 00 O Ta bl e 9— Co nt in ue d 37 *1- ra i ■ O C 1— 0) i S_ 'r- fO S» i • O 3< i o 4-> cn*o O 00 CM r—■ h*. O i z a c • r- 4-> f—< r—t r—( r-H i-H | ffO 3 T- > c I CM t— i- JCZ • r- Q) I n? +J o *o +-> I +■>(/> fO c c l O C O) HH o I r- H* o i I I I i -o i CD • +-> i c0 /s l r— o i O r-H O CM O r-H 1 Q) i I S- •• i l "O i S. CD i i o s. i i 4J CD +-> i i U 4- C i i 3 4- 0) o i 1—C r—1 o O O CM 1 S- O a CO i 1 4>* CO i 1 CO CO I C cO a> I -r- CD E • 1 S- •r— O i 4- CO as i O o O r—1 O O 1—1 «—< 1 4-> C CM 1 • C o >> * O CD •1— u l c +-> 4-> c • c a o 0) CM LO CO CM •—l r—t l O LU CO r—1 s. l 1— h- c u. l »—1 l 0> I M- CO l O c l o l z 1 c 1 O 4-» >» 1 s- o co oo i c • • CO S- 1 C TD E CO CD 1 +J o C CD >> 1 c •P“ r0 4-> +-> S— LU i GJ +■> CO -r- CD 1 +-> CD >, O 5 4- I c +-> C_) CO -r- O O l o s- C S- CL l o o CO S- -M 1 a *3 CD CJ O *0 CD i Lli CO S CD +-> 3 -C I h- c 3 O i— 3 -M +-> i C0 r CS CL LU c O *r- Z 4-> <0 Q£ S- ^ 0> c*o <0 S- Q; O CO ■fj c <0 +-> oo cn o 00 E O) s o s. a. CVJ ^ o cr> m CM oo in a» CM O in KO 00 r—« o CO in ID cr> o CM r—t i—1 OO CM in M- in in 00 ID in r—4 r—< rH r-4 t-H r-H r—4 i—««—» OO 00 lO •M- O 00 oo in io 00 -M- ^ i-H rH r-H •-I o in r—( IO O CM o lO CT> ■M- ID ID »“< o • • • • • • • • • • • • 00 oo oo 00 oo CM r—i CM OO CM IO 00 ^4- ID in oo CM in r^. CM CM *j* in ^4- CM VO OO l-H CM 00 -tf- CM oo oo oo O CM *0* oo cn co OO 00 ID ID l-H Ol CM CM in oo CM r—i CM O 00 CM O l-H CM CM 00 ID CM CM ID O OO M" OO 00 CM OO oo r^> 1-i io l-H l-H ^ r—i in r-* l-H r^. r—i CM CM r—< OO CM i-H IO ^ r—i ID CM CM ID 00 CM r-i OO OO CM i-H CM CM 0-. in O O r—1 r—i in «0* r-* i-H CM *4- ^ 00 cn r-. in M- l-H l-H CM CM 00 00 ^4- ^4" in in ID ID O CL o a. O CL O Q- O CL O Qu O Z o z: o z: o z: o z: o z: o *-* O •—1 o *—• O t-H O HH O HH r— o l o • 4-> CL a> o +J o o ■♦-> a cn s- a> a> c Q.*r- O JC • TO •o •r- CL CL • 4-> +J 00 c o (0 4-> •i- CD (0 s- C0 C C E O 5 N JC CL U a) a) a> O T- •r- TO > E s- s- 00 00 0) C0 -PT- Q. 4- 4-» TO +» <0 cn-r- CD 0) $- (0 4- 0) 3 to E CD CO •r- O cn ro cr 4-> CL CD s. c (0 0) C TO oo cn a. • 4-> •r— E c CD C o ^ 00 TO o s. E co cn s- t- (O o (0 O CD CD c o CL (0 o 0) ■M 00 S s- u •r* CL+J (. _ 4-> O 3 *r- c >> <0 a> SCO. 00 S- 4 CD U JC s- O CD <0 -M 3 i— Q) •r— +-> o •C E >) 0) CD 4-» i— 4- \ +-> i- E E 3 4-> H- cn TO cn oo ra cn CL u c C C 3 c cn o c cn a> •r- C0 •r- *r-j O C 4-> •1- -*-> C CL 4-> C TO *r- •r- • 4-> C •i— C0 cn •r- ra +J •*-» JC (0 CD 4-> c • E (0 i- 00 00 r— &- O <0 3 •r— CD H- -r- 3 CD a> O S 1— CD 4-> 00 >I—I— O 4— i— fc. r— C0 C0 C0 c cn cn r— 4- 0) o <0 i. o 0) T- 4- o c c <0 •!“ CO 4- o Q 00 Q $- O CO Ui LU O TO in *4- 00 CO r-H 00 CM r-H *-H ^H CM 41 having moderately high importance means (x = 4.213, x * 4.014, and x = . 3.979, respectively). Statement 5, selecting the appropriate hand tool for a specific tasky had the largest frequency of response in the high rating category, with 63 responses for occurrence and 82 for importance. An observed difference in Table 12 was with statement 13, determining how to make the appropriate adjustments on a given piece of stationary power equipment. This statement was rated moderately high in importance (x = 3.603), but had only a moderate rate of occurrence (x « 3.418). Another difference that was observed was with statement 28, calculating turning speeds with different pulley or gear sizes. This activity had a low rating of occurrence (x * 1.418), but was considered more important with a moderately low rating (x * 2.064). The largest difference noted between individual problem statements for the industrial arts well-structured division was the moderately high importance placed on statement 5 (x = 4.213) compared with the moderately low rate of importance placed on statement 28 (x = 2.064). Technology Education Well-Structured Division The frequency and mean ranking of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the technology education well-structured division are displayed in Table 13. The six problem solving statements in the technology education well- structured division were given either moderately low, low, or no ratings for occurrence and importance. Statement 30, completing an assignment with the use of computer-aided drafting, was ranked the top problem solving activity in this division for both importance and occurrence. This statement was rated moderately 42 ■o c to CL) o c 0) s¬ o o •-« o n c *— o c •o o 0) *r- CO V) to *r- X) > •r- 00 Q 4-> C "O CD CD E &- 0) =3 +-> 4-» tO U +J 3 CO 4-i DOC/) C i •p“ r— > r— i— CD o 3: CO c E o 0) *r” r— +-> fO o a i~ 3 Q.*0 LU 4- O >» O) CO o 0)1— c o •r- C ^ JO c a <0 CD s- I— C CD to _£= CD +J E S. ■a o c 4- <0 CD >» CJ o c C to CD -4-> 3 S- cr o CD a. 5- E o o o o O O in o CD O co o • •—H 00 CO CO CM O t—t in CD co in a r». o 00 o r-t O rH O CM CD CM • co o CO CO r-H OO CD CO r-x ro vo co CO r-i r-H r-H rH rH O r-H O t-H O t-H o o 00 O 00 o CD O in 10 in c U) ^ cn co M- CO CO CM CD in CM 00 CO m oo CM CM CM r-H m lO t-H VO o CD CM CM 00 CO in r-H CM 00 CM 00 z: • • • • • • • • • • • • r-i CM O 1-t O r-H O r-H o o o o x: DUO CO •*3- C'x CM CM 00 O CM O CM •r— CM z 00 O in »-H *«r o o r»x rH rH VO o i •—l CO r-H rH c •f— +J CO ^ •—1 in oo in in f'x o CM CM CM to t-H CM r-H r-H rH CM rH rH QC CM 00 CO CD 00 O CO 00 t-H on in 00 -o- rH rH rH rH rH £ O «-H h-. rx. in CO <—• ^ rH O r-H rH O _l rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH DO C 00 CO "•O' r-H in CD CD in O -r- Lf) o> o 00 o 00 t-H CD t-H O) Z +j r-H rH rH rH to cz u CD C "O t-H r—4 CM CM co co in in vo vo to $- 0^0 O CL O CL O CL O CL O a. O CL o z o z o z O Z o z 4) Z o *-• O HH O »—1 O t-H o O *—• • • 00 to CD c s- • i— o CD • o C to *f 5 4-> • > CO 4- to u +-> o • CO o> •i- CD > to JO 00 •4-> JC C 0)1— *a i- Jxi c +-> •*- O • to CD CD 4 CD •r- +-> S- -n- CJ r— 4^ c o E 54- O 4-5 r- CJ CD •r- 3 • CD to 4- CD CD fO >, 4-» 1 00 4-> +-> s- > O CJ O c E CD to C "O CD r •r- -r- O CD CD r— -M CD O) ** CD C JO 4 00 4-» CD O 00 E-O to CO to CO Q. CD 00 +-> 5 £= CD CD CD s- • J= XJ 00 4 >> O) D)TD i— > CO 1 4-> i— 00 CD C C O 00 to s- 00 00 4- Q. CD ■ 4 OJ *r- -C >> o CD f0 “r— •r- L- J= C CD CJ 00 CO C +-> CD TO r— T- -*-> CD 4- CD C CD f0 3 to +-> 4- £= CD C CD E Q. CD — CD CD *r- •r- 4 •r- C CD O) E C CO C= O c to -a 4-> CD +-> •«- C O •r- c •r— -r— •r— tO 4- CO O •r- O -D O +-> 4- C 4- CD CD C CD C o fO *r- ro *r- O C ■r- O •f 0) s. CD 4- r— +J i— a 4-> CJ 4-> 4 a. r— O 3 *r— 3 CD 4 00 4-> 00 I CD ■ Q. a -o CJ a. CD CD fO CD CD CD 4- E CD r— C r— CDr- > r— > C O CO to o to CD CO 3 C CD C O O 3 c_> u O to Q 4-> CJ t-H +J »-H O • o O o Cxx o rH z CO CM rH rH 43 low in importance (x = 2.284) while occurring at a low rate (x * 1.255). Statement 20, calculating gas mileage for given conditions, distances, vehicles (x = 1.326), statement 14, calculating lift, drag, etc., for a specific airplane (x = 1.113), and statement 7, determining the mechan¬ ical advantages of a ten-speed bicycle; calculating different sprocket ratios (x = 1.142) were each considered low in importance. Statement 10, investigating and presenting how a tele-conferencing system works (x = .2695), and statement 1, investigating how a tele¬ conferencing system works (x * .2624) each were placed in the no occurrence category. Industrial Arts Semi-Structured Division Table 14 presents the frequency and mean ranking of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the industrial arts semi-structured division. Problem statement 29, developing a plan of procedure, and statement 21, designing and sketching a product that the student would like to build, each were rated moderately high in occurrence with means of 3.511 and 3.674, respectively; each rated moderately high in importance with means of 4.000 and 3.929, respectively. An interesting comparison can be made in the occurrence and importance placed on statement 26, selecting the appropriate fastener type for a specific need. A mean of 3.582 rated this activity moderately high in importance, but it was rated only moderate in occurrence with a mean of 3.220. Statement 25, comparing the machining qualities of two common corner joints, and statement 33, comparing the machining qualities of two common cabinet woods, were each rated moderately low in occurrence Ta bl e 14 . Fr eq ue nc y an d m ea n ra n ki ng s o f pr ob le m so lv in g st at em en ts ba se d on o cc u rr en ce an d Im po rt an ce fo r th e In du st ri al A rt s Se m i-S tr uc tu re d D iv is io n (N =1 41 ). 