Session T1G
IMPROVING MATHEMATICALLY ORIENTED PROGRAMMING SKILLS
IN COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDIES
Yifat Ben-David Kolikant 1 and Sara Pollack 2
Abstract  We describe an instructional approach to
enhance mathematical orientation in programming skills
among beginning Computer Science students. We were
motivated by the belief that adequate mathematical
education is a crucial component in a programmer’s
training, since mathematical skills are an indispensable
component of proficient programmers’ knowledge. We use
elementary mathematics to anchor the new CS knowledge
and skills, by engaging the students in solving authentic
mathematically oriented problems, whose solutions require
mathematical inquiry, as well as mathematically oriented
programming skills. Solving problems of this type
continuously throughout CS studies enables the students to
grasp the CS professional work, and in particular the role of
mathematics in the work of proficient programmers. We
describe three examples of problems, for which we analyze
the advantage of using mathematics and recommend on
pedagogical activity accordingly. We also exemplify and
analyze the implementation of our approach in class.
Index Terms  mathematically oriented programming
skills, problem solving, professional point of view,
instructional approach.
INTRODUCTION
Becoming competent in any complex subject domain is “as
much a matter of acquiring the habits and dispositions of
interpretation and sense making as of acquiring any
particular set of skills, strategies, or knowledge” [11, p. 58].
Accordingly, becoming a CS professional requires more
than merely mastering the syntax of different programming
languages and being familiar with theoretical issues such as
computational models and complexity, but rather,
developing a unique point of view and work habits CS
professionals posses. Point of view means valuing the
processes professionals carry out during their work and
having a predilection to apply them [12].
Many remarkable CS scholars gave their opinion about
the characteristics of the discipline of CS and of CS
professional interests, activities, and dispositions, namely
their point of view. For example, Hoare [5] explains that the
essence of the differences between CS and other professions
1
Yifat ben-David Kolikant, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Science Teaching, Rehovot, ISRAEL 76100, ntifat@wis.weizmann.ac.il
2
Sarah Pollack, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Science Teaching, Rehovot, ISRAEL 76100, ntsara@wis.weizmann.ac.il
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
32 n d ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1G-3
is the tendency and the ability to create solutions that can be
executed on a digital computer. Knuth [9] claims that
although mathematical thinking and algorithmic thinking
overlap, mainly in the thinking processes and heuristics
(such as the representation of reality, abstract reasoning and
reduction to simpler problems), CS professionals have a
world view that is different from the traditional
mathematicians. The differences are reflected in unique CS
concepts, such as complexity, state of a process, and the
assignment instruction, as well as in the disposition of CS
people to deal with a multitude of quite different cases than
do traditional mathematicians. Finally, Hartmanis [3] states
that one of the characteristics by which CS can be
distinguished is the immense difference in scale of the
phenomena CS deals with, which requires CS professionals
to develop many levels of abstraction to see things “in the
large” and “in the small” simultaneously.
Hoare [5], as well as many other CS scholars [7] claims
that mathematics is indispensable to CS knowledge.
Furthermore, Hoare perceives programs as mathematical
expressions, programming languages as mathematical
theories, and programming as mathematical activity. In fact,
he views programmers as engineers that have to put
mathematics into practice. However, Hoare is concerned by
what he calls “ignorance of mathematics” among CS
graduates. He stresses that the students might have studied
mathematics, but are not capable of taking advantage of their
mathematical skills to define a programming problem and to
search for its solution. The dissatisfaction with CS graduates
mathematical background has been discussed in recent years
too [4,7,8]. For example [8] claim that the mathematical
nature of CS is not evident in introductory, and therefore
many CS students acquire inadequate methods, such as
superficial trial and error.
PREVIOUS WORK
Much work has been invested in exploring and defining the
desired mathematical education for CS studies [4,7], such as
defining the topics in mathematics that CS students should
study [6], and the optimal instructional approaches. Both of
the two following instructional approaches were designed to
illustrate the importance of mathematics in CS. Ginat [2]
November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 3

suggests an instructional approach, whose goal is to
demonstrate the significance of exploration of regularities to
CS1 students, based on engaging them in solving colorful
problems, whose solutions require a wide range of CS tasks.
Manacero and Marranghello [10] suggest an ‘application to
model approach’ that demonstrates the relevance of
mathematics to CS studies, by analyzing several interesting
applications from the aspect of the underlying mathematics
in an informal way and referring the students to the relevant
math courses.
OUR APPROACH
We believe that CS students should develop their
professional point of view, in particular the predilection to
use mathematical knowledge and tools gradually during their
studies, beginning in the very first course. This knowledge
should grow as an integral part of the process of acquiring
adequate work habits. In order to achieve this goal, the
students should be explicitly taught how to take advantage of
their mathematical knowledge during their work, namely to
use mathematically oriented programming skills (MOPS).
Our approach is motivated by the theoretical viewpoint
of constructivism that stresses the importance of the
continuity of knowledge growth, based on the existing
knowledge [13]. From that viewpoint, elementary
mathematics can be used to anchor new knowledge in CS,
since it is a knowledge base that all the students have and
mathematics and algorithmics overlap in many areas [9].
However, teaching mathematics separately from CS will
most likely not fruitful, since students construct their
knowledge upon judgment of productivity, and will not
make connections between mathematical knowledge and CS
knowledge unless they will find it necessary.
Therefore, we suggest an instructional approach in
which the students are engaged in solving problems that
concern typical mathematically oriented CS topics and
skills. The problems do not necessarily have to be complex
but they should be authentic problems and most importantly,
their solutions should require mathematical thinking and an
appropriate problem-solving method.
There are three aspects of mathematics that our
approach takes into account: (a) a knowledge domain of
problems – the understanding and solving of many problems
require an adequate background in mathematical concepts
and procedures, (b) tools and skills that facilitate the process
of solution – these tools can be provided to the student when
viewing a problem from a mathematical perspective, and (c)
an anchor to concepts in CS whose association to
mathematics can contribute to the clarification of their
meaning.
In the rest of this section we demonstrate our approach
with three examples; for each of these we describe the
pedagogical activity suggested resulting from an analysis we
made of the required CS concepts and procedures, as well as
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
32 n d ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1G-4
Session T1G
the mathematics that can be used to facilitate the solution
process, according to its three roles.
The ATM Problem
An ATM machine has $20 bills and $50 bills. A client types
the requested amount (multiple of 10). The ATM calculates
the minimum amount of bills that make up the amount. You
have to develop an algorithm/program for this ATM.
This is an authentic problem whose goals should be
clear to the students. In addition, the mathematics and CS
knowledge needed is very basic; therefore, introductory
students can be engaged in solving this problem and are
most likely to benefit from this experience.
The analysis of the problem should cause the student to
(a) recognize that generally, it is better to give as much $50
bills as possible, and the rest in $20 bills, and then to (b)
classify different general cases of money amounts and to
generate a rule for the combination of bills for each case,
including the amounts that have no combinations.
The activity we suggest is to pose a similar problem of
building a mathematical function for finding (m, n) as a
function of X, such that X = 50m+20n, and m+n are the
minimum of any possible pairs (Table I). The input and the
output of the algorithmic problem are the function domain
and range, respectively. Representing X as a quotient and a
remainder of division by 50 and by 20 enables classifying
the input into categories, while composing X as 50m+20n
enables finding the matching bills’ combination.
TABLE I
THE MATHETICAL REPRE SENTATION OF A COMBINATION OF BILLS
X (amount) Numbers of bills
x =10 or x = 30 No solution
x | (x mod 50) mod 20 = 0 no. of 50 = x div 50
no. of 20 = (x mod 50) div 20
x | x > 30 and (x mod 50) mod 20 no. of 50 = x div 50 – 1
>0 no. of 20 = ((x mod 50) + 50) div 20
During the problem-solving process (of any complicated
problem) the student should examine possible solutions
according to two leading questions: Is all the input covered?
Did I generalize the cases correctly? Similarly when
building a mathematical function one has to ensure that
every item in the function domain has a matched item in the
range, and that the matching rules are correct. The analogy
between the mathematical problem and the algorithmic
problem might encourage the students to raise these
questions and to extend the tools studied in mathematics to
answer them. In addition, it can assist the students in the
correctness verification of the program, by simply picking
one numerical example as a representative of each class of
the mathematical function domain (input). Finally, it can be
useful in developing an efficient algorithm, as when a
student deals separately with the case that the amount is a
multiple of 50, and the case in which what left after
November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 4

subtracting the biggest multiple of 50 is divided by 20
without a remainder, which can be unified into one class.
The analogy to mathematical functions can also help to
clarify the meaning of the concept of representative
examples, which is fundamental to CS, since the process of
categorization of the input (domain) into subgroups
according to the treatment (match) was demonstrated and
therefore the notion of picking one representor of each group
is clearer.
The “Vertically and Cross-wise” Sutra
Develop and implement an algorithm that multiplies any two
natural numbers X and Y, which is an extension of the given
cases of two-digit and three-digit numbers.
The ancient Vedic mathematical sutra (rule) Urdhva-
Tiryagbhyam (meaning, vertically and cross-wise) is a
method of multiplication of two numbers, which is different
from the traditional western method [1]. The multiplication
of two-digit numbers is graphically represented in Figure 1a.
The left digit and the right digit of the result are obtained by
multiplying the left digits and right digits of the numbers,
respectively (the vertical lines), whereas the middle digit is
obtained by summing the multiplication of the left digit of
each number with the right digit of the other (the cross-wise
lines). Next, the carry over if exists, should be taken care of.
For example 12×32⇒ [1×3, 2×3+1×2, 2×2] ⇒384, and
48×79 ⇒[4×7, 8×7+4×9, 8×9] ⇒[28, 92, 72] ⇒ 3792.
a b a b c contrast, CS people must build a program and therefore
d e f consider how to implement this algorithm on a computer,
c d
ab | ad+bd | bd ad| ae+bd| qf+be+cd |bf+ce| cf
FIGURE 1
THE VEDIC MULTIPLICA TION OF ( A ) TWO- DIGIT AND ( B) THREE- DIGIT
NUMBERS
The correctness of this method is clear from the
polynomial representation of the numbers where x=10, as
demonstrated in (1) for the case of two-digit numbers.
(ax +b)*(cx+d) = acx 2 + (ad+bc)x +bd (1)
The students are presented with the two-digit and three-
digit rules of multiplying, as well as the correctness proof of
these rules and are asked to develop an algorithm that
generalizes the method presented and multiplies any two
natural numbers.
The knowledge domain required is the multiplication of
two numbers, the principles of the decimal representation of
numbers, polynoms, and in particular, multiplication of
polynoms. Two major skills are required in order to solve
this problem: (a) the ability to examine various
representations, to convert from one representation to
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
32 n d ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1G-5
Session T1G
another, and to evaluate the information available in each,
and (b) to strive to unify the myriad rules for generating
digits into a general rule.
In order to obtain the general rule of multiplication, the
student must go beyond the perception of the result number
as a set of digits, each of which is obtained differently, [ac,
ad+bc, bd], as implied by the graphical representation, and
should strive to find the similarity. The polynomial
representation might be the key to recognize another actor in
the scene- the position of digit in the number (or the
exponent of ten), and to realize that every digit Z, in position
k of the result number, is calculated by summing the
multiplications of pairs of digits Xi and Yj, whose positions i
and j are summed up to k, as in (2). The number of digits in
the result is the sum of the lengths of the two numbers, X
and Y.
Zk = ∑Xi *Yj i+j = k (2)
This activity might drive the students to appreciate the
diversity of representations and to refine their ability of
judgmental choosing and converting representations. This is
not a pure mathematical activity, but rather a CS task that
requires the use of mathematics. Mathematicians naturally
do not have to implement the solution on a digital computer.
Therefore they might be satisfied with recognizing the
polynomial representation as a possible procedure for digit-
calculation and would not bother to formulate the rule in (2),
unless a complete proof is needed for other reasons. In
would strive to find the regularity [5,9].
After establishing the algorithm, the students have to
and in particular how to represent the numbers. They should
evaluate different possible representations, such as integers,
real, arrays, strings, and lists, according to the limitations
and advantages each representation has.
Thus, solving this problem can contribute to clarifying
the concept of representation of numbers in mathematics and
in CS. In addition, it might demonstrate the practical
importance of mathematical correctness proofs.
The Difference of Two Squares
(i) Develop an algorithm, that for a given natural X, finds A
and B, (integers or fractions) such that X = A2 – B2 , (ii) find
5 pairs of A and B, and (iii) how many pairs of A and B exist
for each X?
This problem is also based on a Vedic Mathematical
method. One solution of the problem is described in (3).
Using the familiar equation A2 – B2 = (A-B)(A+B), looking
for any two numbers m and n whose multiplication is X,
equating m to A+B, n to A-B, and solving this two-equation
system to eliminate A and B. We can choose any divisors of
X, such as 1 and X to compute A and B. Thus, the
November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 5

complexity of the algorithms for part (i) and (ii) is O(1),
whereas the answer to part (iii) is infinite.
X = A2 – B2 = (A-B)(A+B) = m*n (3)
A+B=m
A–B=n
A = (m+n) /2
B = (m-n) /2
During the solution process the students have to
mathematically investigate the problem. They have to build
two representations of X and to examine the connections
between them, and should be aware of the fact that they can
choose m or n, and use it to solve the problem.
We recommend using this problem to demonstrate the
importance of mathematical inquiry and its significant
contribution to the efficiency of the solution.
We gave this problem to four CS graduate students. All
of them used matching or searching loops, relying on the
computer‘s computational power, to solve the problem.
However, all of these solutions failed to accomplish the
problem goals. Three students solved the problem by two
nested loops that check if nominated A and B fulfill the
desired equation (O(n 2 )). Their solutions either were
restricted to integer As and Bs, or jumped in small
magnitudes, say 0.01. The fourth student built a loop that
jumps on different values of A and calculates B, but does not
check if B is rational or not (O(n)). We then directed the
students to represent A and B with m and n, as in (3). This
hint helped them track the more efficient solution and to re-
solve the problem.
IMPLEMENTATION
We engaged two groups of students in an in -class activity
that included solving the ATM problem. The pilot operation
was conducted in a CS2 class of 17 students, in order to
examine the common approaches and solutions among the
students who learn in the traditional way. It was composed
of two parts: (a) first, the students were asked to solve the
problem individually, and then (b) we conducted a
conversation in order to gain information on the solution
process. The second operation was conducted in CS1 class,
on 16 students. This time, we focused on making the
solution process and the required skills more explicit, as well
as demonstrating the advantages of mathematics in the
solution process. We divided it into three parts: (a) a
conversation in which we presented the problem and
discussed the inquiry and the plan for solution, (b) individual
work of writing the program and verifying correctness, and
finally, (c) a conversation about the practical verification
techniques. Both of the operations were documented, and the
students’ solutions were collected and analyzed.
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
32 n d ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1G-6
Session T1G
ANALYSIS
The Analysis of Students’ Solutions
We gave each solution a score: the score 3 was given to
correct algorithms, the score 2 was given to partial
algorithms that incorrectly handled the cases in which X
mod 50 mod 20>0 but handled the other cases correctly, and
the score 1 was given to totally unreasonable algorithms.
The analysis of students’ solutions is summarized in Table
II. The two left most columns of Table II describe the
quality of the solutions, whereas the third and fourth
columns present the distribution of the solution types among
the students in the pilot and in the second operations,
respectively. We classified the students’ programs into three
groups according to their closeness to a correct solution.
The students’ performances in the pilot operation were
disappointing, since we expected CS2 students to solve this
type of questions smoothly. However, only 30% of the
students solved the problem correctly. Eight students (47%)
gave partial solutions, and four students (23%) gave
incorrect solutions. In the second operation, 50% of the
students gave correct solutions, whereas four (25%) gave
partial algorithms, and another four students (25%) gave
incorrect solutions. The means of the scores of the second
group is 2.25, which is slightly better than the pilot group,
2.06. However, the difference between the groups is
statistically insignificant, both by T-test and by Wilcoxon
test.
The most common strategy was to take the maximum
$50 bills and then to take the maximum $20 bills of what
was left. If there was still a remainder, the partial algorithms
either declared the initial amount as impossible to be
obtained as a combination of 20 and 50 (type a), rounded the
amount (type b), or simply ignored this fact (type c). A
correct treatment for this case was by taking one $50 bill,
adding it to the remainder and dividing the total by 20.
TABLE II
ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENTS’ SOLUTIONS
Score Degree of closeness First Second
operation operation
3 Correct 5 ( 30%) 8 ( 50%)
2 Partial a) Declare as 3 ( 18%) 1 ( 6%)
unsolvable
b) Round the amount 3 ( 18%) 0
c) Ignore (round) 2 ( 11%) 3 ( 19%)
1 Incorrect 4 ( 23%) 4 ( 25%)
Total 17(100%) 16(100%)
The Conversation in the Pilot Operation
In responding to the question: describe the algorithm and
explain how you knew it was correct? S1 (who wrote a
correct solution) described a process of gradual refinement
of his algorithm based on the results of simulating the
November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 6

numerical examples he chose: “At the beginning I did not
think of it, but then I tried my algorithm with 210 and
noticed that it did not work correctly, so I figured a way to
handle it. Then I tried it with 230, I tried more examples
only to realize that these are all the cases”. Another student,
S7, described his two (correct) algorithms clearly, but when
asked, could not explain how he knew that they were
correct: “It works, I know that”.
The next question we posed was: if, when, and how did
you use numerical examples during the process of solution?
Seven students stated that they did not use any numerical
example before solving the problem, mostly because they
already had a plan for a solution, and because the problem
seemed uncomplicated. For example, S4 (who gave partial
solution of type a) explained that: “ I knew what I needed to
do”. Furthermore, most of those who used numerical
examples did not categorize the input, but rather, chose
numbers arbitrarily and checked them out, such as S2, S3
(who gave a partial solution of type c, and an incorrect
solution, respectively), and S4, who are quoted here:
S2: I used numerical examples after I wrote the
program to verify its correctness.
Teacher: how did you choose the numbers? What was
your plan?
S2: I chose them arbitrarily. I just picked up numbers.
Teacher: Is there anyone who chose the example
according to a certain plan?
S3: I did so; it is just that I did not think of the cases I
should have thought of. It did pop into my mind.
We then elicited a general heuristic of correctness
verification:
Teacher: I am asking myself if it is a matter of luck, the
fact that some of you did notice all the cases and some
of you did not”.
S4: If you work thoroughly, you will try more examples
to check your program and see if it works.
Teacher: Can you be sure that the program is correct?
S4: The chances to succeed are higher, this way.
S4 declared working thoroughly as checking more
numb ers. He and other students talked about luck and
chances, and not about any deeper analysis. Only one
student, S5, (who gave a correct solution) claimed that
verification must rely on a systematical analysis:
S5: It won’t work if you just check some numbers. You
have to find the general cases for your program. In this
case the remainder from dividing the amount by 50 must
be either 0, 10, 20, 30 or 40. Now 20 and 40 are of the
same case because both can be divided by 20, and the
cases of 10 and 30 should be looked over, so you take
the numbers 60 and 80.
The Conversation in the Second Implementation
The conversation of the second operation started in the same
spirit. Immediately after we asked for a plan, one student
suggested taking the maximum $50 bills, which was the
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
32 n d ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1G-7
Session T1G
most common strategy among the students in the pilot
operation. Another student claimed: “It doesn’t work for all
the cases”. This remark led the class to examine many
numbers suggested by the students. Shortly, they realized
that 10 and 30 are unsolvable. Then some of them attempted
to gather numbers into groups, mostly without mathematical
reasoning, such as “any amount which is greater than 40 is
solvable”.
This was the opportunity we were waiting for. We first
made the activity more explicit:
Teacher: What are we doing now?
J5: We are trying to find regularity in the input.
J6: We are categorizing.
We then suggested organizing the knowledge obtained
from the inquiry similarly to the presentation of a
mathematical function.
Teacher: What are the categories that we have found so
far? Let’s organize them in a table. {Drawing a table,
like Table I and fills according to the rest of the
discussion}. The left column is the input categories.
What should be in the right column?
J3: The combination of bills.
The students then naturally looked for categories to fill
in the table:
J7: There are the unsolvable amounts…
Teacher: Which are?
J7: 10 and 30.
J6: There is the category of those numbers that the
remainder of the division by 50 divides by 20 without
any remainder, and the case in which the remainder is
not divided by 20.
J6: There are no more possible cases since the
remainder from 50 is 0, 10, 20 30 or 40 and we
considered all the cases.
After the students solved the problem we continued the
conversation and asked: how did you know your program
was correct? Student J8 (who gave a correct algorithm)
reported that he checked his algorithm for the inputs 110,
120, and 130, and that he chose these numbers because they
were representative. We used J8’s answer to clarify the
concept of a representative example and to provide the
students with a practical tip. We therefore asked J8 to
explain why and how he decided that these numbers were
representative. J8 then matched between each number and
the relevant case. Several students pointed out that the
unsolvable numbers did not have a representor, and that 110
and 130 are two representors of a single case (of the third
row in table I). We then defined a general practical
procedure:
J9 {who gave correct algorithm}: Once you have
classified the input into categories, you simply pick up
one number from each class and execute the program
with it.
November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 7

DISCUSSION
Most of the students in the pilot operation did not classify
the input into categories according to the algorithm, and
instead were satisfied with merely checking arbitrary
numbers. Furthermore, many of them decisively avoided any
mathematical inquiry of the problem beyond the initial plan
This performance reflects that the students’ common
strategy was superficial trial and error, which was used both
to create the solution and to verify its correctness. The
students explicitly talked about luck and chances, and
reflected poor ability to reason the correctness of the
program, which implies on inadequate work habits.
The discussion in the second group started in a similar
strategy, since the students’ first tendency was to examine
many numbers without any systematical plan. However,
after the students were introduced to the representation of
the knowledge domain of the problem as a mathematical
function, they naturally took advantage of this representation
and used it as a tool to reason and verify the correctness of
their solution, meaning they used MOPS in the solution
process.
We also took advantage of the equivalence, by using it
to refine the concept of representative examples of input and
to provide the students with a practical procedure for
choosing representative examples. Thus, this activity
exemplifies the applicability of using mathematics to anchor
concepts in CS.
The insignificant differences between the programs’
quality of the two groups is not surprising. First of all, we
must take into account that the students of the pilot group are
more experienced in solving problems than the students of
the second group. More importantly, this performance
should be viewed as a result of a single shot in the direction
of fostering the use of MOPS and of developing a more
meticulous process of problem solving. In that view, the
conversations in the second operation reflect an
improvement in the work habits and the dispositions from
superficial trial and error in the direction of systematical
planning and reasoning [5,7]. Naturally, it is not enough to
use one example to convince the students to develop MOPS,
but rather, this problem should be included in a sequence of
gradually more difficult problems during the first course and
continuously throughout the CS studies. Each problem
should be designed to enable the student to refine and extend
the knowledge and skills achieved by solving the previous
problems. We therefore also recommend evaluating and
designing each problem not only from the aspect of the CS
concepts and procedures, but also from the aspect of
contributing to the development of a professional point of
view.
The mathematical knowledge used in these problems is
basic, to avoid mathematical phobia in the very first stages
of the students in the world of CS, and to enable the new
student to learn to appreciate the strength of mathematics
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
32 n d ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1G-8
Session T1G
and its advantages without unnecessary difficulties.
However, the skill of acquiring new concepts in mathematics
when needed to solve a problem should also be taught
explicitly in the same approach we describe here.
CONCLUSION
We used relatively simple problems to expose the students
of introductory course in CS to the role of mathematics in
CS, and to enable them to develop MOPS. Our approach
motivates the students to use familiar mathematical
knowledge to solve CS problems. We believe that solving
problems of this type continuously, throughout the CS
studies will enable the students to appreciate the strength of
mathematics and therefore to develop a mathematically
oriented CS-point of view.
REFERENCES
[1] Agrawala, V.S., Vedic Mathematics, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.
[2] Ginat, D., “Colorful examples for elaborating exlpration of
regularities in high school CS1”, Proceedings of the Fifth
SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in
Computer Science Education. Helsinki, Finland, 2000, 81-84.
[3] Hartmanis, J., “Turing award lecture: On the computational
complexity and the nature of computer science”, Communication of
the ACM, 37,10,1994, 37-43.
[4] Henderson,P., B., Baldwin, D. et al, “striving for mathematical
thinking”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin Inroads, December 2001, 33(4), pp
114-124.
[5] Hoare, C. A. R. & Jones, C.B, Essays in Computing Science, Prantice
Hall International, 1989.
[6] Hurley, T., C., “Benefits and Advantages of an Integrated
Mathematics and Computer Science degree”,
http://tedser.ucg.ie/deptinfo/degr ee/benefits.html.
[7] Integrating Mathematical Reasoning into Computer Science Curricula,
http://brastias.cs.geneseo.edu/~baldwin/math-thinking.
[8] Kelemen, C., F., Tucker, A., Henderson, P., Bruce, K. & Astrachan,
O., “Has our curriculum become math phobic?”, Proceedings of the
Fifth SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in
Computer Science Education. Helsinki, Finland, 2000, 132-135.
[9] Knuth, D.E., “Algorithmic thinking and mathematical thinking”,
American Mathematical Monthly, 92, 3,1985, pp. 170-181.
[10] Manacero, A. & Marranghello, N., “Turning math attractive to
computer science students: An application-to-model approach”,
Proceedings of the 1999 Frontiers in Education Conference,
November, 1999, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
[11] Resnick, L.B., “Treating mat hematics as an ill-structured discipline”,
in R.I. Charles & E.A. Silver (Eds.), The Teaching and Assessing of
Mathematical Problem Solving, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1988, pp 32-60.
[12] Schoenfeld, A. H., "Learning to think mathematically: problem
solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics", in D.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and
Learning, New York: MacMillan, 1992, pp. 334-370.
[13] Smith, J.P.,III,diSessa, A., A, & Roschelle,J., Misconception
Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 1993, 115-164.
November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA 8