literatureFIE.bib

@article{Simon:2012:PIT:2076450.2076459,
 author = {Simon, Beth and Cutts, Quintin},
 title = {Peer instruction: a teaching method to foster deep understanding},
 journal = {Commun. ACM},
 issue_date = {February 2012},
 volume = {55},
 number = {2},
 month = feb,
 year = {2012},
 issn = {0001-0782},
 pages = {27--29},
 numpages = {3},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2076450.2076459},
 doi = {10.1145/2076450.2076459},
 acmid = {2076459},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
} 
@article{Simon:2012:IPI:2189835.2189858,
 author = {Simon, Beth and Cutts, Quintin},
 title = {How to implement a peer instruction-designed CS principles course},
 journal = {ACM Inroads},
 issue_date = {June 2012},
 volume = {3},
 number = {2},
 month = jun,
 year = {2012},
 issn = {2153-2184},
 pages = {72--74},
 numpages = {3},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2189835.2189858},
 doi = {10.1145/2189835.2189858},
 acmid = {2189858},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
 keywords = {CS principles, computer science education, pedagogy, peer instruction},
} 
@article{wood2012role,
  title={The Role of the Lecturer as Tutor: Doing What Effective Tutors Do in a Large Lecture Class},
  author={Wood, W.B. and Tanner, K.D.},
  journal={CBE-Life Sciences Education},
  volume={11},
  number={1},
  pages={3--9},
  year={2012},
  publisher={Am Soc Cell Biol}
}
@article{Smith01032011,
author = {Smith, M.K. and Wood, W.B. and Krauter, K. and Knight, J.K.}, 
title = {Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions},
volume = {10}, 
number = {1}, 
pages = {55-63}, 
year = {2011}, 
doi = {10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101}, 
abstract ={Use of in-class concept questions with clickers can transform an instructor-centered “transmissionist” environment to a more learner-centered constructivist classroom. To compare the effectiveness of three different approaches using clickers, pairs of similar questions were used to monitor student understanding in majors’ and nonmajors’ genetics courses. After answering the first question individually, students participated in peer discussion only, listened to an instructor explanation only, or engaged in peer discussion followed by instructor explanation, before answering a second question individually. Our results show that the combination of peer discussion followed by instructor explanation improved average student performance substantially when compared with either alone. When gains in learning were analyzed for three ability groups of students (weak, medium, and strong, based on overall clicker performance), all groups benefited most from the combination approach, suggesting that peer discussion and instructor explanation are synergistic in helping students. However, this analysis also revealed that, for the nonmajors, the gains of weak performers using the combination approach were only slightly better than their gains using instructor explanation alone. In contrast, the strong performers in both courses were not helped by the instructor-only approach, emphasizing the importance of peer discussion, even among top-performing students.}, 
URL = {http://www.lifescied.org/content/10/1/55.abstract}, 
eprint = {http://www.lifescied.org/content/10/1/55.full.pdf+html}, 
journal = {CBE-Life Sciences Education} 
}
@inproceedings{porter2011peer,
  title={Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing},
  author={Porter, L. and Lee, C.B. and Simon, B. and Zingaro, D.},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM},
  pages={45--52},
  year={2011}
}
@inproceedings{porter2011experience,
  title={Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction},
  author={Porter, L. and Bailey Lee, C. and Simon, B. and Cutts, Q. and Zingaro, D.},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education},
  pages={138--142},
  year={2011},
  organization={ACM}
}
@inproceedings{Zingaro2010x4,
	author = { Daniel Zingaro },
	title = { Experience Report: Peer Instruction in Remedial Computer Science },
	booktitle = { Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 },
	year = { 2010 },
	month = { June },
	pages = { 5030--5035 },
	address = { Toronto, Canada },
	publisher = { AACE },
	url = { http://www.editlib.org/p/36184 }
}
@article{roediger2010benefits,
  title={Benefits of testing memory: Best practices and boundary conditions.},
  author={Roediger III, H.L. and Agarwal, P.K. and Kang, S.H.K. and Marsh, E.J.},
  year={2010},
  publisher={Psychology Press}
}
@inproceedings{Simon:2010:ERP:1734263.1734381,
 author = {Simon, Beth and Kohanfars, Michael and Lee, Jeff and Tamayo, Karen and Cutts, Quintin},
 title = {Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing},
 booktitle = {Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education},
 series = {SIGCSE '10},
 year = {2010},
 isbn = {978-1-4503-0006-3},
 location = {Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA},
 pages = {341--345},
 numpages = {5},
 url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1734263.1734381},
 doi = {10.1145/1734263.1734381},
 acmid = {1734381},
 publisher = {ACM},
 address = {New York, NY, USA},
 keywords = {active learning, classroom response, clickers, cs1, peer instruction, prs},
} 
@misc{WiemanCRSGuide,
howpublished = {\url{http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Clicker_guide_CWSEI_CU-SEI.pdf}},
year=2010,
}
@misc{CMhw,
howpublished={\url{http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~flac/pdf/flac-intro-6up.pdf }},
year=2011,
}
@article{Smith02012009,
author = {Smith, M. K. and Wood, W. B. and Adams, W. K. and Wieman, C. and Knight, J. K. and Guild, N. and Su, T. T.}, 
title = {Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions},
volume = {323}, 
number = {5910}, 
pages = {122-124}, 
year = {2009}, 
doi = {10.1126/science.1165919}, 