44 • •-t CM co in m Tf o» OO lO «—l co a co m CO CO CM CO O CO in t-H CM CO CO CM co in r^. io r-H r-H rH / rl O rH r-H rH rH rH rH rH rH ^ as O CM m CM 1*^. cn io c 1** CM rl O CM CO 0> •“H CM 1^- o in ns vo as m o CM in lO o as CM co «-• CO co co in in r>* in CO CM 00 CM CM IO (O a: CM »—1 CM CM CO CO ^ -M* CM CO CO CO CM in C". CO r-H rH m r". as in rH CM r-H CM CM CM ^H rH rH o»-< in CM O CO O -M- O CO CM CO O CM r—i rH rH CM «—» CM r-H a* c O T- r-H r-H co CO 00 I-'-, in co r^. CO CO Z 4J ns od ^H f-H rH rH CO CO *0* u 0) c *o ns S- C£ o r-H CM CM r-l CO CO m in IO IO O Q- O CL. O O- o Q- o Q- O CL o z o z o z o z o z o z O ' o • o ' o ' O HH O *-H •a •— •r* s- CD 4-> 3 CD > US US a -Q c CD CD 3 • CD CO •r* •r— CO ■o o CD 4-> CD 4-» 4-> o +-> s- US JZ •r- •r— c s. 3 <0 ■O r— • r— • 0) o. a> -o 4- CO co 3 -O a> CT$ #r- a CD • CD cr c o* o +-> r— o 4-* -a +-> •f— o nj as s- CO CD CO cn o cn ^ -M c *o o. •r- CD •1— C *0 c CO •r- i— i- c s- •i- 4-> JC 3 o. CL • c s- C CD as o o O o o O T3 •r- CD -r- C c 4-> 5 S- »r- L. CD JZ c «C ‘r— •r- 0) c 0.4- a. CD O S- CJ X2 > ^ -*-> CO Q--r- CL c CO O cO c0 r— 00 c r— co a CO E CJ E CJ o 0) a. CD o CO ■0*0 CD O. CD H- CD C 0) c C 3 CTJ JC= CO JZ 4- x: o sz o s f0 +-> 4-> •!- 4-» E 4-> E a> oo D> CO o as C as a> CD cn o o> O C o •M 4- S- o s- o a. as r— u O CO co 3: CD CD CD CD CL4-> CL+-> 00 fO > r— CL r— S- E E O) -C CD CD >, CD O O 4- O 4- O +J O CO 4J 00 4- o o o o • o ^H oo lO in CO z CM CM CM f-H CM CO 45 (x « 1.922 and x = 1.809, respectively), and moderately low in importance (x = 2.277 and x = 2.156, respectively). The largest range of means for the industrial arts semi-structured problems was between statements 21 and 33. Statement 21 was ranked first for occurrence with a mean of 3.674, while statement 33 was ranked sixth for occurrence with a mean of 1.809. Technology Education Semi-Structured Division Table 15 arrays the frequency and mean ranking of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the technology education semi-structured division. For this division of problem statements, two activities were found to occur at a moderate rate. Statement 15, determining the most suitable material from a selection of different materials for a specific application and describing w/?y, had a mean occurrence of 2.830, and statement 8, selecting a machine, tool, or process and explaining operat¬ ing principles, both past and present, had a mean occurrence of 2.794. Statement 35, writing and publishing a newsletter for your school, and statement 22, designing a tele-conferencing system for a large company, rated no occurrence with means of .2340 and .1418, respectively. Although both of the statements were considered no-occurrence activities in Montana schools, they were rated low in importance with means of .7376 for statement 35 and .4894 for statement 22. The largest range between individual problem statement means was between statement 15, with a moderately rated mean occurrence of 2.830, and statement 22, with a no occurrence rating mean of .1418. Ta bl e 15 . Fr eq ue nc y an d m ea n ra n ki ng s o f pr ob le m so lv in g st at em en ts ba se d on o cc u rr en ce an d im po rt an ce fo r th e T ec hn ol og y Ed uc at io n Se m i-S tr uc tu re d D iv is io n (N =1 41 ). 46 o o o o O O O O to o • ^ in CD 00 ^ CO ^H ^H —1 CO o O I-I •—i in in co to to to • CO CO to in in to •—i m to CM CO • • • • • • • • • • r—4 r-H r—1 r-H r-H r-H r-H O «-H oo o o o o *3- O o to c O M- CD CM 1"* / co to CO •—< CD -M- CM r—* CM CM CO CO CD CO *-H CD tO co CM • • • • • • • • • • CM CO CM CO •-H CM O 1 o o JC cr> m r^. CD o t**» r- in O CO O •i- CM CM CM i—< CO to in •—< o o CO CO «—i ■M- o 1 •M* ^ CO •o- CM co l—H c •P“ -M CO CO to o in c- 'O- to co rtJ OC co CM M- • CM r-i CM ^ CM o> CD r- in CO CO CM i—i «-H 1—1 CM •—! r—t »—( »—« X o»—« CM CO 00 CO co in M- CM ^3- tO r-H CM r—1 r—1 r—( O) c *—I oo CO CD o CO CM o o O *r- f—i CM r-H co co CD CM O 2T +-> l-H i-H c« OH s. CD c-o r—i *-H CM CM CO CO 'Ct* in in TO o; O O CL O CL O Q- O CL o a. o s o s: o s: o s: o s o ' O H-C O ' o *—• o ' CD -M 1 1 c CD 00 -M s. o CD CD •r“ S- s. CD T- a CD i— CO O CD CD 4-> 4-> +J O r— Q-JZ 4-» nJ c nJ S- CL CD O E +-> 4-» E (D O 0.*r— Q-4-> •r— • 0) 00 J- T— u 3 CD >» r— +■> CD CD r— s. c O CD C C +-> to c i— 4- Q. O T- i- r— CD •!- CD s CD J3 4- Q. s. CD-Q 4-> C •!“ CD E CO "r- co *> Q. •i— •i- U C CD ■+-> -a r— CD to CD E O +-> •i— o O CD > to C &- CD CO (0 3 4- •*- O C CO O •r- CD 4-> O) O 4- +■> -r- • JC CL H-> +J C CD 00 •r— 4-> 4-> CD CD O C +-> C U •» <0 C •» CD •r- *0 •r— CD CO O CD • CD S- CD >» CO i— *o JZ c o •!- a. >> C CD CO H-» •D CO CD •r— E 4-> •r- Q. CD CD TD C= JZ -I— > o » JC O S- > C C CO r— . r— CD CD CO CJ CL •r- O CO >> JZ r— O JC i— CD CO CD *r- * to a> 3 O 00 •(-> CD C E CO O 4-> E CD c x: CL O (/) o •r- c CO 3 CD C O 4-> JZ E CD C4- JQ CO c co f— r— •r- •!— ■o o CD C CO *r- •r- a. 0.0 4-> +-> CD C CD •P“ C/) S- CD CO +-> 3 CD O CO c CD co C Er- O C r— to O S- CD CD O s- o •r— O CO CO O. CO S- >> CL •r- > C CD 3 s. E •*“ CD +J x a. CD C +-> C CD C O a. S- 4- S-*0 O CD CO C CD -i- 3 •r- >, CD CD CD -C CO E CD CD i— +J 4-> i— 4-> -a i— T3 +J > > +J 4- •1- S- CD CO CO C CD C O CD CD *r- C C C s- o Q T- E <0 CO CO JO c: co CD •—« f0 “r- 3: 4- • o in 00 CO *—H in z rH CM CO co CM m o CO r—i o o o CO cr> co CM to o o o 0) +-> 00 >> 00 o c CD s- in co in o M- CM o m VO CM rx. 2Z • • • • • • • • • • • • r-t CM «—t CM r—t CM r—1 i—« O 1-1 o o onn in *f 1^. fx. O CO 00 co in O t-H •r- r-i rH rH rH z rH CO 00 CM CM O) CM in CM CM cn o c i CM CO »—• CM r—i CO i—< rH ■M CO o cn CO o co cn in CM CM VO CO 00 (0 oc: CM CM ■—1 CM CM CO I-H CM r—1 «—< CJ co ^ CO fx» fx* in o VO VO CM rH rH rH rH r-t CM rH rH O «—l c». cn vo vo in m rx^ oo CM VO cn CM —J rH 1—1 t-H rH rH rH on c * CM vo l^x 00 CM »-H CO i •—l O) o *<-■ vo "tj* i"-. in VO M- 00 vo O 00 CM cn z +-> rH rH o: $- 0) C "O rH rH CM co CO CM m in vo vo dco o o_ o a. o o_ o a_ o cu O Cu o z o z o z o z o z o z o • O •—i O i—' O ' o • O HH • on c •r— on cn 1 • ■P co c >>-a cn E O c r— •r— (/) ca s- c 0) 0) p a Q.x *0 r— tO •r- iA ■p +-> *o c CLP E CL O 4 • -»-> •1“ flj •r- • cu cn ‘r— C t0 JO 3 CD C J= cn cu E C 3 CD r— P (J 0) c +-> CD U CD T- cr-a •'OP— O *r* E as S- •!— O) V- CD 3 POO tO O 0) in • o ca 3 p on JE O 4- JE +-> cn co +-> <0 J= C P ■a on o u 3 a fO C CO *r— o ro o c CJ on o c -*-> •P" »— O) E as <0 CD on co on oo •POO c: m 4- _c O 03 E x o u •r- P 3 •‘p E r- P o> 0 0)0. C -P C C cn <0 r0 C c i— c O) c CD r0 C 4- POO CD •r- 0) *r- #0 •r- Q) ■O E •1— o CO 4- O 4- T5 > in S- cn -a 3 c E r— O 3 1— 3 0) CD 3 P <0 0)5: •r- *a p o ■o -p JX: -o -P on •r- CL P •<- 4 i— on 00 C O (0 cn on o on ^ 3 CD <0 c® E T3 m o CD -C CD O •a CD E 4- C 0) 4- "O on CO >> O JZ a) 0)3 O ftl O) * n E P r— C C -P •p C CD * cn cn o ja •r- as O) •«“ S- Or— CEP r0 4- o Q. E *0 C 4- N 3 C (0 • •r- •r- O s» O i— •r- O •i- J-> •»- CD CD E on *o cn a. ^•<0 0 c c o c x» a cn o E C P a> in C CD to 3 E •!- -n- •r- au 3 •r- E > s- co E cn s- 03 O on o o to a) o 0) r— O S- P f— E CD S. s- to r- O 4- JO a. JC o on a. ro o Oo.cn z o. • o CO vo cn CM z CM rH CO 49 Technology Education Ill-Structured Division Table 17 displays frequency and mean rankings of problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance for the technology education ill-structured division. Four technology education ill-structured problem solving statements were rated as not occurring in the programs surveyed, yet each of these statements was rated as low in importance. Statement 12, designing and constructing a solar water-heating unit, statement 36, designing and building a 'learning game/ statement 16, formulating a plan for a futuristic travel system for your community, and statement 34, designing and building a balloon-powered device that will travel the farthest distance on a fixed suspended string, were considered no-occurrence activities with means of .4326, .4184, .4184, and .3475, respectively. These statements were given low importance ratings with means of 1.106, .9858, .8794, and .8156, respectively. The highest rated statement for occurrence and importance was problem solving statement 2, designing a home that conserves energy best for this climate. Although this activity was ranked as number one in the tech¬ nology education ill-structured division, a low occurrence rating with a mean of 1.319 and a moderately low importance rating with a mean of 2.050 were conferred. Ta bl e 17 . Fr eq ue nc y an d m ea n ra n ki ng s o f pr ob le m so lv in g st at em en ts ba se d on o cc u rr en ce an d im po rt an ce fo r th e Te ch no lo gy E du ca tio n 11 1- St ru ct ur ed D iv is io n (N =1 41 ). 