Table 3 Themes and codes of undergraduate students’ perception of GTAs’ error framing statements and impact on student comfort
Theme | Code | Definition | Impact on student comfort* | Number of interviews coded (N = 11) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Framing | Acknowledge idea as natural and sensible | GTA acknowledges student’s reasoning as natural or sensible even though it is not correct | \(\uparrow\) | 8 |
Acknowledge sensemaking effort | GTA acknowledges student’s effort to make sense of the disciplinary content | \(\uparrow\) | 2 | |
Acknowledge idea as common | GTA points out the idea is commonly held by people | \(\uparrow\) | 3 | |
Acknowledge a learning opportunity | GTA makes it known that it is a learning opportunity for everyone | \(\uparrow\) | 3 | |
Provide explanation to subject matter | GTA explains the disciplinary content | \(\uparrow\) | 5 | |
Start with a direct comment of idea being incorrect | GTA starts with a direct comment that student’s idea is not correct | \(\downarrow\) | 3 | |
Focus on the error | GTA (although unintentionally) focuses on the fact that students made an error | \(\downarrow\) | 4 | |
Use hedging | GTA uses hedging, such as “kind of”, when acknowledging student reasoning as sensible | \(\downarrow\) | 3 | |
Use negative words | GTA uses negative words, such as “misconception”, when referring to a student’s idea | \(\downarrow\) | 1 | |
Tone | Positive and conversational | GTA uses a positive tone and engages student in back-and-forth discussion | \(\uparrow\) | 5 |
Formal and unconcerned | GTA addresses students formally without affirmation | \(\downarrow\) | 4 |