abstract ={When students answer an in-class conceptual question individually using clickers, discuss it with their neighbors, and then revote on the same question, the percentage of correct answers typically increases. This outcome could result from gains in understanding during discussion, or simply from peer influence of knowledgeable students on their neighbors. To distinguish between these alternatives in an undergraduate genetics course, we followed the above exercise with a second, similar (isomorphic) question on the same concept that students answered individually. Our results indicate that peer discussion enhances understanding, even when none of the students in a discussion group originally knows the correct answer.}, 
URL = {http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/122.abstract}, 
eprint = {http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/122.full.pdf}, 
journal = {Science} 
}
@article {BJET:BJET920,
author = {Draper, Stephen W.},
title = {Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning},
journal = {British Journal of Educational Technology},
volume = {40},
number = {2},
publisher = {Blackwell Publishing Ltd},
issn = {1467-8535},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00920.x},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00920.x},
pages = {285--293},
year = {2009},
abstract = {One technology for education whose adoption is currently expanding rapidly in UK higher education is that of electronic voting systems (EVS). As with all educational technology, whether learning benefits are achieved depends not on the technology but on whether an improved teaching method is introduced with it. EVS inherently relies on the multiple-choice question (MCQ) format, which many feel is associated with the lowest kind of learning of disconnected facts. This paper, however, discusses several ways in which teaching with MCQs, and so with EVS, has transcended this apparent disadvantage, has based itself on deep learning in the sense of focusing on learning relationships between items rather than on recalling disconnected true–false items, and so has achieved substantial learning advantages. Six possible learning designs based on MCQs are discussed, and a new function for (e-)assessment is identified, namely catalytic assessment, where the purpose of test questions is to trigger subsequent deep learning without direct teaching input.},
}
@article{bruff2008classroom,
  title={Classroom Response Systems (Clickers)},
  author={Bruff, D.},
  journal={Center for Teaching},
  year={2008}
}
@misc{bruffURL,
author={Derek Bruff},
howpublished ={\url{http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/technology/clickers/},
}}
@article {JCAL:JCAL133,
author = {Kennedy, G. E. and Cutts, Q. I.},
title = {The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes},
journal = {Journal of Computer Assisted Learning},
volume = {21},
number = {4},
publisher = {Blackwell Science Ltd},
issn = {1365-2729},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.x},
doi = {10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.x},
pages = {260--268},
keywords = {electronic voting system, engagement, interactivity, lectures},
year = {2005},
abstract = {Abstract
					 This paper reports on the use of an electronic voting system (EVS) in a first-year computing science subject. Previous investigations suggest that students' use of an EVS would be positively associated with their learning outcomes. However, no research has established this relationship empirically. This study sought to establish whether there was an association between students' use of an EVS over one semester and their performance in the subject's assessment tasks. The results from two stages of analysis are broadly consistent in showing a positive association between EVS usage and learning outcomes for students who are, relative to their class, more correct in their EVS responses. Potential explanations for this finding are discussed as well as modifications and future directions of this program of research.},
}
@article{Purchase2004,
author={Helen C. Purchase and Christopher Mitchell and Iadh Ounis},
title={Gauging Students’ Understanding Through Interactive Lectures},
year={2004},
journal={Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3112}
}
@article{chi1996constructing,
  title={Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring},
  author={Chi, M.T.H.},
  journal={Applied Cognitive Psychology},
  volume={10},
  number={7},
  pages={33--49},
  year={1996}
}
@book{Yin1994,
author={Robert K. Yin},
title={Case Study Research, Design and Methods},
edition=2,
publisher={Sage Publications},
annote={
This book is about case studies for research and publication, rather than for teaching in, e.g., law school.
The types of research question for which case study is the appropriate technique are those questions starting with ``How'', and ``Why'', so perhaps ``How did we figure out that the relevant items to students learning the pumping lemma include use of the contrapositive, and negation of statements using quantifiers?'', or ``Why didn't Makan learn the pumping lemma until now?''
Case study adds direct observation and systematic interviewing to methods available with historical data (primary and secondary documents, cultural and physical artifacts).
Reviewing literature on a topic serves to develop sharper and more insightful questions on it.
from p.15: ``And, yes, case studies have a distinctive place in evaluation research (gives references). there are at least five different applications. The most important is to explain the causal links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies. In evaluation language, the explanations would link program implementation with program effects. \\
the case study strategy may be used to explore those siutation in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes.\\
Case study research is remarkably hard.\\}
}