50 a •r- ■+J fO Q: • a 00 1. 55 10 1. 82 20 1. 34 90 1. 71 90 0. 95 10 1. 49 10 0. 93 47 1. 38 90 0. 91 15 1. 36 00 0. 91 80 1. 37 10 M ea n 1. 31 90 2. 05 00 0. 74 47 1. 39 00 0. 43 26 1. 10 60 0. 41 84 0. 98 58 0. 41 84 0. 87 94 0. 34 75 0. 81 56 H ig h 5 vo o r“H CO F". »—i CO O f-* O l-H i-H CM **■ crt o CO 00 vo »“• CM 00 I-H 00 l-H F'— CM CT> CO CM CM CO O) CO CM in in CM l-H O t-H CM cn cr> l-H in I-H l-H CM r—1 00 CM o> O CT> I-H l-H m vo r-H 00 CO l-H vo O i-H in rs. CO 00 l-H in CM l-H l-H CM O i-H l-H CM 00 l-H cr> oo o> c O *r- fO cr> vo in cr> o> r». cr> CM O 00 f-H CM VO I-H 00 l-H l-H CO l-H 0> r-H 00 rH CT) rH Od C <0 Cd s- QJ 13 S. o CNJ CM co co **•««*■ m to vo vo O Q- oz: o *-> o a. o z: o o a. o z: o • o a. o z: o *—• O CL o z: O ' O CL o z: o *—• •P Q)ts s- CD JCJ= J- ns C 1 cnp o p—■ •r— c *o co •r- p o c 1 O i— CU CO 0) E f O CO s- S- o cu x 4-» > • P 3 rtf 3 r- > 1- c u o r— *1— *0 rtf CU P L- r— rtf *+— 0) Q) 4-> 03 2 C 3 3 rtf L. E CO <0 3 O o> Ss 4- O JO P rtf » 4-» O •r* •r- CM •r— rtf rtf rtf r— C <0 U r— > o s. p *- r— O 4-> O •r- CM JC 0) * CO P C CU r— rtf rtf •r- 4-» e >> C •!— •r— rtf P •1- JZ P . > 0) <0 c o c 3 r— CO 3 P CO CD r— E s- 0) o O 3 JO Q- >, JO •»- C O O O to CU *0 *r- CO •C4- OPE *o o> "O rtf •o O S- .c o c c c p— c .f- 4J +J E ra +-> c o rtf T- rtf CD CU rtf > to ro O) CO CH-r- p C > • cu cu O) 0) C 4- CD rtf CD •p- rtf CD*O *o JQ C ^0 •r- C O C 0) C P S- P C P cu O •r- 00 o •r- •p— rtf P *p- •r- -a s- to s- c >> •r- »r- p * C l C Si i— c c: cu rtf c CL O) o> S- P c cu CD S- CD • 3 0 3 CD V- 4- CU •r- S- o u 0) cn •i- CU •i- CU E ‘p- E •I- CU CL CO 0) CO C > co CO P CO E S- P E co 3e cu co o> c QJ 3 "O CO (U rtf CU rtf O CO o CU O f 3 O 0) 04- ns 3 O 2 O CD L_ -i- U O CLP CO • o CM cr» CM VO vo z l-H CO ^H CO th e fa rt he st di st an ce on a fi xe d su sp en de d st ri ng . 51 Mean Rankinq$_of_the Six Problem Solving Divisions Table 18 presents data concerning the mean rankings of the six problem solving divisions based on occurrence and importance. The industrial arts well-structured problem statements were ranked number one as a division in occurrence (x = 2.986) and number one in importance (x = 3.338), although given only a moderate rating overall. The second highest ranked division was the industrial arts semi-structured problem solving division. Overall ratings of moderate occurrence (x = 2.805) and moderate importance (x = 3.160) were given to this division. Table 18. Mean rankings of the six problem solving divisions based on occurrence and importance. Problem Solving Division Occurrence Importance Rank Order Mean S.D. Rank Order Mean S.D. IA Well-Structured 1 2.9860 1.4190 1 3.338 1.460 TE Well-Structured 6 0.5993 1.0900 6 1.165 1.581 IA Semi-Structured 2 2.8050 1.4970 2 3.160 1.494 TE Semi-Structured 3 1.4410 1.1320 3 1.955 1.396 IA 111-Structured 4 1.0780 1.4400 4 1.658 1.662 TE 111-Structured 5 0.6135 1.1030 5 1.204 1.525 An examination of the data in Table 18 indicates that two divisions, technology education semi-structured and industrial arts ill-structured, were rated low in occurrence (x = 1.441 and x = 1.078, respectively), while both divisions received moderately low ratings of importance (x * 1.955 and x = 1.662, respectively). As observed in Table 18, the 52 technology education well-structured division was considered a no¬ occurrence division with a mean of .5993. Mean Rankings of the Thirtv-Six Problem Solving Statements The data in Table 19 show the mean rankings of the 36 problem solving statements based on occurrence and importance. Each statement is labeled with its appropriate division rubric. The data in Table 19 indicate that the five top-ranked problem solving statements were industrial arts well-structured and industrial arts semi-structured activities. The highest ranked statements were three industrial arts well-structured statements (statements 5, 24, and 18) and two industrial arts semi-structured statements (statements 21 and 29), which were rated moderately high in occurrence and importance. Industrial arts well-structured statement 13, determining how to make the appropriate adjustments on a given piece of stationary power equipment, was ranked fifth in occurrence and sixth in importance. An interesting finding was that 10 problem statements (statements 7, 12, 36, 16, 34, 32, 10, 1, 35, and 22) were considered to have no occur¬ rence, while only statement 22 was rated no importance. Ta bl e 19 . M ea n ra n ki ng s o f th e 36 pr ob le m so lv in g st at em en ts ba se d on o cc u rr en ce an d im po rt an ce . 53 U &. s- s. S> s- u 4-> 4-> 4-> +J +■> ■*-> +J C CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i •r- p- r— f— •r— p— •f- •r- 1/1 r— r— 1“ E E r— E E •r“ 0) 0) 0> 0) 0> 0) 0) 0) > 3C 2 CO CO 2 CO CO •r- o «I < < c < «£ < UJ i—t •—i PH PH PH PH PH 1— . CT> CM CM IT) in o lO PH CO UO CO CO co pH . «-H CM CM in CO CO CO . • • • • • • • 0) r-*4 rH r-H r—t u c rtJ CO a> CO o CO CM +J c pH r>. CM o o CO r-H s- nJ CM o CO cr> o CO in o 0> • • • • . • • • Q s CO CO CO CO CO E ►—i s. ^ 0) c -o pH OJ to CO co CO rs S. DU O • CM o in r-H CO in o in 00 o 00 00 in CM o • pH CO in •M- M- in *sa- CO CO . ♦ . . . • • • PH rH pH pH PH ^H rH ^H CO co PH 00 o o c **• PH fp PH pH CM CO aJ o CO CO in CM 00 O) . • . . . . # • ■St* co CO CO co CO CO CM s. CD * 4C •o C- o pH CM CO CO in CO hP • 1 CO "O •r- •r» 1 f— O S- 4- $- t-TJ o 4-> •f” Q. O s. CD CD O o +-> 4-» 3 O 0) 44 44 CO 4J u o> O JD S- CD c CO CO CD c 3 • o. o CD EEC *o **"> •p •o O 0) CL CD 4-4 O 00 c O O 4J s. CO -r- CO CD 44 -r- 4-> <0 s- fO s. 3 CL CO r— C 44 e JZ CL u Q. CD *o CD 4- X3 CD CO CD -O CD x: e 4-» CO $- O E 0) CO <0 *P“ CJ 4-* CD C CD 4-4 -O -r- 4- 1— +-> (0 4- o» s- CD *r- E CO CD 3 4-0. rtJ •r” O o> c*o CL ^ O) CL -p- CD CO ‘P* O. -P> v. c p- CO -r- s. c *o C0 co CL • 4-» •p* 3 4- E CO 3 CL 44 o CO ■o CJ o O cr O O <0 4-0 cn S- CO o (0 4-> S O C CD L- •»— O O *P* c Q. (0 o CD CD C 4-> O 0.4— E 4- •p* 0.4-* s- ^ 4-* CO L- CL-f- c > (O CD CO c P— 2 CO CD CO O CD O O • o s- CD Q. O 4-> X 0) JC •»- CD >> *0 CD T- +-> o *o -o x: c o CD CL 44 44 Q.XZ CO JZ 4- \ C 3 CO CD CL x: co O co s +-> *P“ o> T3 CO 4-> 0> E 4-* cn CD E O c C CO o> C 4J >, CO C r— cO cn CD D> CD •r“ CO U) c -p- co S— cn •r- CD C C CL +-> C CD •r“ C 3 CO c s- C <0 S- *p- J3 -r- (/) <0 CO •p- x: Q. •r- «r> c •P- o •1- 0-0 o 4-> P- c • C 4-> O E-O o 44 4- E co 4— *p* s. O CO 3 •r- CD o> p— L- cO CJ i- S- o. 0) O Xi— •r- 4-» CD CD 4-> 0) CD CD E CO O i“ s. r— CO CO CO CO > 4-> CD CO i— Q. 44 0 1— <0 CD O co u CD -C CD 0} 4-4 4-4 0) >, CD &- CO CD CO 4- o Q CO Q 4-> O O CO co GO 44 Q 4- *P- "O • o in T}- 00 PH CO CO in z CM PH CM CM PH CM PH 00 Se le ct in g a m a ch in e, to ol , o r pr oc es s an d e x pl ai ni ng o pe ra tin g pr in ci pl es , bo th pa st an d p r e s e n t . 8 2 .7 9 4 1 .6 1 9 9 3 .1 4 9 1. 55 8 TE Se m i-S tr 54 s. s. &- i. s. s- +J ■p p P p S- &- S- p c 00 00 00 00 to P p p 00 o 1 1 1 1 1 00 00 to 1 •r“ •r“ -r- r— 1 1 1 r—* 00 E E E E r— r_ r— •r" (1) 0) CO 00 00 to 2 H-H HH r-H o < < UJ < < • • • • • • • • • o g z CO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM HH s- ^ 0) ♦ * * •K * C "O o r-H in in CM <■ to o> r-H in CO cn r^. CM a o in in CM cn in to CM CM • m in to CO to CO to in IS) • • • • • • • • • 0J # 1 r-H r—r r-H ^-4 r-H r-H l-H ^H w c 0) in CM CM cn in o m to 00 s>. c cr> CM CM o to CM CM r-H s> 3 re 0) to • cn • cn • 00 ♦ to • in • in • • o O «*H CM CO *3* in to re S— a: o r-H f—H r-H r-H r-H ^H 4- JC r— • O 00 o re 00 0) 0) -r- 4- •r— 00 > 00 r— 00 0) p re •r— 0) 00 X) 0) cn • EX3 c r-— 00 •»— O.T- •r~ C JC CD CD P O J3 • "O r~ S- o r— • E r— CJ 00 CD E C 2 N c re re cn a. re co o cn c CD CJ CD *1- •1— 4-> 00 > re o CTiJC re J= C P CD S- 4-i re cn-p re cn 5 00 O C P (J re o CD re re •r- c c JC 00 c P P •r— • cn E re Q. CD •M s. •r* »r— c ■i- P c P 00 P c oo 4- oo cn CO Q. • C O * o C CD a> a CJ 00 ■r— •r— v P 3 o *o •r— T-J >o*r- • •r- C E -r- CD re 4— C P c c cn s- o> i- 0) JC P p E JC •>— O S- •«-3 0) a J3 S- P CD (J s- •r- CD ■a E •r— •»— a. c te a) >r-r- re re 3 CD 00 Q. oo *o 3 C >> • > re E c •i- O XI E O to E cn CD 3 P re S. CD "O a P 00 o re •O C re ■o P 00 3 i— 0) o o O $- 0) c CD X> C -r- 10 s. p r-— 3 CO J= 4- JC o re >) CL JC o E C re t- CD ■o re o 3 C •4-> *i- ■p c P E re 3 ^ C CD 4- cn CL •r- E O c o. re c g cn OP re re _c cn c 4-> O) cn a) cn o 3 E 0) cn o c o c a E p C CD •f— p C C Q. c g o > c a •i— -r— •r- re cn •r- P c o JO •t— V) ■r— £ S- 00 -r- •r— P S- 0-4- o c 4- N 3 re CD o o 4-> i- o cn re cn s- o S- P O 3 P •I- O •i— P i— X- 1 S- a re E CD re -O C CD re 3 O 4- o\ r— C- E o oo E C > E r— re E cn s- r— 4- a> o o 3: C/> -r- O O 4- o o CD o 1— o S- P re 0) 00 4- O P <1— P o o CJ P Q re 00 CL JZ o oo c_> XJ r— ja • to o r>. in CO CO l-H CO to oo >— z CM CM CO f-H CM T ab le 19 -- C on tin ue d 55 S. u S- -♦-> s- -*-> s. +-> s- +-> c= -»-> CO 4J CO -t-> CO +-> CO o CO 1 CO I CO 1 cn 1 •r— 1 r~ 1 r“ 1 •r- i r— CO r— r— r- r— f— E r— r— •r“ a> r- a> r— 0) r— 0) > •—i 3 ►—i 3 t—« cn »—l 3 •t— a LxJ Ul < Ul Ui Ul < Ul h- 1- *—< 1— y- I— 1— • CM 00 CO CT> i—« CM o o CM o CM o r—< CO CO o • 00 O CO CO in in CO CO • • • • • • • • a; c—* CM r—< *-H r—» f-H rH rH u c 00 co o CO o co CO 4J c in 00 o CM cn CM CM rH s- cO o CM in CO CO CO f-H rH o 0J • • • • • • • • a s CM CM rH ^-1 f-H ^H rH rH E HH s. ^ 0) * •K ■K c to CO 00 O CT\ o OJ co co S- Qi O »-H rH rH CM ^H CM CSJ CM CO ro a> s- a o c *u CO u Cd o to LO o cn co co o in in CO 00 CO 00 Ol CM 00 o CM CT> *3- CO co cn CM CM r- o *3* 00 00 co CO "3- CM !