FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2403509312> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2403509312 abstract "Problem-Solving Strategy Selection in Relation to Formal Schooling Mennat-Allah Saleh (mennat-allah.saleh@student.guc.edu.eg) Department of Media Engineering and Technology German University in Cairo New Cairo City -Main Entrance Al Tagamoa Al Khames, Egypt Christian Sturm (christian.sturm@guc.edu.eg) Department of Media Engineering and Technology German University in Cairo New Cairo City -Main Entrance Al Tagamoa Al Khames, Egypt Abstract Keywords: Cognitive Psychology, Cognitive Modeling, Prob- lem Solving, Literacy, Deductive Reasoning. that are present in all individuals, but are used differently across cultures. It was used in combination with cross cultural psychology, which is the study concerned with the thinking principles that are generated from cultural differences (Adler & Gielen, 2001). This field has been used by many researches to study how education affects cognitive behaviors, memory, problem solving and logical reasoning (Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1999). Based on this previous work and the given circumstances in Egypt, it was decided to look at reasoning and algorithmic problem solving tasks together with the mental models cre- ated during the process for both literate and illiterate subjects including different educational domains. Introduction Problem Space A study of the literacy-generated cognitive cultural gap was carried out on subjects of different literacy background rang- ing from illiterate individuals to university students in different majors. The characteristics that aid literate and illiterate people in solving mathematical problems efficiently were identified and analyzed. A field research was carried out in the field of algorithmic problem solving and in the reasoning domain, fol- lowed by constructing a software cognitive model to represent the findings. Findings showed that in both domains cognitive ability did not improve with level of literacy, rather the formal- ity of the problem solving strategy selected demonstrating a link between these two domains. The interaction with illiterate people is a common experi- ence in Egypt. More than one third of the adult population is not able to read and write (UNICEF, 2012). One could con- clude that due to these every-day encounters, illiterates would be appreciated as they represent an important part of Egyp- tian’s workforce and are preservers of Egyptian’s rich cul- tural heritage. The Egyptian society, however, marks clearly its division not only based on economic power. Throughout the country, illiteracy is commonly associated with a lack of mental and cognitive capabilities that leads to a tremendous depreciation of this group by the literate part of the society (Hollingshead, 1975). Given the nature of this stereotype, the area of problem-solving strategies has been chosen for comparison. The motivation of the research is to explore this cultural gap and find ways to bridge it. Several approaches to cultural differences in problem- solving have been explored in the past. Tedre et al. have shown how computation is done across different cultures and looked at the education of computer science students (Tedre, Sutinen, Kahkonen, & Kommers, 2003). Gerdes looked in a similar way at the cultural differences on math and mathe- matical problem solving (Gerdes, 2005). Several researches suggest that human reasoning is based on building personal- ized mental models; hence using mental models in attempt- ing to formalize and represent reasoning is a valid approach (Knauff, Mulack, Kassubek, Salih, & Greenlee, 2002). In addition to formulating the models, the field of cognitive psy- chology also draws attention to the basic thinking principles Domain Selection It was hypothesized that the level of a person’s formal school- ing is related to the level of formality regarding their approach to the selection of problem solving strategies.The function- ally illiterate subjects in this context are compared to the formal schooling subjects as having a lower level of school- ing formality (Kosmidis, Zafiri, & Politimou, 2011). Hence, domains that need a formal and strategic approach were se- lected for this research. The goal was to identify and quantify problem-solving strategies easily. Numeric problem solving, algorithmic problem solving and reasoning meet this require- ment. As the relationship between literacy and numeracy has been widely studied in this context already, the two latter do- mains were selected. Algorithm Domain The main focus while testing the algorithmic domain was to identify the subjects strategies in conjunction with the level and type of education while solving a procedural algorithmic problem. The subjects were asked for a self-report on their strategies. This report was contrasted with the steps they actually took in solving the problem. The Towers of Hanoi problem was used to test this domain due to its strong mathe- matical basis and the possibility to easily adapt it to different cultural contexts. This was specifically important for the illit- erate subjects that are not used to any kind of formal testing situations encountered in the lab. The most important char- acteristic of the Towers of Hanoi consists in the variety of" @default.
• W2403509312 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2403509312 creator A5036795989 @default.
• W2403509312 creator A5037740694 @default.
• W2403509312 date "2012-01-01" @default.
• W2403509312 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2403509312 title "Problem-Solving Strategy Selection in Relation to Formal Schooling" @default.
• W2403509312 cites W1533200881 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W1537898871 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W2023182532 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W2088799278 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W2119460035 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W2169620455 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W2529918221 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W2537197319 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W3217490374 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W68311297 @default.
• W2403509312 cites W74412722 @default.
• W2403509312 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2403509312 type Work @default.
• W2403509312 sameAs 2403509312 @default.
• W2403509312 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2403509312 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2403509312 hasAuthorship W2403509312A5036795989 @default.
• W2403509312 hasAuthorship W2403509312A5037740694 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C25343380 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C547764534 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConcept C9652623 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C138885662 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C145420912 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C154775046 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C154945302 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C15744967 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C169760540 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C169900460 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C19417346 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C202444582 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C25343380 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C33923547 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C41008148 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C41895202 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C547764534 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C77088390 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C81917197 @default.
• W2403509312 hasConceptScore W2403509312C9652623 @default.
• W2403509312 hasIssue "34" @default.
• W2403509312 hasLocation W24035093121 @default.
• W2403509312 hasOpenAccess W2403509312 @default.
• W2403509312 hasPrimaryLocation W24035093121 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W1036507517 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W132070645 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W183610847 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W1990272806 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2034921613 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2050560101 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2154900292 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2174202972 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2184290682 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2465967809 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2523624061 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2528908053 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2795604416 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W28616129 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W2999565404 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W3103737784 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W3139942718 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W3170265521 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W3189832165 @default.
• W2403509312 hasRelatedWork W785010597 @default.
• W2403509312 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W2403509312 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2403509312 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2403509312 magId "2403509312" @default.
• W2403509312 workType "article" @default.