@article {Denis,
author = {M Denis and E Mellet and S Kosslyn},
title = {Neuroimaging of mental imagery: An introduction},
journal = {Eur. J. Cognitive Psychol.},
volume = {16},
pages = {625},
year = {2004}
}

@article {Goldina,
author = {GA Goldin and C Janvier},
title = {Representations and the psychology of mathematics education},
journal = {J. Math. Behav.},
volume = {17},
pages = {1},
year = {1998}
}

@article {Goldinb,
author = {Goldin GA},
title = {Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics},
journal = {J. Math. Behav.},
volume = {17},
pages = {137},
year = {1998}
}

@article {corter,
author = {JE Corter and DC Zahner},
title = {Use of external visual representations in probability problem solving},
journal = {Stat. Educ. Res. J., International Association for Statistical Education (IASE/ISI)},
volume = {6},
pages = {22},
year = {2007}
}

@article {mesquita,
author = {Mesquita AL},
title = {On conceptual obstacles linked with external representation in geometry},
journal = {J. Math. Behav.},
volume = {17},
pages = {183},
year = {1998}
}

 @article{BBloom1984,
     jstor_articletype = {research-article},
     title = {The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring},
     author = {Bloom, Benjamin S.},
     journal = {Educational Researcher},
     jstor_issuetitle = {},
     volume = {13},
     number = {6},
     jstor_formatteddate = {Jun. - Jul., 1984},
     pages = {pp. 4-16},
     url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175554},
     ISSN = {0013189X},
     abstract = {},
     language = {English},
     year = {1984},
     publisher = {American Educational Research Association},
     copyright = {Copyright © 1984 American Educational Research Association},
    }
 