>. CM r>. CO m • • • o o o i—l CM CO ^ CM CM CM CM cn c • CO cn •MO)!: •>— >» 1 • 0J c c JC JZ i- C +-> >>■0 &. JZ •*“ • Q.v > CO •r- +-> E "r” *0 r— CO 4- 01 a> 0.4-* •i— a) E x: u C a C O. O > • JC c •r- C cnr- 4J 3 C 0) o C0 J3 r 4-> s. 0) *r- 3 0) u r— *r- *0 QJ 00 • c a) 4J •r- 4-» cr-o C- T- CO 2 C 4-> 0) *> O r— u a> to S4- 0J 3 O JZ 3 O *o C 44 O O 44 E C E <0 +-> 4- 0) -a O O cn o m JZ 0 0) 0) O -f- ■M S- •o 00 > •r— CM c *o 0 u JZ ■4-> O r— C-O c 0) > O $- •r- e-o u 00 u (0 a 0) CO 0) cn •r- CM CU 44 C0 CO 00 cn 4-> E *0 JZ to in ■O Q- 00 JZ cn to co CO (0 C 0) »'■*-> O 0) C S- 3 •r- r- C >» •r— U CO •0 cn 4-> .o: •r“ •P“ C 4- •r- JZ 0) fc o 0) 44 0 U • c 4-» 00 CO *r— o E crj c >» "O -r- -£Z CO 4- O » 0) 01 in i c +-> CO C C 44 44 E •— 44 e > E S- <0 u cnt 00 00 O O CO C •r- *0 4- co o o a> •r- a. C0 •r- S-C E 0) 00 44 -r- U •r“ 1— *0 x: 4- c +-> 00 o 0)-0 O 4-> E cn > a> 00 ^ 3 r— CL CO CO 3 0) •£= O ecu 0) O S- <0 ■»-> a. ■o 00 cn •» c o •r- *p- C CO >» OO *r- E in O) E C co cn-r- # 44 0) •k e co a> cn a) c o •i- c C 4- CO 44 3 cn cn 0 •r" C X2 t- o cnr— 4-> o •«- c O cn C r- C C 44 44 u JQ •r- 4-* C co • C0 *r- -Q O •r— CO 4— •1— •!— cO O c >» 01 4— •r— 0) 0) r— 4-> •r- i- +J ; • 44 44 C c 00 -a r— 4- S- o> a> r~ O c -a a 3 T- S- +J c 0) 00 U *r“ cn 0 c 3 •»— o. •i” S- a. C •r- •r— o -o U O 0) cn 0) O •r- Q. 3 U U oo a> E 0) o i— c 00 c > co >0.0) 00 0 0 r— 0) CD c O 00 r- CZJZ CO o a> 3 -a 00 C E s. u C0 CL a a> O 3 a. to o o o a 4- co 3 I—* *r- 44 QQ.cn O 00 • o CM O rv. o cn r—( cn z CO CM CM ro «-H rH Ta bl e 19 --C on tin ue d 56 ■M s. S- S- s. $- ■M c 00 +J ■M 4-> +-» 4-> 00 o i 00 OO CO OO 00 1 •r— n- 1 l i 1 1 n— V) r— 1“ p~ 1—“ r— r— •r- 0) r— r— r— r— 0) > 2 t—t *—t HH •—1 HH 2 •r— Q LU LU LU LU LU < LU • r—* »-H cn O i—4 00 cn o 1—1 cr» 00 to n. CM • t-H cn 00 00 00 z • • • • • • • I-H r—4 o o o o o s. ^ d) * * C "O rH in to ns. o ns ftJ s. CM CM CM CM CM CO CM Q: O m O in O CM cn • r-* t—4 00 in Q r>* in co 1—1 1—4 to o • cn cn cn cn cn ns. r^. CO • • • • • • • o o o o o o o * * * * O) to in in in c CO CM 00 00 n-s cn cn (0 in CO r—4 f—4 to to o> CO CM CM • • • • • • • o o o o o o O s. ^ 0) C -O in to r*^ 00 cn cn oj S- CM CM CM CM CM CM CM DS O u s. cn •1— 40 1 <0 c +-> • 1 cn c •r- to >» c -a c 2 <0 o C •r- +-> O 1— 0) •1— o • > -»-> 00 s- S- -r- O 0) X • x: oo U) ■O •i- 3 CD +J (0 0> D* (0 0) 4-> 3 r— 40 4- 4-» V cn t- c 1— o f— 3 E 40 s. O •»- c o O) I—OO cn 4- E XI +-> 40 40 O •r- 5 E <0 >> S- c O 4- JC 4-> (D o o o. •r“ C0 (0 O 40 r— C 3 O c E +-> •1— •»— i— O c CD 0) <0 C.O O cn s- s- cn-r- 40 CO 00 4-> 4-> <0 +J 3 c O 3 C 5 0) E»» CD 00 CO c S- 4- O •1- o 4-> S- >» 0 0)0) • ■o >> -O 4-» C 40 C Q. 00 cn 0> 0> &- 00 4-> r— C r— 40 40 CD c E CL O C -r- •r— (0 S- •r- +J . 4- -O ■o cn •r- CO t4— O C 3 i— O 3 +-> oo cn O 3 c c > 0) I t*- O 3 XI Q.4- XI *r— C 4-> 40 •»— JC C T- 00 00 O JC •1— S- E C (0 C -*-> C 00 0) 0) E +-> 4-> CD CD •r— ■!— cn *0 cn •4“ >» cn-o -£= *o 40 4- C 4- c cu c +-> 00 C U> 0) 40 4- cn c JQ •r— O <0 • •»- ^ •r— 40 •r- *0 L. *0 O •r- O O E r— CO C 1 C *! f— p— C 0> <0 C cn 4-J CJ s- SI 00 3 O cn s- cn • 3 0) cn s- 4- cu c C/> 1 o_ (D 0J O *r- •r— Q) •r- 0) E > •r- o> o. c CD CD 4-> Or— 4-> oo +J co E S- 40 oo 2 (D oo DZ 40 > r— 0) C0 C0 (0 0) (0 0) 40 o s- 0) O JZ 3 40 1— C CD Q 4-> O S- Q » Q cn Li- 4-» O CL+J 00 Z CL *—1 +-> o ns CM to to CM O z CO r-4 CO CO f-H In ve st ig at in g ho w a te le -c on fe re nc in g sy st em w o r k s . 30 0 .2 62 4 0 .6 9 3 3 2 8 • 0. 80 85 1. 32 5 TE W el l-S tr T ab le 19 -- C on t1 nu ed 57 c. s. 4-> +J c 00 CO o 1 1 •r— •r- CO E E •r“ 0) a> > CO co •r“ o UJ UJ h- H- • co CO o CO *3* • CVJ o CO I • • 0) I r-H f-H u c nj co +J c r>. cn s. nJ CO 00 o 0) ^3- c • • E o O s. ^ a> c-o Ol f“H m s- O CM CO CO CM • t-H in O co • CO tn CO • • 0) o o a c 0) o 00 s. c 1^ s. CO 'Sf 3 0) CM l“H u • • u o o o ^ 4-> +-» 0) CO CO cn 4-> 2 c c » E c c a> <0 0) to ■M S- Q. (0 a> 0) E +-> c M- O CO •i— C O x: o cn CO a cu c i o> •r- r— • a> i~ > -O i— r— tO r— 3 O CO JC •o o (0 E C CO u. 0) cn o r— s- C4- JD O) 3 •1— O C O C E S. *«■" >> cn a> a. +J •r- +-> •f- S- CO CO s- o * 3 4- O co • 1 o un CM z II co CM 58 Summary. This chapter offered a compilation of tables to represent the data collected for this study. The data were gathered using a survey instru¬ ment designed by the researcher to collect: (1) instructor and student demographics and computer usage data, (2) instructional content data, and (3) problem solving statement data. Based on the analysis of data presented in this chapter, conclusions and recommendations for this study are presented in Chapter 5. 59 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to report the results of survey research which was performed to determine the perceptions of industrial arts and technology education instructors in Montana concerning the occurrence and importance placed on problem solving activities relative to their programs. Summary Recent changes that have resulted from technological advancements have created new demands and challenges for people at a more accelerated rate than ever before. The effective use of critical thinking skills such as problem solving is one of these demands. Other reasons for learning problem solving techniques include the ability to adapt to the ever- changing world, meeting personal needs, and preparation to meet future employer expectations. The review of literature suggests several reasons why industrial education programs should offer a multitude of different problem solving applications for students. It is the role of industrial education instructors to ensure that their students are obtaining the proper guidance for developing problem solving skills for these activities. The need to create an environment that offers the necessary problem solving atmosphere is a part of this responsibility. To perform this task, 60 teachers must have an understanding and awareness of the characteristics of the problem solving structures and knowledge of the different problem solving approaches that apply to a given situation. A questionnaire was developed with the aid of a panel of national technology education leaders in problem solving, faculty members at Montana State University, and the State Specialist of Trade and Industrial Education in Montana. The survey instrument was sent to 242 teachers in Montana secondary schools. There were 141 teacher respondents, for a usable return rate of 58.3 percent. The nature of this problem solving study resulted in determining the occurrence and instructor importance placed on problem solving activities by industrial arts and technology education instructors. The development of an instrument to reveal if well-structured, semi-structured, and ill- structured problems occurred or were important among those surveyed allows findings to be drawn and conclusions and recommendations to be made. Findings Based on the analysis of data provided by the industrial arts and technology education instructors in Montana for problem solving activi¬ ties, the following findings are summarized: (1) Activities that require the use of tools, processes, and materials are perceived by the instructors as the most important problem solving activities and occur the most frequently. (2) Problem solving activities that occur the most frequently and have the greatest importance utilize problem solving approaches that are 61 either routine, repetitive, and mathematical in nature, or utilize a heuristic style approach. (3) Activities that deal with the study of technological systems, their resources, processes, and impacts on society are perceived by the instructors as the least important and occur the least frequently. (4) Problem solving activities that occur the least frequently and have the least importance utilize problem solving approaches that are either routine, repetitive, and mathematical in nature, or utilize creative problem solving style processes. Conclusions The researcher offers the following conclusions: (1) The industrial educators in Montana are not providing activities that involve creative problem solving techniques to find solutions. (2) The industrial educators in Montana are not providing their students with problem solving activities that relate to technological systems, their resources, processes, and impacts on society. Recommendations As a result of the findings and conclusions drawn from this study, the researcher offers several recommendations: (1) Courses in technology education at Montana State University should continue to emphasize problem solving structures and techniques as a component of the instruction. 62 (2) Industrial educators should be informed about the different problem solving structures and suitable problem solving approaches through newsletters, workshops, and update conferences. (3) Industrial educators should offer more problem solving activities that present technological systems, their resources, processes, and impacts on society, rather than offer only materials, tools, and process problem activities. (4) Industrial educators should offer problem solving activities that involve heuristics and creative problem solving processes which enhance higher levels of thinking. (5) Research efforts involving problem solving statements in the future should allow for similarities or relationships which may exist for the said statements. (6) Future research should be performed with problem solving structures by identifying action words or action statements such as calculat¬ ing, designing, determining, investigating, organizing, selecting, etc., that will descriptively identify problem solving structures. 63 REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED Anderson, S., ed. "A Calendar of Professional Meetings, Conferences, and Conventions.^ TIES Magazine: Technology. Innovation & Entrepren¬ eurship for Students (January/February 1989): 47-48. [Drexel University] Baker, G.E., and J.C. Dugger, III. ^Helping Students Develop Problem Solving Skills." The Technology Teacher 47, no. 4 (1986): 10-13. Balistreri, J.P. "What We Know about Change." The Technology Teacher 46, no. 5 (1987): 3-5. Bame, E.A., and C.D. Miller. "Philosophical Views." Journal of Indust¬ rial Teacher Education 18, no. 1 (1980): 14-21. Barnes, J.L. "Learning to Solve Tomorrow's Problems." The Technology Teacher 48, no. 6 (1989): 25-29. Bohn, R.C., A.J. MacDonald, J.F. Fales, and V.F. Kuetemeyer. Energvf Power, and Transportation Technology: Activity Guide. Encino, CA: Glencoe Publishing Co., 1986. Bohn, R.C., and A.J. MacDonald. Power: Mechanics of Energy Control. Bloomington, IL: McKnight and McKnight Publishing Co., 1970. Bransford, J.D., and B.S. Stein. The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking. Learning, and Creativity. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1984 Brightman, H.J. Problem Solving: A Logical and Creative Approach. Atlanta, GA: Business Publishing Division, College of Business Administration, Georgia State University, 1980. Cohen, J. Thinking. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co., 1971. Feirer, J.L. Cabinetmaking and Millwork. Peoria, IL: Charles A. Bennett Co., Inc., 1970. Good, C.J., ed. Dictionary of Education. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1973. Hacker, M., and R.A. Barden. Living with Technology. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc., 1988a. 65 Hacker, M., and R.A. Barden. Living with Technology: Teacher's Guide. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc., 1988b. Hales, J.A., ed. Jackson^ Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory. Fairmont, WV: Fairmont State College, 1980. Hatch, L. "Problem Solving Approach." Papers from the 37th Yearbook: Council on Technology Teacher Education. Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe Publishing Co., 1988, 87-98. Johnson, S.D. "Teaching Problem Solving." School Shop 46, no. 7 (1987): 15-17. Kemp, W.H., and A.E. Schwaller. "Introduction to Instructional Strate¬ gies." Papers from the 37th Yearbook: Council on Technology Teacher Education. Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe Publishing Co., 1988, 21. Kicklighter, C.E., and R.J. Baird. Architecture Residential Drawing and Design. South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Wilcox Co., Inc., 1976. Koberg, D., and J. Bagnell. The All New Universal Traveler: A Soft- Svstems Guide to Creativity. Problem Solving and the Process of Reaching Goals. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1981. Kurulik, S., and J.A. Rudnick. A Sourcebook for Teaching Problem Solving. Boston, MA: Allen and Bacon, Inc., 1984. Listar, G. Technology Activity Guide 1. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc., 1987. Lund, R.E. MSUSTAT: Statistical Analysis Package. Version 4.12. Computer software. Bozeman, MT: Statistical Center, Department of Mathematical Science, Montana State University, 1988. Disk. Lux, D.G., and W.E. Ray (co-directors). The World of Manufacturing: Teacher's Guide. Bloomington, IL: McKnight and McKnight Publishing Co., 1971. Metz, N.J., exec. dir. INVENT AMERICA! Administrative Support Guide. Washington, DC: United States Patent Model Foundation, 1987. Morris, W., ed. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., 1973. New York State Education Department. Technology Education. Albany, NY: Author, 1987. Oaks, M.M. "Making the Change: Key Issues in Moving to Technology Education." The Technology Teacher 48, no. 5 (1987): 5-8. 66 Presseisen, B.Z. "Thinking Skills: Means and Models." In Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (pp. 43-48). Ed. Arthur L. Costa. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1985. Pullias, D. "The Cost of Change in Technology Education." The Technology Teacher 46, no. 8 (1987): 3-4. Repp, V.E., W.J. McCarthy, and O.A. Ludwig. Metalwork Technologv__and Practice. 7th ed. Bloomington, IL: Mcknight Publishing Co., 1982. Schmitt, M.L., and A.L. Pelley. A Survey of Programs. Teachers. Students, and Curriculum. OE 33038, Circular No. 791, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Schwaller, A.E. Energy Technology: Sources of Power. Worchester, MA: Davis Publications, Inc., 1980. Shane, H.G. "A Curriculum for the New Century." Phi Delta Kappan 62 (1981): 356. Spence, W.P., and L.D. Griffiths. Woodworking: Tools. Materials, and Processes. Alsip, IL: American Technical Publishers, Inc., 1981. Starkweather, K.N., ed. "51st Annual Conference Program Highlights." Jhs. Technology Teacher 48, no. 4 (January 1989): 31-34. Stultz, R.A. DBase HI Plus. Version 1.1. Computer software. Plano, TX: Wordware Publishing, Inc., 1988. Disk. Tidewater Technology Associates. "Creativity-Tool for the Imagination." The Technology Teacher 47, no. 1 (1987): 21-28. Tidewater Technology Associates. "Problem Solving." The Technology Teacher 46, no. 2 (1986): 15-22. VanGundy, A.B. Techniques of Structured Problem Solving. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., 1988. Wagner, W.H. Modern Woodworking. South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Wilcox Co., Inc., 1980. Wohlers, T.T. Applying AutoCAD: A Step-by-Step Approach. Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe Publishing Co., 1988. 67 APPENDICES 68 APPENDIX A: JUDGING PANEL PARTICIPANTS 69 JUDGING PANEL PARTICIPANTS Dr. James E. LaPorte Technology Education Program Area 144 Smyth Hall Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Dr. Larry Hatch College of Technology Technology Systems Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 Dr. Scott D. Johnson Department of Vocational & Technical Education Division of Technology Education 1310 S. Sixth Street University of Illinois Champaign, Illinois 61820 Dr. Brenda L. Wey College of Fine & Applied Arts Department of Industrial Education & Technology W. Kerr Scott Hall Appalachian State University Boone, North Carolina 28608 Dr. Richard E. Peterson School of Education Department of Occupational Education Box 7801 North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7801 70 APPENDIX B: JUDGING PANEL RATING FORM 71 JUDGING PAMO/RXIING PCRM Oha following statements were selected frcm problan-solving/activity sections of Industrial Arts and Technology Education textbooks and workbooks. The design of this rating form Is Intended to arrange problem types with Instructional categories. This will permit the comparison between problem type level and Instructional category (IA/TE). Please rate each statement for Its accuracy by circling NR 1 2 3 4 5. Garments and suggestions are welcome in the space provided after each group and at the end of the form. PLEASE RATE THE VALIDITY OP EACH STATEMENT BY dRTT.TNG I.A. based: well-structured 1. Oxparing the advantages and disadvantages of carbide tipped tools. 