Table 5 A summary of findings and possible interpretations related to scaffolding design
From: Debugging behaviors of early childhood teacher candidates with or without scaffolding
Finding | Possible attribution to scaffolding design decisions |
|---|---|
Persistence through debugging using scaffolds (Theme 1) | Strategic scaffolding (Belland et al., 2017a, b; Belland, 2017; Hannafin et al., 1999) that • Structured and problematized (Reiser, 2004) the debugging process through four-phased debugging activities • Promoted hypothesis-driven debugging (Kim et al., 2018; Fitzgerald et al., 2008; Vessey, 1985) • Promoted perceived controllability (Kim & Pekrun, 2014; Bandura, 1997; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) enabled through alternative hypotheses • Justified prompted tasks to promote expectancy for success (Belland et al., 2013) • Modeled example responses to scaffolding prompts (Belland et al., 2013; Ko et al., 2019; van de Pol et al., 2011) |
Productive struggle facilitated through synergy between scaffolds and the instructor (Theme 2) | Scaffolding offered • Multiple opportunities to search for errors (Kim et al., 2018) • Strategies of reading before writing (Griffin, 2016) • Why and why not questions (Ko & Myers, 2008) |
Collaborative reasoning for debugging (Theme 3) | Scaffolding provided/promoted • Question prompts (Belland et al., 2013; van de Pol et al., 2011) • Why and why not questions (Ko & Myers, 2008) • Reflective debugging (Kim et al., 2018) |
Trial-and-error and embodied debugging (Theme 4) | Scaffolding provided • No parameter for specificity in hypotheses in scaffolds • No prompts related to hands-on problem-solving with multimodal objects |