 @article{lasry:1066,
author = {Nathaniel Lasry and Eric Mazur and Jessica Watkins},
collaboration = {},
title = {Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college},
publisher = {AAPT},
year = {2008},
journal = {American Journal of Physics},
volume = {76},
number = {11},
pages = {1066-1069},
keywords = {educational courses; educational institutions; physics education; problem solving; teaching},
url = {http://link.aip.org/link/?AJP/76/1066/1},
doi = {10.1119/1.2978182}
}

@article{hake:64,
author = {Richard R. Hake},
collaboration = {},
title = {Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses},
publisher = {AAPT},
year = {1998},
journal = {American Journal of Physics},
volume = {66},
number = {1},
pages = {64-74},
keywords = {teaching; education; classical mechanics},
url = {http://link.aip.org/link/?AJP/66/64/1},
doi = {10.1119/1.18809}
}

@book{HINTIKKA,
author={Jaakko Hintikka},
title={Socratic Epistemology: Explorations of Knowledge-Seeking by Questioning}, publisher={Cambridge University Press},
year= 2007}

@book{Mattuck,
author={Arthur Mattuck},
title={Introduction to Analysis},
publisher={Prentice Hall},
year=1999}

@book{Sipser,
author={Michael Sipser},
title={Introduction to the Theory of Computation},
publisher={Cengage},
year=2013}
@misc{fpo,
author={Carlos Ivan Chesnevar and  Ana Gabriela Maguitman and Maria Paula Gonzalez and 
Maria Laura Cobo },
title={Teaching fundamentals of computing theory: a constructivist approach.},
publisher={Journal of Computer Science and Technology},
howpublished={\url{http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Journal-Computer-Science-Technology/146892302.html}}}

@article{crouch2001peer,
  title={Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results},
  author={Crouch, C.H. and Mazur, E.},
  journal={American Journal of Physics},
  volume={69},
  pages={970},
  year={2001}
}

@book{meyers1993promoting,
  title={Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom.},
  author={Meyers, C. and Jones, T.B.},
  year={1993},
  publisher={ERIC}
}

@book{Velleman,
  title={How to Prove It},
  author={Daniel J. Velleman},
  year={1998 },
  publisher={Cambridge University Press}
}

@article{PETbrainmath,
author={Brian Butterworth},
title={What makes a prodigy?},
year=2001,
journal={Nature Neuroscience},
volume=4,
number=1,
url={\url{http://www.mathematicalbrain.com/pdf/PRODIGY.PDF}}
}

@article{ScienceDaily,
author={Denise C. Park},
title={Math ability requires crosstalk in the brain.},
year=2012,
journal={ScienceDaily}}%contains journal reference

@article{SA2012,
journal={Scientific American},
 pages={26 - 33},
 year=2012,
 title={Sex, Math and Scientific Achievement},
 author={Diane F. Halpern and Camilla P. Benbow and David C. Geary and Ruben C. Gur and Janet Shibley Hyde and Morton Ann Gernsbacher}}
 
 @article{Maloney2012380,
title = "Reducing the sex difference in math anxiety: The role of spatial processing ability",
journal = "Learning and Individual Differences",
volume = "22",
number = "3",
pages = "380 - 384",
year = "2012",
note = "",
issn = "1041-6080",
doi = "10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.001",
url = "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608012000027",
author = "Erin A. Maloney and Stephanie Waechter and Evan F. Risko and Jonathan A. Fugelsang",
keywords = "Math anxiety",
keywords = "Sex effects",
keywords = "Spatial processing"
}

@article{rivera2012neural,
  title={Neural Correlates of Gender, Culture, and Race and Implications to Embodied Thinking in Mathematics},
  author={Rivera, F.},
  journal={Towards Equity in Mathematics Education},
  pages={515--543},
  year={2012},
  publisher={Springer}
}

@article{tomasi2012gender,
  title={Gender differences in brain functional connectivity density},
  author={Tomasi, D. and Volkow, N.D.},
  journal={Human brain mapping},
  volume={33},
  number={4},
  pages={849--860},
  year={2012},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}
@article{horwitz2012introduction,
  title={Introduction to Research Topic--Brain Connectivity Analysis: Investigating Brain Disorders. Part 1: The Review Articles},
  author={Horwitz, B. and Horovitz, S.G.},
  journal={Frontiers in systems neuroscience},
  volume={6},
  year={2012},
  publisher={Frontiers Media SA}
}

@article{tall2012cognitive,
  title={Cognitive Development of Proof},
  author={Tall, D. and Yevdokimov, O. and Koichu, B. and Whiteley, W. and Kondratieva, M. and Cheng, Y.H.},
  journal={Proof and Proving in Mathematics Education},
  pages={13--49},
  year={2012},
  publisher={Springer}
}

@inbook{bloom40retro,
author={Lorin Anderson and Lauren Sosniak},
title={Excerpts from the ``Taxonomy of Education Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain''},
booktitle={Bloom's Taxonomy A Forty-year Retrospective},
publisher={University of Chicago Press},
year=1994,
chapter={II},
pages={9-27}
}

@misc{diagramsReasoning,
howpublished={\url{http://web.archive.org/web/20110721195349/http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/1998/lomas.html}},
title={Diagrams in Mathematical Education: A Philosophical Appraisal},
author={Dennis Lomas}
}
 
 @article{arnoux2010using,
  title={Using mental imagery processes for teaching and research in mathematics and computer science},
  author={Arnoux, P. and Finkel, A.},
  journal={International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology},
  volume={41},
  number={2},
  pages={229--242},
  year={2010},
  publisher={Taylor \& Francis},
  abstract={Abstract
The role of mental representations in mathematics and computer science (for teaching or research) is often downplayed or even completely ignored. Using an ongoing work on the subject, we argue for a more systematic study and use of mental representations, to get an intuition of mathematical concepts, and also to understand and build proofs. We give two detailed examples.}
}

%[12] P. Thompson, Imagery and the development of mathematical reasoning, in Theories of Learning Mathematics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1996, pp. 267–283., from arnoux
%Paivio

@article{pillay2010learning,
  title={Learning difficulties experienced by students in a course on formal languages and automata theory},
  author={Pillay, N.},
  journal={ACM SIGCSE Bulletin},
  volume={41},
  number={4},
  pages={48--52},
  year={2010},
  publisher={ACM}
}
@inproceedings{rodger2009increasing,
  title={Increasing engagement in automata theory with JFLAP},
  author={Rodger, S.H. and Wiebe, E. and Lee, K.M. and Morgan, C. and Omar, K. and Su, J.},
  booktitle={ACM SIGCSE Bulletin},
  volume={41},
  pages={403--407},
  year={2009},
  organization={ACM}
}%  number={1},

@inproceedings{rodger2007increasing,
  title={Increasing interaction and support in the formal languages and automata theory course},
  author={Rodger, S.H. and Lim, J. and Reading, S.},
  booktitle={ACM SIGCSE Bulletin},
  volume={39},
  pages={58--62},
  year={2007},
  organization={ACM}
}%  number={3},
@book{linz2011introduction,
  title={An introduction to formal languages and automata},
  author={Linz, P.},
  year={2011},
  publisher={Jones \& Bartlett Learning}
}
@misc{CBL,
author={Cynthia Bailey-Lee},
howpublished={\url{http://www.peerinstruction4cs.org/}}}

@inproceedings{huttel2012experiences,
  title={Experiences with web-based peer assessment of coursework},
  author={H{\"u}ttel, H. and N{\o}rmark, K.},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education-CSEDU},
  year={2012}
}
@inproceedings{vijayalaskhmi2012activity,
  title={Activity based teaching learning in formal languages and automata theory-An experience},
  author={Vijayalaskhmi, M. and Karibasappa, KG},
  booktitle={Engineering Education: Innovative Practices and Future Trends (AICERA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on},
  pages={1--5},
  year={2012},
  organization={IEEE}
}
@article{xing2010graphical,
  title={A graphical framework for assisting proofs},
  author={Xing, C.C.},
  journal={Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges},
  volume={25},
  number={5},
  pages={48--57},
  year={2010},
  publisher={Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges}
}

