ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Reductive thinking in a quantitative perspective: the case of the algorithm course
Full text PdfPdf (219 KB)
Source
Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education archive
Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education table of contents
Madrid, Spain
SESSION: Advanced courses table of contents
Pages 53-57  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-078-4
Author
Michal Armoni  Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Sponsors
SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 11,   Downloads (12 Months): 54,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1384271.1384288
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The research described in this paper continues a previous, qualitative (mostly interview-based) study that examined the ways undergraduate computer science students perceive, experience, and use reduction as a problem-solving strategy. The current study examines the same issue, but in the context of a larger population, using quantitative analysis methods, and focusing on algorithmic problems.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
Armoni, M., Gal-Ezer, J., and Hazzan, O. (2006). Reductive thinking in computer science. Computer Science Education, 16(4), 281--301.
 
3
Armoni, M., Gal-Ezer, J., and Tirosh, D. (2005). Solving problems reductively. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 113--129.
4
 
5
 
6
Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., and Mark, J. (1997). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curriculum, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(4), 375--402.
7
 
8
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1975). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, Il: Aldine.
9
 
10
Haberman, B., Shapiro, E., and Scherz, Z. (2002). Are black boxes transparent? - High school students' strategies of using abstract data types. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 411--436.
 
11
Hazzan, O. (2003). How students attempt to reduce abstraction in the learning of mathematics and in the learning of computer science. Computer Science Education 13(2), 95--122.
 
12
 
13
Lin, F., Lee, Y., and Wu Yu, J. (2003). Students' understanding of proof by contradiction. Proc. Of the 27th annual conference of PME, 4, 443--450.
14
15
 
16
Polya G. (1957). How to solve it, 2nd Ed. Princeton University Press.
 
17
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
 
18
Schwill, A. (1994). Fundamental ideas of computer science. Bulletin of European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 53, 274--295.
 
19
Thompson, D. R. (1996). Learning and teaching indirect proof. The Mathematics Teacher, 89 (6), 474--482.
 
20
Turkle, S. and Pappert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 128--157.
21