Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on sustained debugging support: conjecture mapping as a point of departure for instructor feedback on design

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper articulates an approach to incorporating instructor feedback in design-based research. Throughout the process of designing and implementing curriculum to support middle school students’ debugging practices in a summer computer science workshop, our research and practice team utilized instructor-generated conjecture maps as boundary objects, providing insight into the instructors’ reflections on their classroom teaching. We develop an analytic tool for categorizing instructors’ reflections on their conjecture maps, attending specifically to how instructors push back on design choices, whether by envisioning new mediating processes, introducing new connections, discussing new design features, articulating confusion/uncertainty, and/or presenting hopes and predictions. The tool is then applied to seven instructors’ daily reflections over the course of four weeks of instruction, focused on three conjecture maps. Overall, the paper documents a range of tensions that instructors encounter when aiming to provide sustained debugging support to students and introduces a tool for understanding the detailed ways that instructors critique design conjectures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. See the “Limitations” section for our reservations about this decision.

  2. Mediating processes are a core feature of Sandoval’s (2014) original conception of conjecture mapping. In our use of the construct, we are describing instructors’ proposed additional mediating processes that were not noted in their original conjecture maps. These were impromptu mediating processes that instructors noticed when tensions or unexpected events arose in the classroom.

References

  • Adair, J. K., & Kurban, F. (2019). Video-cued ethnographic data collection as a tool toward participant voice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 50(3), 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bismack, A., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2015). Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 816–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bland, L. C., Hjalmarson, M. A., Nelson, J. K., & Samaras, A. S. (2017). Applying conjecture mapping as a design-based research method to examine the design and implementation of a teaching development project for STEM faculty. In ASEE Annual Conference proceedings.

  • Boud, K., Koegh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In K. Boud, R. Koegh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience in learning (pp. 18–40). Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Crippen, K. (2016). Designing for culturally responsive science education through professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 38(30), 470–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çimer, A., Çimer, S. O., & Vekli, G. S. (2013). How does reflection help teachers to become effective teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 1(4), 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical & methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, S. S., Pacheco, M. B., & Jiménez, R. T. (2019). Designing translingual pedagogies: Exploring pedagogical translation through a classroom teaching experiment. Cognition and Instruction, 37(2), 252–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahn, M., & DeLiema, D. (2020). Dynamics of emotion, problem solving, and identity: Portraits of three girl coders. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 362–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahn, M., Deliema, D., & Enyedy, N. (2020). Art as a point of departure for understanding student experience in learning to code. Teachers College Record, 122(8), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLiema, D., Bye, J., & Marupudi, V. (2021). Programming instructors and students’ active (and partial) debugging: Deviation noticing, causal modeling, and intervening. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Virtual Meeting, Virtual Annual Meeting.

  • DeLiema, D., Dahn, M., Flood, V. J., Asuncion, A., Abrahamson, D., Enyedy, N., & Steen, F. F. (2020). Debugging as a context for collaborative reflection on critical thinking and emotion. In E. Manolo (Ed.), Deeper learning, communicative competence, and critical thinking: Innovative, research-based strategies for development in 21st century classrooms (pp. 209–228). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLiema, D., Kwon, Y., Chisholm, A., Williams, I., Dahn, M., Flood, V., Abrahamson, D., & Steen, F. (2022). A multi-dimensional framework for documenting students’ heterogeneous experiences with programming bugs. Cognition & Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2022.2118279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DesPortes, K., & DiSalvo, B. (2019). Trials and tribulations of novices working with the Arduino. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 219–227).

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. DC Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickes, A. C., Farris, A. V., & Sengupta, P. (2020). Sociomathematical norms for integrating coding and modeling with elementary science: A dialogical approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endres, A. (1975). An analysis of errors and their causes in system programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.1975.6312834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research-practice partnerships in education: The state of the field. William T. Grant Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). Debugging by Design: Students’ Reflections on Designing Buggy E-Textile Projects. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2020.

  • Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y., Nakajima, T., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2018). Putting making into high school computer science classrooms: Promoting equity in teaching and learning with electronic textiles in exploring computer science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, V. J., DeLiema, D., Harrer, B. W., & Abrahamson, D. (2018). Enskilment in the digital age: The interactional work of learning to debug. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), “Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the Learning Sciences count,“ Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 1405–1406). London: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Folkes, L. (2022). Moving beyond ‘shopping list’ positionality: Using kitchen table reflexivity and in/visible tools to develop reflexive qualitative research. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221098922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, M., Aalst, O. W. V., Flood, V., & DeLiema, D. (2020). When features become bugs: Stance-taking around refactoring in a coding classroom. In Y. Kafai (Chair), Turning bugs into learning opportunities: Understanding debugging processes, perspectives, and pedagogies. In M. Gresalfi, M. & I. S. Horn (Eds.), The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, Volume 2 (pp. 374–381). Nashville, TN: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Glaser, G. B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Šabanović, S. (2022). Co-constructing professional vision: Teacher and researcher learning in co-design. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to Return Anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1), 100–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2016). Expanding educational research and interventionist methodologies. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K., & Jurow, S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haduong, P., & Brennan, K. (2019). Helping K–12 Teachers Get Unstuck with Scratch: The Design of an Online Professional Learning Experience. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 1095–1101).

  • Hall, R., & Stevens, R. (2015). Interaction analysis approaches to knowledge in use. Knowledge and Interaction (pp. 88–124). Routledge.

  • Hassenfeld, Z. R., & Bers, M. U. (2020). Debugging the writing process: Lessons from a comparison of students’ coding and writing Practices. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 735–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkilä, M., & Mannila, L. (2018). Debugging in programming as a multimodal practice in early childhood education settings. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy Elliott, C., Gendreau Chakarov, A., Bush, J. B., Nixon, J., & Recker, M. (2023). Toward a debugging pedagogy: Helping students learn to get unstuck with physical computing systems. Information and Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2022-0051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hristova, M., Misra, A., Rutter, M., & Mercuri, R. (2003). Identifying and correcting Java programming errors for introductory computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 153–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurow, A. S., Teeters, L., Shea, M., & Van Steenis, E. (2016). Extending the consequentiality of “invisible work” in the food justice movement. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 210–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. (2006). Constructionism. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 35–46). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kali, Y., Sagy, O., Kuflik, T., Senior Member, I. E. E. E., Mogilevsky, O., & Maayan-Fanar, E. (2015). Harnessing technology for promoting undergraduate art education: A novel model that streamlines learning between classroom, museum, and home. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandkar, S. H. (2009). Open coding. University of Calgary, 23, 2009.

  • Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design Research in Education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., Yuan, J., Vasconcelos, L., Shin, M., & Hill, R. B. (2018). Debugging during block-based programming. Instructional Science, 46(5), 767–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnunen, P., & Simon, B. (2010). Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: the emotional toll. In Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research (pp. 77–86).

  • Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, A. J., & Myers, B. A. (2005). A framework and methodology for studying the causes of software errors in programming systems. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 16(1–2), 41–84.

  • Ko, A. J., & Myers, B. A. (2009). Finding causes of program output with the Java Whyline. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1569–1578).

  • Ko, A. J., LaToza, T. D., Hull, S., Ko, E. A., Kwok, W., Quichocho, J., Akkaraju, H., & Pandit, R. (2019). Teaching explicit programming strategies to adolescents. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 469–475).

  • Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of teacher education, 64(3), 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Education Tech Research Development, 63(2), 229–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazar, T., Sadikov, A., & Bratko, I. (2017). Rewrite rules for debugging student programs in programming tutors. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(4), 429–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, U. S., DeLiema, D., & Gomez, K. (2022). Equity conjectures: A methodological tool for centering social change in learning and design. Cognition & Instruction, 40(1), 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., & Dubovi, I. (2020). At home with data: Family engagements with data involved in type 1 diabetes management. Journal of the learning sciences, 29(1), 11–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., Recker, M., & Phillips, A. L. (2018). Conjecture Mapping the Library: Iterative Refinements Toward Supporting Maker Learning Activities in Small Community Spaces. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (Vol. 1, pp. 320–327). London, UK:ISLS.

  • Lee, V. C., Yu, Y. T., Tang, C. M., Wong, T. L., & Poon, C. K. (2018). ViDA: A virtual debugging advisor for supporting learning in computer programming courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, S. N., Belling, S., Morris, A., & Reynolds, E. (2017). Playing with rusty nails:‘Conceptual tinkering’ for ‘next’ practice. EDeR: Educational Design Research. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.1.1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1999). What to do about educational research’s credibility gaps? Issues in Education, 5(2), 177–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. M., & Gregg, C. (2016). How Do You Teach Debugging? Resources and Strategies for Better Student Debugging. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 706–706).

  • Liberman, N., Kolikant, Y. B., & Beeri, C. (2012). Regressed experts” as a new state in teachers’ professional development: Lessons from Computer Science teachers’ adjustments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Computer Science Education, 22(3), 257–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin-Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Fang, F. F. A., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, T. (2019). Debugging: The key to unlocking the mind of a novice programmer?. In 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). IEEE.

  • Matuk, C., Gerard, L., Lim-Breitbart, J., & Linn, M. (2016). Gathering requirements for teacher tools: Strategies for empowering teachers through co-design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 79–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, R., Manaris, B., Mazzone, M., & Bares, W. (2010). Computing in the arts: A model curriculum. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 451–456.

  • Menekse, M. (2015). Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 325–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaeli, T., & Romeike, R. (2019). Current Status and Perspectives of Debugging in the K12 Classroom: A Qualitative Study. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1030–1038). IEEE.

  • Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2017). Robobug: a serious game for learning debugging techniques. In Proceedings of the 2017 acm conference on international computing education research (pp. 93–100).

  • Nasir, N. I. S., & Cooks, J. (2009). Becoming a hurdler: How learning settings afford identities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 40(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasir, N. S., & Vakil, S. (2017). STEM-focused academies in urban schools: Tensions and possibilities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 376–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

  • Papert, S. (1980). “Mindstorms” Children. Computers and powerful ideas.

  • Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 20(1–2), 182–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Bell, P., Bevan, B., Buffington, P., & Falk, J. (2016). Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, T. M., Bang, M., & Jackson, K. (2018). Articulating the “how,” the “for what,” the “for whom,” and the “with whom” in concert: A call to broaden the benchmarks of our scholarship. Cognition and Instruction, 36(2), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, T. M., & Sengupta, P. (2021). Theories of learning as theories of society: A contrapuntal approach to expanding disciplinary authenticity in computing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(2), 330–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C., & Dolle, J. R. (2006). From Plato to Brown and beyond: Theory, practice, and the promise of design experiments. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends: Sixteen essays in honour of Erik DeCorte (pp. 277–293). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prather, J., Pettit, R., Becker, B. A., Denny, P., Loksa, D., Peters, A., Albrecht, Z., & Masci, K. (2019). First things first: Providing metacognitive scaffolding for interpreting problem prompts. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 531–537).

  • Prediger, S., Gravemeijer, K., & Confrey, J. (2015). Design research with a focus on learning processes: An overview on achievements and challenges. Zdm Mathematics Education, 47(6), 877–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., & Franklin, D. (2019). A K-8 debugging learning trajectory derived from research literature. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 745–751).

  • Ripley, G. D., & Druseikis, F. C. (1978). A statistical analysis of syntax errors. Computer Languages, 3(4), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryoo, J. J. (2019). Pedagogy that supports computer science for all. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(4), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryoo, J. J., Tanksley, T., Estrada, C., & Margolis, J. (2020). Take space, make space: How students use computer science to disrupt and resist marginalization in schools. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saleh, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Glazewski, K. D., Mott, B., Chen, Y., Rowe, J. P., & Lester, J. C. (2019). Collaborative inquiry play: A design case to frame integration of collaborative problem solving with story-centric games. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(9), 547–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, J., P (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santo, R., Vogel, S., Ryoo, J., Denner, J., Belgrave, C., Moriss, A., & Tirado, A. (2020). Who Has a Seat at the Table in CSed? Rethinking Equity Through the Lens of Decision-making and Power in Computer Science Education Initiatives. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 329–330.

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. V. (2021). Voicing code in STEM: A dialogical imagination. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational researcher, 32(1), 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. S., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). Leveraging local resources and contexts for inclusive computer science classrooms: Reflections from experienced high school teachers implementing electronic textiles. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 313–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of technology and teacher education, 13(3), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvis, D., Clarke-Midura, J., Shumway, J. F., Lee, V. R., & Mullen, S. (2022). Children caring for robots: Expanding computational thinking frameworks to include a technological ethic of care. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, A., Anderson, A., & Maltese, A. V. (2019). Caught on camera: Youth and educators’ noticing of and responding to failure within making contexts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 480–492.

  • Spohrer, J. C., Soloway, E., & Pope, E. (1985). Where the bugs are. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 16(4), 47–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromholt, S., & Bell, P. (2018). Designing for expansive science learning and identification across settings. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1015–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer supported cooperative work, 2(1–2), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, F. R., & Gresalfi, M. S. (2020). Beyond inclusion: The imperative of criticality in CS education. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 249–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tissenbaum, M., Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., & Clegg, T. (2021). The case for alternative endpoints in computing education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1164–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobar-Muñoz, H., Baldiris, S., & Fabregat, R. (2017). Augmented reality game-based learning: Enriching students’ experience during reading comprehension activities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 901–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker-Raymond, E., Puttick, G., Cassidy, M., Harteveld, C., & Troiano, G. M. (2019). I broke your game!”: Critique among middle schoolers designing computer games about climate change. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakil, S., McKinney de Royston, M., Suad Nasir, N. I., & Kirshner, B. (2016). Rethinking race and power in design-based research: Reflections from the field. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 194–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J. (2013). Curricular development research as a specimen of educational design research. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 53–70). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2010). The influence of video clubs on teachers’ thinking and practice. Journal of mathematics teacher Education, 13(2), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Es, E. A., Cashen, M., Barnhart, T., & Auger, A. (2017). Learning to notice mathematics instruction: Using video to develop preservice teachers’ vision of ambitious pedagogy. Cognition and Instruction, 35(3), 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, L., Arslan-Ari, I., & Ari, F. (2020). Early childhood preservice teachers’ debugging block-based programs: An eye tracking study. Journal of Childhood Education & Society, 1(1), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vea, T. (2020). The learning of emotion in/as sociocultural practice: The case of animal rights activism. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(3), 311–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedder-Weiss, D., Ehrenfeld, N., Ram-Menashe, M., & Pollak, I. (2018). Productive framing of pedagogical failure: How teacher framings can facilitate or impede learning from problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

  • Warner, J. R., Fletcher, C. L., Torbey, R., & Garbrecht, L. S. (2019). Increasing capacity for computer science education in rural areas through a large-scale collective impact model. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 1157–1163). Minneapolis, MN.

  • Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., & Syslo, M. M. (2017). Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson, M. H. (2017). Teachers, students, and after-school professionals as designers of digital tools for learning. Participatory design for learning: Perspectives from practice and research, pp. 1–13.

  • Wilson Vazquez, A., DeLiema, D., Goeke, M., & Bye, J. (accepted). Debugging debugging instruction: A research-practice partnership in K-8 computer science education. In upcoming proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2023. Montreal: Canada. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Wozniak, H. (2015). Conjecture mapping to optimize the educational design research process. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(5), 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Hambrusch, S., & Sands, P. (2016). Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education, 26(4), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavala, M. (2016). Design, participation, and social change: What design in grassroots spaces can teach learning scientists. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 236–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller, A. (2009). Why programs fail: A guide to systematic debugging. Morgan Kauffman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 1612770, 1607742, and 1612660.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

    Zachary D. Ryan

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    David DeLiema

Authors
  1. Zachary D. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David DeLiema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary D. Ryan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interests by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryan, Z.D., DeLiema, D. Reflections on sustained debugging support: conjecture mapping as a point of departure for instructor feedback on design. Instr Sci 51, 1043–1078 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09629-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09629-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation