Z. Scherz, B. Haberman
None of the teams in this group attempted to identify an ADT suitable for the prob- lem. Consequently, the solution was developed at the level of the problem alone, without reference to any formal model to represent it and without the use of general predicates for formalization.
Formalization began immediately after the initial choice of problem-predicates. The most prominent feature of this group was the alternating manner of their work, combining the choice of problem-predicates with their formalization.
Interestingly enough, three of the four teams began their formalization by means of pencil-and-paper, and only later keyed it into the computer. The fourth team began work- ing with pencil-and-paper, and then alternated this activity with work on the computer.
Three teams ran and tested their programs only at the end of the formalization process, and did not add any new problem-predicates according to the results. The fourth team be- gan to query the program during the choice and formalization of the problem-predicates.
The Type C teams only partially followed the six-stage model in developing their projects and displayed a fairly structured process, although less organized than the Type A and Type B teams. We have concluded that while for teams of Type A and Type B, ADTs were used as a project development organizer, for Type C teams, who did not use ADTs, the definition of goals and the choice of problem-predicates served as the organizer for their work.
3.2.4. Type D Type D consisted of three teams. None of the teams in this group performed problem analysis, nor defined goals at the beginning of the development process. In fact, one of the teams never did this at any stage. Another team took a break in the middle of the development, when the members realized that the process was not proceeding well and began again, this time defining their goals. The third team only defined the goals at the end of the development when they were writing up their report and discovered in the instructions that the description of projects’ goals was to be included in their report.
The teams did not distinguish between specific instances and the general problem at the start of development. The decision as to which problem-predicates would be for- malized through data and which through rules was taken throughout the course of the process.
All the teams continued to choose their problem-predicates throughout most of the process of development, in parallel with their formalization.
None of the teams made any attempt to identify a suitable abstract data type for the problem. Consequently, the solution was formulated at the level of the problem itself, without reference to any formal model to represent it and without the use of general predicates in the formalization. Only while writing up their final report did one of the teams retrospectively define the ADT in order to fulfill the requirements of the report.
Formalization began immediately at the start of development, and was done directly on the computer, without any use of pencil-and-paper. All Type D teams started to work on the computer at a very early stage.
Only one team performed a run-and-test after entering the entire program. The other two teams did so in the course of the formalization.