Abstract
This study examines the use of counterexamples for supporting the development of students’ algorithmic thinking. Working from the premise that some counterexamples are more effective than others for the development of generalized algorithms, the study proposes distinctions between counterexamples in relation to the iterative refinement of student-invented algorithms. Furthermore, the study identifies some factors that may influence differences among counterexamples. Using task-based interviews, data were collected from 23 undergraduate students working in pairs ( n = 8) and individually ( n = 7) on three algorithmatizing tasks. From a thematic analysis of the data, two illustrative cases are presented to show how and why different counterexamples might bring about particular revisions in students’ algorithms. The two illustrative cases highlight two types of counterexamples— set-of-instructions-changing ( SoI-changing) and domain-of-validity-narrowing ( DoV-narrowing)—and their influencing factors. Implications of the findings are discussed with respect to existing literature, further research, and teaching.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