2. Selecting the appropriate hand tool for a specific task. 3. Calculating the cost of a project. 4. Calculating area. 5. Ability,10 make adjustments on power equipment. 6. Drawing and/or reading a drawing to scale. 7. Converting measurements fran English to metric and metric to Biglish. 8. Calculating turning speeds with different pulley or gear sizes, comments < (no rating) (low) NR 12 3 NR 12 3 NR 12 3 NR 12 3 NR 12 3 NR 12 3 NR 12 3 NR 12 3 (high) 4 5 4 5 4 S 4 S 4 S 4 5 4 5 4 5 T.E. based: well-structured 1. Diagraming how a telephone works. NR 2. Explaining how teleoomrunicatlon satellites work. NR 3. Happing a chart of nan's progress from the stone age to present NR day. 4. Determining the mechanical advantages of a ten-speed bicycle; NR calculation of different sprocket ratios. 5. Giving a presentation on how and why a airplane stays in the air. NR 6. Explaining how a tel-oonferenclng system works. NR 7. Calculating gas mileage for given conditions, distances, vehicles. NR 8. Completing a assignment with the use of ocnputer aided drafting. NR comments: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I.A. based: semi-structured 1. Designing and sketching a product that the student would like to NR build. 2. Developing a plan of procedure. NR 3. Developing a cleanup schedule as a member of a group. NR 4. Comparing the strength of various ocmncn comer joints. NR 5. Oxparing the machining qualities of two ccnmcn cabinet woods. NR 6. Selecting the appropriate adhesive for a specific need. NR 7. Assigning students to contact corporations for information. NR 8. Selecting the appropriate fastener type for a specific need. NR 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ooranents: 72 T.E. b&aedi Mni-atmctured 1. Listing ten inportant inventions and determine the influences they had on society. NR 1 2 3 4 S 2. Selecting a machine, tool, or process and explain hew it should be operated safely. NR 1 2 3 4 5 3. Selecting a machine, tool, or process and explain operating principals, both past and present. NR 1 2 3 4 5 4. Designing a tel-ccnferencing system for a large ccnpany. NR 1 2 .3 4 S 5. Writing and publishing a newsletter to your school. NR 1 2 3 4 S 6. Locating and presenting infoonaticn on the differences between craft manufacturing and mass prediction. NR 1 2 3 4 5 7. Determining the most suitable naterial from a selection of different materials for a specific application and describe why. NR 1 2 3 4 5 8. As a group activity, have groups list as many possible solutions to a given problem. oorrments: NR 1 2 3 4 5 I.A. 1. based: ill-structured Designing, estimating cost, and proposing a bid for a school playground to your local school board. NR 1 2 3 4 5 2. Planning and designing a residential heme of the students choice. NR 1 2 3 4 5 3. Planning, designing/ and equipping an ideal "shop" of their choice. NR 1 2 3 4 5 4. Developing and selecting an item for a manufacturing class that can be sold to make a profit. NR 1 2 3 4 5 5. Organizing a student management structure for a manufacturing class. NR 1 2 3 4 5 6. Planning, organizing, and implementing ways to raise money for your students to attend a conference. NR 1 2 3 4 5 7. Planning, organizing, and developing ways of finding a simmer job(s) in any of the trade areas for those students interested. NR 1 2 3 4 5 8. Making a model of a manufacturing plant of the students choice. NR 1 2 3 4 5 Garments i T.E. 1. based: ill-structured fbrmulating a plan for a futuristic travel system for your comunity. NR 1 2 3 4 5 2. Designing and building a "learning game11. NR 1 2 3 4 5 3. Designing and building a balloon-powered device that will travel the farthest distance on a fixed suspended string. NR 1 2 3 4 5 4. Describing how a individual will function in the year 2020 with the advent of the "siper conductor*. NR 1 2 3 4 5 5. Planning and estimating costs for a one month trip to Northern Europe for July, 1999. NR 1 2 3 4 S 6. Designing a heme that conserves energy best for this climate. NR 1 2 3 4 5 7. Describing and showing the advantages of manufacturing precision parts in a space station. NR 1 2 3 4 5 8. Designing and constructing a solar water-heating unit. NR 1 2 3 4 5 oomenta: Other cements and suggestions t 73 APPENDIX C: COVER LETTER, DIRECTIONS, AND DEFINITION OF TERMS TO JUDGING PANEL 74 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 February 16, 1989 Dear Panel Member: Thank you for being a participant on the five-member judging panel for my survey instrument. The members of the panel represent Technology Education personnel at the university level that have shown much interest, knowledge, and leadership in the study of problem solving. I am asking you to check the validity of the statements selected. The outline below addresses the structure of the instrument, purposes, and directions for completing the rating form. Structure of Professional Paper The title of my professional paper is "Perceptions and Identification of Problem Solving Activities in the Industrial Arts and Technology Education Programs in Montana." Judging Panel-Rating Form As a member of the Judging Panel, I am asking you to judge the validity of each problem solving statement (large sheets) as it pertains to instructional category and problem type. The Judging Panel-Rating Form is assembled into two main groups. One group represents instructional categories (IA/TE). The other group represents problem types (well- structured, semi-structured, and ill-structured). The combined groups are: IA Based: Well-Structured IA Based: Semi-Structured IA Based: 111-Structured TE Based: Well-Structured TE Based: Semi-Structured TE Based: 111-Structured The final survey instrument will be constructed based on your responses to the statements. The selected statements will be placed randomly and will not be identifiable by instructional category or problem type. Judging Panel Members February 16, 1989 Page Two 75 Structure and Purpose of Final Survey Instrument The purpose of the survey will be to: (1) determine the degree of occurrence in the classroom in a nine-week period, and (2) determine the instructor's personal rating of the degree of importance of each of the problem solving statements. The survey instrument will have thirty-six (36) problem solving statements. The population for the survey will be two hundred and sixty- one (261) Industrial Arts and Technology Education instructors in Montana. The target date for the first mailing is March 1, 1989. Summary As a participating judging panel member, you will be listed in the final publication of this paper. No mention or reference will be made concerning the judges' personal ratings. If you have any questions regarding the rating form, please contact me at (406) 994-3201. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and time in developing this instrument! Sincerely, William D. Lodermeier Masters Candidate Technology Education Montana State University Dr. Doug Polette, Advisor Attachment Judging Panel Members February 16, 1989 Attachment 76 Definition of Terms Industrial Arts: Instructional content pertaining to the understanding of industry, and development of basic and advanced skills with tools, machines, and processes. Technology Education: Instructional content pertaining to the study of systems, techniques, industries organization, personnel, resources and products, and their social and cultural impact. Well-Structured Problems: These problems are relatively narrow in scope and usually have only one correct answer. The problem solver must arrive at the one best solution. Algorithms are typically used to solve these types of problems. An example of this type of problem is: "Determine voltage to a given situation."1 Semi-Structured Problems: These problems have more than one correct answer. Heuristics are used to solve this problem type. A typical heur¬ istic approach to solving a problem would consist of using a sequence of steps similar to the following: (1) recognizing the problem, (2) defining the problem, (3) selecting a strategy, (4) attempting to solve by acting on a strategy, and (5) drawing conclusions and checking results. An example of this type of problem is: "Performing tasks in order of import¬ ance/2 111-Structured Problems: These types of problems have a variety of potentially correct solutions. They require divergent thinking and utilize creative problem solving techniques. This type of problem is almost never solved by looking for an algorithm, nor will heuristics ensure an acceptable solution. An example of this type of problem is: "Developing a better means of transporting people in an urban setting." (This problem has a multitude of potential solutions.3) References: 1L. Hatch, "Problem Solving Approach," Papers from the 37th Yearbook: Council on Technology Education (Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe Publishing Co., 1988), pp. 89-90. 2Ibid., pp. 91-92. 3Ibid. 77 APPENDIX D: COVER LETTER TO STATE SPECIALIST OF TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION 78 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana Stale University Bozeman. Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 February 20, 1989 Mr. Jeff Wulf, State Specialist Department of Trade and Industrial Education Office of Public Instruction 1300 Eleventh Avenue Helena, Montana 59620 Dear Mr. Wulf: Enclosed is the survey instrument with demographic information that we discussed on the phone. Please comment and provide input on the demographic section of the instrument. The final questionnaire will be sent to 241 industrial arts and technology education instructors on a double-sized 8.5" x 11" single sheet of paper. There may be some room for other demographics. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Enclosure William D. Lodermeier Graduate Student 79 APPENDIX E: PROBLEM SOLVING SURVEY INSTRUMENT 80 Problen Solving Survey I am asking you to help me Identify problem solving activities that are being taught or applied In your program and the degree of Importance you place on these activities, ihis survey Instilment is being sent to approximately two hundred Industrial Arts and Technology Education Junior and Senior High Instructors in Montana. Please Indicate what your Instructional category (Industrial Arts or Technology Education), and Instructional areas are. Give the amount of Instructional «•<"■» (% ) provided after each Instructional area Indicated. ( ) Industrial Artsi (Instructional content pertaining to the understanding of Industry, and development of basic and advanced skills with tools, machines, and processes). ( ) Auto-anal 1 Bvjines %_ ( ) Mechanical Drafting V ( ) Crafts % " ( ) Building Trades % ( ) Metal Wbrklng % ( ) other % ( ) Electronics % ( ) Manufacturing ( ) Welding •( ) Woodworking ( ) Technology Education! (Instructional content pertaining to the study of systems, techniques, industries organization, personnel, resources and products, and their social and cultural impact). OOMJNICATICN S! ( ) Visual Caimmicatlcn % ( ) Offset % axcTRucncNt ( ) Building Design % ( ) Building Systems % MMUFACHIUICI ( ) Metals Processing % ( ) Finishing % ) Electronics Ccmmni cation %_ ) Photo % ) Surveying %_ ) Materials ) Casting % ) Shaping ) Graphic Oomuiicatlon %. ) other % ) Zoning % ) other _ ) Machining % ) other %_ TkANSPCRTATICNl ( ) Guidance and Control %_ ( ) Auto Power Systems % ) Power Systems % ) Study of Ihergy y ) Electricity % ) other %_ Directions for filling oui survey■ This Instrunent lists problem solving activities and statements. After each statement listed below, rank the DBfPEE OF OOCCRRBKZ, (colum ID and the DBOtB CP DCCDTMCE, (oolum 12) by circling the nunber most appropriate to your program. Your response to oolum 11 may vary frem TOW* to "HIGH* depending upon the degree of occurrence each activity takes place In your classroom. Your response to colum 12 may vary from TOW" to "HIQl” depending upon how important you feel the activities or statements relate to your Instruction. Circle NR (no rating) for colum II if the activity does not occur in your classroom. Circle Ml (no rating) for colum 12 If you place no Importance cn the activity. (E^carples) x. Selecting the best joint for a specific need, x. Calculating voltage, anperage, and resistance. •1 DEGREE CP OO&RREMCE IN YOUR CLASSROOM IN A NINE WEES SESSION: (LOW) (HIGH) NR 1 2 (?) 4 5 @ 1 2 3 4 5 12 INSTRUCTORS PERSONAL RATING CP THE DUKES OP IMPORTANCE! (LOW) (HIGH) NR 1 2 3 (7) 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 1. Investigate how a tele-conferencing system works. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 2. Designing a home that conserves energy best for this climate. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 3. Developing and selecting an item for a manufacturing class that can be sold to sake a profit. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 4. Planning and designing a residential heme of the student's choice. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 5. Selecting the appropriate hand tool for a specific task. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 6. Organizing a student management structure for a manufacturing class. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 7. Determining the mechanical advantages of a ten-speed bicycle) calculation of different sprocket ratios. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 8. Selecting a machine, tool, or process and explain operating principles, both past and present. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 9. Describing hew a individual might function In the year 2020 with the advent of common "super conductor" usage. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 10. Investigating and presenting how a tale-conferencing system works. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 11. converting measurements from Ehgllsh to metric and metric to English. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 12. Designing and constructing a solar water-heating unit. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 13. Determining how to make the appropriate adjustments on a given piece of stationary power equipment. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 81 14. Calculating lift, drag, etc., for a specific airplane. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 15. Determining the most suitable material from a selection of different materials for a specific application and describe why. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 16. EOrnulatlng a plan for a futuristic travel system for your ccnmsiity. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 17. Selecting the appropriate adhesive for a specific need. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 18. Drawing and/or reading a drawing to scale. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 19. Designing, estimating cost, and proposing a bid for a school playground to your local school board. NR % 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 20. Calculating gas mileage for given conditions, distances, vehicles. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 21. Designing and sketching a product that the student would like to build. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 22. Deslgiing a tele-ocnferencing system for a large company. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 23. As a group activity, have groups list as many possible solutions to a given problem. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 24. Calculating the cost of a project. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 25. Ccnparing the machining qualities of two oenmon comer joints. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 26. Selecting the appropriate fastener type for a specific need. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 27. Planning, designing, and equipping an ideal "shop" of the student's choice. MR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 28. Calculating turning speeds with different pulley or gear sizes. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 29. Developing a plan of procedure. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 30. Oonpleting an assignment with the use of oenputer aided drafting. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 31. Investigate and list ten isportant Inventions and determine the influences they had on society. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 32. Make a model of a manufacturing plant of the student's choice. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 33. CCnparing the machining qualities of two cannon cabinet woods. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 34. Designing and building a balloon-powered device that will travel the farthest distance on a fixed suspended string. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 35. Writing and publishing a newsletter to your school. NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 36. Designing and building a "learning game.” NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 The following are demographic question > How many students axe currently enrolled In the Industrial Arts or technology Education classes that you teach? 7th grade 9th grade 11th grade 8th grade 10th grade 12th grade' Hew many years have you been teaching? (please circle) a. 1-5 b. 6-10 c. 11-16 d. 17-25 Does the student have access to a conputer(s) for IA/TE activities? YES Do you have access to a oenputer (s) for instructional use? YES (if you answered YES to either of the above, please ocmplete the following) Please indicate what hardware and software you possess. Type of Hardware t ( ) Apple II ( ) Macintosh Type of Applications ( ) IEM ( ) Cbnputer Aided ( ) other e. 26 or more NO NO ( ) IEM ccnpatlble Drafting (CAD) CCnmentsi ( ) Word Processing ( ) leie-Oamuiicaticn ( ) Graphics 82 APPENDIX F: FIRST MAILING COVER LETTER 83 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department off Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 March 8, 1989 Dear Montana IA/TE Educator: This study is being conducted in part to fulfill my obligations for a master's degree in Technology Education at Montana State University. The information gained from this study will be very useful for IA/TE teachers in developing and designing problem solving activities for Industrial/Technology Education programs in Montana. Having taught for seven years in public schools, I realize the shortage of personal time in a day. Realizing this, I have attempted to make the enclosed questionnaire as brief as possible, so it will take only a few minutes of your time to complete. Individual comments and responses on the questionnaire will remain confidential and no judgments will be made from this study. Demographic information, such as instructional categories, instructional areas, enrollment, etc., will be utilized in part by the Office of Public Instruction (OPI) for national statistics collection. I look forward to receiving your completed questionnaire, and would appreciate receiving it no later than March 22, 1989. Your comments are welcome. Please use any space on the questionnaire for that purpose. Thank you very much for your help. Best wishes! Sincerely, William D. Lodermeier Graduate Student Dr. Doug Polette, Advisor Enclosure 84 APPENDIX G: SECOND MAILING COVER LETTER 85 ■ MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Agricultural and Technology Education Cheever Hall Montana State University Bozeman, Montana 59717 406-994-3201 or 994-3691 March 8, 1989 Dear Montana IA/TE Educator: Could you take a few minutes of your time to complete the problem solving questionnaire mailed from Montana State University approximately three weeks ago? I have enclosed another questionnaire In the event that the first Instrument did not reach you. The information collected from teachers In the field such as yourself will be Invaluable for developing and designing problem solving activities for Industrial and Technology Education programs in Montana. Disregard this letter if you have already responded to the first mailing. Thank you for your cooperation! Sincerely, William D. Lodermeier Graduate Student Dr. Doug Polette, Advisor Enel osure 86 APPENDIX H: POSTCARD FOLLOW-UP 87 April 10, 1989 Dear Industrial Education Instructor: This short memo is a reminder to those IE teachers who are still in the process of completing the Problem Solving Survey sent from Montana State University by me on March 8th and 27th. If you have not completed and returned your survey yet, I would appreciate very much if you would take the time to do so. I firmly believe that thoroughly collecting this information from people like your¬ self will be of great value to our profession. (It will help me graduate also.) Disregard this note if you have already responded to either of the two previous mailings. Sincerely, Willie Lodermeier 88 APPENDIX I: SOURCES FOR PROBLEM SOLVING STATEMENTS 89 Table 20. Sources of the 36 compiled problem solving statements by author, year, and page numbers. No. Problem Solving Statements Author(s) Year Page(s) 1 Investigate how a tele-conferencing system works. Hacker & Barden 1988a 194-203 2 Designing a home that conserves energy best for this climate. ** 3 Developing and selecting an item for a manufacturing class that can be sold to make a profit. Lux & Ray 1971 29-50 4 Planning and designing a residen¬ tial home of the student's choice. Kicklighter & Baird 1976 45 5 Selecting the appropriate hand tool for a specific task. Spence & Griffiths 1981 77 6 Organizing a student management structure for a manufacturing class. Lux & Ray 1971 24-28 7 Determining the mechanical advan¬ tages of a ten-speed bicycle; calculation of different sprocket ratios. Bohn et al. 1986 85-87 8 Selecting a machine, tool, or process and explaining operating principles, both past and present. Hacker & Barden 1988b 72-73 9 Describing how an individual might function in the year 2020 with the advent of common "super conductor" usage. Li star 1987 223 10 Investigating and presenting how a tele-conferencing system works. Hacker & Barden 1988a 194-203 11 Converting measurements from English to metric and metric to English. Repp et al. 1982 79 12 Designing and constructing a solar water-heating unit. Bohn et al. 1986 73-74 90 Table 20--continued. No. Problem Solving Statements Author(s) Year Page(s) 13 Determining how to make the approp¬ riate adjustments on a given piece of stationary power equipment. Spence & Griffiths 1981 261 14 Calculating lift, drag, etc., for a specific airplane. Schwaller 1980 58 15 Determining the most suitable mater¬ ial from a selection of different materials for a specific application and describing why. Li star 1987 101-107 16 Formulating a plan for a futuristic travel system for your community. Hatch 1988 91 17 Selecting the appropriate adhesive for a specific need. Feirer 1970 784 18 Drawing and/or reading a drawing to scale. Spence & Griffiths 1981 46 19 Designing, estimating cost, and proposing a bid for a school play¬ ground to your local school board. ** 20 Calculating gas mileage for given conditions, distances, vehicles. Bohn et al. 1986 93-94 21 Designing and sketching a product that the student would like to build. Feirer 1970 64 22 Designing a tele-conferencing system for a large company. Hacker & Barden 1988a 169-203 23 As a group activity, have groups list as many solutions as possible to a given problem. Li star 1987 133 24 Calculating the cost of a project. Spence & Griffiths 1981 18 25 Comparing the machining qualities Feirer 1970 784 of two common corner joints. 91 Table 20--continued. No. Problem Solving Statements Author(s) Year Page(s) 26 Selecting the appropriate fastener type for a specific need. Feirer 1970 226 27 Planning, designing, and equipping an ideal "shop" of the student's choice. ** 28 Calculating turning speeds with different pulley or gear sizes. Bohn & MacDonald 1970 53 29 Developing a plan of procedure. Wagner 1980 18 30 Completing an assignment with the use of computer-aided drafting. Wohlers 1988 356-381 31 Investigating and listing ten important inventions and determin¬ ing the influences they had on society. Li star 1987 73-80 32 Making a model of a manufacturing plant of the student's choice. Feirer 1970 226 33 Comparing the machining qualities of two common cabinet woods. Feirer 1970 226 34 Designing and building a balloon- powered device that will travel the farthest distance on a fixed suspended string. Li star 1987 135 35 Writing and publishing a news¬ letter for your school. Hacker & Barden 1988a 206-209 36 Designing and building a "learning game." Li star 1987 135 **111-structured problems formulated by researcher, with graduate committee review.