X hits on this document





12 / 13


Z. Scherz, B. Haberman

problem-predicates as a means of organizing the project development, whereas Type D teams employed trial and error techniques to develop their projects, and used the com- puter intensively through the entire development process to test their formalization.

We have concluded that project development requires a solid means of organizing the construction and direction of the project. Our instructional approach was to introduce to students a variety of problem-solving tools. Students seemed to use some of these tools as project organizers. Students’ employment of project organizers influenced the nature of the entire development process. We found that the choice of ADTs, which are advanced CS problem-solving tools, resulted in a structured and well-organized development pro- cess.


Aho, A.V., and J.D. Ullman (1992). Foundations of Computer Science. W.H., Freeman and Company. Atman, C.J., K.M. Bursic and S.L. Lozito (1996). An application of protocol analysis to the engineering de-

sign process. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June, Washington, DC. Atman, C.J., and K.M. Bursic (1998). Documenting a process: the use of verbal protocol analysis to study

engineering student design. Journal of Engineering Education Special Issue on Assessment, 87(2), 121–132. Chi, M.T.H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learn-

ing Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. Dale, N., and H.M. Walker (1996). Abstract Data Types – Specifications, Implementations, and Applications.

D.C. Heath and Company. Fincher, S., M. Petre and M. Clark (Eds.) (2001). Computer Science Project Work Principles and Pragmatics.

Springer-Verlag, London. Gal–Ezer, J., C. Beeri, D. Harel and A. Yehudai (1995). A high school program in computer science. IEEE

Computer, 28(10), 73–80. Gal–Ezer, J., and D. Harel (1999). Curriculum and course syllabi for a high school CS program. Computer

Science Education, 9(2), 114–147. Haberman, B., E. Shapiro and Z. Scherz (2002). Are black boxes transparent? – High school students’ strategies

of using abstract data types. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 411–436. Haberman, B., and Z. Scherz (2003). Abstract data types as tools for project development – high school stu-

dents’ views. Journal of Computer Science Education Online, January 2003. Available: www.iste.org/sigcs/community/jcseonline/2003/1/haberman.cfm Holcombe, M., A. Stratton, S. Fincher and G. Griffiths (Eds.) (1998). Projects in the computing curriculum. In

Proceedings of the Project 98 Workshop. Springer-Verlag, London. Parnas, D.L. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communication of the

ACM, 15(12), 1053–1058. Scherz, Z., and B. Haberman (1995). Logic programming based curriculum for high school students: the use of

abstract data types. SIGCSE Bulletin, 27(1), 331–335. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Sterling, L., and E. Shapiro (1994). The Art of Prolog, 2nd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Document info
Document views18
Page views18
Page last viewedSun Oct 23 10:21:22 UTC 2016