@inproceedings{dharaneetharan2011alternative,
  title={An alternative approach of Pumping Lemma to prove a language to be non regular},
  author={Dharaneetharan, GD and Raj, VB and Devi, RK},
  booktitle={Recent Trends in Information Technology (ICRTIT), 2011 International Conference on},
  pages={1078--1080},
  year={2011},
  organization={IEEE}
}

@article{steffen2011introduction,
  title={Introduction to active automata learning from a practical perspective},
  author={Steffen, B. and Howar, F. and Merten, M.},
  journal={Formal Methods for Eternal Networked Software Systems},
  pages={256--296},
  year={2011},
  publisher={Springer}
}
@inproceedings{zander2009student,
  title={Student transformations: are they computer scientists yet?},
  author={Zander, C. and Boustedt, J. and McCartney, R. and Mostr{\"o}m, J.E. and Sanders, K. and Thomas, L.},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop},
  pages={129--140},
  year={2009},
  organization={ACM}
}

@article{meyer2006threshold,
  title={Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge},
  author={Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R.},
  journal={Overcoming Barriers to Student Learning: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge.},
  pages={19},
  year={2006},
  publisher={Routledge}
}


@inproceedings{simon2010experience,
  title={Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing},
  author={Simon, B. and Kohanfars, M. and Lee, J. and Tamayo, K. and Cutts, Q.},
  booktitle={Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education},
  pages={341--345},
  year={2010},
  organization={ACM}
}

@inproceedings{pargas2006things,
  title={Things are clicking in computer science courses},
  author={Pargas, R.P. and Shah, D.M.},
  booktitle={ACM SIGCSE Bulletin},
  volume={38},
  number={1},
  pages={474--478},
  year={2006},
  organization={ACM}
}
@inproceedings{chase2000combining,
  title={Combining cooperative learning and peer instruction in introductory computer science},
  author={Chase, JD and Okie, E.G.},
  booktitle={ACM SIGCSE Bulletin},
  volume={32},
  number={1},
  pages={372--376},
  year={2000},
  organization={ACM}
}


@article{bateman2007applying,
  title={Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning},
  author={Bateman, S. and Brooks, C. and McCalla, G. and Brusilovsky, P.},
  journal={Proc. of ACM WWW},
  volume={3},
  number={4},
  year={2007}
}
@techreport{morgan1997technology,
  title={Technology and Bloom's taxonomy: tools to facilitate higher-level learning in chemistry},
  author={Morgan, M.E.},
  year={1997},
  institution={DTIC Document}
}
@inproceedings{hamalainen2004problem,
  title={Problem-based learning of theoretical computer science},
  author={H\"{a}m\"{a}l\"{a}inen, W.},
  booktitle={Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual},
  pages={S1H--1},
  year={2004},
  organization={IEEE}
}

@phdthesis{weidmann2003science,
  title={Science Education Perceptions of Teaching and Learning Automata Theory in a College- Level Computer Science Course a thesis},
  author={Weidmann, P.K.},
  year={2003},
  school={The University of Texas at Austin}
}

@book{Constructionism,
editor={Idit Harel and Seymour Papert},
title={Constructionism},
year=1991,
publisher={Ablex Publishing}}

@inbook{PHfractions,
author={Seymour Papert and Idit Harel},
title={Software Design as a Learning Environment},
booktitle={Constructionism},
chapter={4},
year=1991,
publisher={Ablex Publishing}}

@article{baeten2010models,
  title={Models of computation: automata and processes},
  author={Baeten, JCM},
  journal={Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Syllabus 2IT15},
  year={2010}
}
@book{devlinintro,
author={Keith Devlin},
title={Introduction to Mathematical Thinking},
publisher={Keith Devlin},
year=2012}

}