Advertisement

Impasse, Conflict, and Learning of CS Notions

  • David Ginat
Conference paper
  • 835 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5941)

Abstract

We present a study of limited adaptation of fundamental computer science notions by computer science graduates. The examined notions involve induction, recursion and rigorous justification. We devised a problem-solving activity that revealed and addressed limited assimilation of the latter notions. The activity involved impasse phenomena, which yielded an affective reaction of conflict. The epistemic curiosity that arose from the conflict was utilized to attain insightful learning and conceptual comprehension of the above notions.

Keywords

Impasse Conflict Induction Recursion Rigor 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, L.W., Bourke, S.F.: Assessing Affective Characteristics in the Schools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berlyne, D.E.: Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. McGraw-Hill, New York (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brousseau, N.: Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, S.A.: Exploring epistemological obstacles to the development of mathematics induction. In: Proc of the 11th for Research on Undergraduates Mathematics Education (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L.: Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dempster, F.N., Corkill, A.J.: Interference and inhibition in cognition and behaviour: unifying themes for educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review 11(1), 1–88 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dijkstra, E.W., et al.: A Debate on Teaching Computing Science. Communications of the ACM 32(12), 1397–1414 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hiebert, J., Lefevre, P.: Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: an introductory analysis. In: Hiebert, J. (ed.) Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The case of mathematics, pp. 1–27. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mischel, T.: Piaget: cognitive conflict and the motivation of thought. In: Mischel, T. (ed.) Cognitive Development and Epistemology. Academic Press, London (1971)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Movshovitz-Hadar, N., Hadas, R.: Preservice education of math teachers using paradoxes. Educational Studies in Mathematics 21, 265–287 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patalano, A.L., Seifert, C.M.: Memory for impasses during problem solving. Memory & Cognition 22(2), 234–242 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoenfeld, A.: Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense Making in Mathematics. In: Grouws, D.A. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, pp. 334–370. Macmillan, Basingstoke (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sierpinska, A.: Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies 18(4), 371–397 (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwill, A.: Fundamental ideas of computer science. Bulletin of European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 53, 274–295 (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Ginat
    • 1
  1. 1.CS Group, Science Education DepartmentTe-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations