Contrasting Stances at the Crossroads of Debugging Learning Opportunities

• In Event: Centering Care and Affect in Computing Education

Abstract

Objective. What does it mean to care for computer science students across substantial longitudinal horizons and during the taxing process of debugging? Impasses in programming are pervasive (e.g., Frädrich et al., 2020; McCauley et al., 2008; Smith & Rixner, 2019), and while efficient fixes are often valued (e.g., Ko & Myers, 2009), learning from failure is not marked by a reductive outcome. Students and teachers may foreground multiple learning processes during debugging: (1) overcoming the impasse, (2) preventing recurring impasses, (3) developing debugging skills for novel impasses, (4) engaging with authority, and (5) learning to calibrate self and collective efficacy (Author et al., 2022). What happens when teachers and students disagree about how to navigate at this crossroads?

Theoretical framework & Method. We root our approach in research examining the social and power-laden context of the computer science classroom (Ryoo et al., 2020; Shah & Lewis, 2019; Vakil, 2020), including debugging practices (Heikkilä & Mannila, 2018; Jayathirtha et al., 2018; Sengupta et al., 2021; Steinberg & Gresalfi, 2021; Wang et al., 2021). Our analysis paired year-long case studies (e.g, Keifert, 2021; Wortham & Reyes, 2015) and student portraits (e.g., Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005) with multimodal interaction analyses (Jordan & Henderson, 1996; Hall & Stevens, 2015; Mondada, 2019).

Data sources. The data for our case studies of three middle school students (Flo, Cam, and Ivan, all pseudonyms) – selected based on their multi-year participation and growth in coding skill – come from a design-based research project centering debugging instruction (Author et al., 2022). Table-top video recordings and screen recordings served as the primary data source.

Results. Across case studies (see Table 1), we documented numerous instances in which students and instructors outwardly adopted contrasting stances on which of the five valued learning processes (outlined in the Objective section) to foreground following bugs. For example, in Transcript 1 (see appendix), after Ivan affirms he is stuck, Jad nudges Ivan to engage with authority (“think about it” and “you’re not thinking hard enough”) and high efficacy (“I think you know”), while Ivan resists these pathways (“I’m not THINking” and “I’m not meant for coding”) and instead makes the case that he is caught in a cycle of recurring bugs (“EVERYtime I get STUCK in the code”). Jad then nudges Ivan to engage with his increased debugging skills (“But you know how to DEbug it now”) before Ivan again resists this pathway (“Nah:: I just click”).

Scholarly significance. This exchange, and many others in our data set, illuminate that students and instructors may diverge in what they consider a valued learning process following bugs. Through strong stances (e.g., “EVERYtime” and “Nah”), students may argue for instructors to explain a puzzling coding concept, while instructors may argue that the occasion warrants students practicing debugging processes. These conflicting visions point to the fundamental issue that failure opens up a complex horizon of growth possibilities. We would argue that caring for students through moments of failure will require acknowledging that these junctures exist and taking students' in-the-moment preferences.

Authors

• David DeLiema, University of Minnesota

• Ashley Hufnagle, St. Catherine University

• Miguel Angel Garcia-Bocanegra, Northwestern University