Effects of Scaffolding Type and Working Memory on Programming Performance and Computational Thinking Skills in Elementary School Students’ Programming Learning = 초등학생 프로그래밍 학습에서 스캐폴딩 유형과 작동기억이 프로그래밍 성취도 및 컴퓨팅 사고력에 미치는 영향

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Various studies have documented that scaffolding is sociocultural theory-driven assistance for improving learning outcomes. Cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding, however, have received scant attention in terms of their comparative effects on learners' programming development. On the other hand, learning programming involves working memory. As a partial attempt in this respect, the current study aimed to explore how cognitive and metacognitive scaffolding, alone or in combination, influence elementary school students’ programming performance and computational thinking skills while considering their working memory. For this purpose, this study employed a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with 173 fifth graders as participants. Four intact classes were randomly assigned to a control group and three experimental groups: cognitive scaffolding, metacognitive scaffolding, and both forms of scaffolding, namely, cognitive-and-metacognitive scaffolding. Before learning to program in Scratch, participants were required to complete a prior programming knowledge test, working memory tests, and a computational thinking test. After a seven-week programming learning activity, every participant was expected to finish a final project that served as an assessment of programming skills. Subsequently, participants were given post-tests of programming knowledge and computational thinking. Furthermore, students were classified as having low and high levels of working memory with regard to central executive working memory, phonological working memory, and visuo-spatial working memory.
Data from a total of 168 students were analyzed due to some absences. Two-way MANCOVAs and ANCOVAs were implemented to investigate the two research questions. The following are the major findings of the study.
First, scaffolding had a significantly superior effect on programming knowledge but not programming skills compared to non-scaffolding instruction. The cognitive-and-metacognitive scaffolding group did not show significantly better scores in programming knowledge and skills than the cognitive or metacognitive scaffolding group. Likewise, no significant difference was found between the metacognitive and cognitive scaffolding groups in programming knowledge and skills.
Second, there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in computational thinking skills. However, students in the cognitive-and-metacognitive scaffolding group did not develop significantly greater computational thinking skills than those in the cognitive or metacognitive scaffolding group. Similarly, the metacognitive scaffolding group did not show significantly higher computational thinking skills than the cognitive scaffolding group.
Third, the findings indicated that students with high capacities of working memory (central executive, phonological, and visual-spatial working memory) scored significantly higher on programming knowledge, programming skills, and computational thinking skills than low-capacity working memory students.
Fourth, the interaction effects were only found between scaffolding type and central executive working memory on programming knowledge. For the students with low central executive working memory, there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups. As for the students with high central executive working memory, the experimental groups significantly outperformed the control group. Moreover, high-capacity working memory students performed significantly better in the cognitive-and-metacognitive scaffolding group than in the cognitive or metacognitive scaffolding group. In addition, high-capacity working memory students also obtained significantly higher scores in the metacognitive scaffolding group than in the cognitive scaffolding group.
This study provides implications for the design and development of scaffolding based on Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive and metacognitive mediation. In addition, more attention should be paid to individual differences in working memory during programming activities since working memory is greatly important for students’ success in programming performance and computational thinking skills.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

그동안 많은 연구에서 학습성과 향상을 위한 사회문화이론의 보조 도구로의 스캐폴딩이 자주 언급되어 왔다. 그러나 학습자의 프로그래밍 성취를 위한 다양한 인지적 및 메타인지적 스캐폴딩을 비교한 연구는 부족한 실정이다. 한편, 작동기억은 프로그래밍 학습에서 중요한 역할을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 이와 관련하여 본 연구는 초등학생들의 작동기억을 고려하여 인지적 스캐폴딩과 메타인지적 스캐폴딩이 학생의 프로그래밍 성취도 및 컴퓨팅 사고력에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 검증하였다. 연구대상은 중국 5 학년 학생 173 명이었다. 이 연구에서는 이질통제집단 사전-사후검사 설계를 활용하였다. 즉, 연구의 실험집단은 인지적 스캐폴딩, 메타인지적 스캐폴딩, 인지적 및 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단으로 구성되었고, 통제집단은 스캐폴딩을 제공받지 않았다. Scratch 프로그래밍 활동에 앞서 참가자들에게 사전 프로그래밍 지식, 작동기억, 컴퓨팅 사고력 등의 검사를 수행하도록 요청하였다. 7 주간의 프로그래밍 활동 후, 참가자들은 프로그래밍 기능의 평가로서 최종 프로젝트를 완성하였다. 이어 프로그래밍 지식 사후 검사, 컴퓨팅 사고력 검사를 실시하였다. 또한 학생들의 작동기억은 중앙집행 작동기억, 언어적 작동기억, 시공간적 작동기억 상에서 높은 집단과 낮은 집단으로 분류되었다.
173 명의 학생 중 최종 168 명의 학생들의 자료가 취합되었으며, 이를 분석하였다. 두 가지 연구 문제를 해결하기 위하여 이원 다변량공분산분석(MANCOVA)과 공분산분석(ANCOVA)를 실시하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다.
첫째, 스캐폴딩을 제공받은 집단은 스캐폴딩을 제공받지 않은 집단보다 프로그래밍 지식이 유의하게 높은 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 실험집단과 통제집단간 프로그램 기능에는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 인지적 및 메타인지적 스캐폴딩을 동시 제공받은 집단이 인지적 스캐폴딩 집단이나 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단에 비해 프로그래밍 지식과 기능 상에서 유의하게 더 높은 점수를 보이지 않았다. 또한, 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단과 인지적 스캐폴딩 집단은 프로그래밍 지식과 기능에서도 유의한 차이가 없었다.
둘째, 컴퓨팅 사고력에는 실험집단과 통제집단 사이에 유의한 차이가 있었다. 그러나 인지적 및 메타인지적 스캐폴딩을 동시 제공받은 집단은 인지적 스캐폴딩 집단이나 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단보다 유의하게 높은 컴퓨팅 사고력을 보이지는 못 하였다. 또한 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단과 인지적 스캐폴딩 집단 사이에 컴퓨팅 사고력에는 유의한 차이가 없었다.
셋째, 작동기억이 높은 학생들은 작동기억이 낮은 학생들보다 프로그래밍 지식, 프로그래밍 기능, 컴퓨팅 사고력이 유의하게 높게 나타났다.
넷째, 프로그래밍 지식에 있어서 스캐폴딩 유형과 중앙집행 작동기억의 상호작용 효과가 있었다. 중앙집행 작동기억이 낮은 학생들의 경우 실험집단과 통제 집단 간에만 유의한 차이가 있었고, 중앙집행 작동기억이 높은 학생들의 경우도 동일한 결과를 보였다. 또한 중앙집행 작동기억이 높은 학생들은 인지적 및 메타인지적 스캐폴딩을 동시 제공받은 집단에서 인지적 스캐폴딩 집단이나 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단에서보다 프로그래밍 지식 점수가 유의하게 더 높았다. 또한 중앙집행 작동기억이 높은 학생들은 메타인지적 스캐폴딩 집단에서 인지적 스캐폴딩 집단에서보다 프로그래밍 지식 점수가 유의하게 더 높았다.
본 연구는 초등학생의 프로그래밍 학습을 위한 Vygotsky 의 인지적 및 메타인지적 중개이론에 입각한 스캐폴딩 설계 및 개발에 시사하는 바가 크다. 또한 작동기억은 학생들의 프로그래밍 성과와 컴퓨팅 사고력에서 중요한 요소 중 하나이므로 프로그래밍 활동 중 작동기억의 개인차에 더욱 유의할 필요가 있다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Contents ⅰ
• List of Tables ⅲ
• List of Figures ⅴ
• List of Abbreviations ⅵ
• (Abstract)ⅶ
• I. Introduction 1
• 1. Necessity and Purpose 1
• 2. Research Questions 6
• 3. Definition of Terms 6
• Ⅱ. Literature Review 10
• 1. Programming Education in K-12 Contexts 10
• 2. Scaffolding and Working Memory 14
• 3. Scaffolding, Working Memory and Programming Performance 26
• 4. Scaffolding, Working Memory and Computational Thinking Skills 33
• 5. Interaction Effects of Scaffolding Type and Working Memory 41
• Ⅲ. Research Hypotheses 45
• Ⅳ. Method 51
• 1. Participants 51
• 2. Instruments 52
• 3. Learning Tasks and Scaffolding Design 59
• 4. Experimental Design 65
• 5. Experimental Procedure 66
• 6. Data Analysis 68
• Ⅴ. Results 69
• 1. Effects of Scaffolding Type and Working Memory on Programming Performance 70
• 2. Effects of Scaffolding Type and Working Memory on Computational Thinking Skills 80
• Ⅵ. Discussion and Conclusion 88
• 1. Discussion 88
• 2. Conclusion 95
• References 98
• (국문 초록) 128
• Appendix 131

참고문헌 (Reference)

1. The role of tutoring in problem solving, Ross, G., Bruner, J. S., Wood, D., 17(2), 89–100. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976. tb00381. x, , 1976

2. Working memory and language: An overview, Baddeley, A, 36(3), 189–208. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4, , 2003

3. Is working memory capacity task dependent?, Turner, M. L., Engle, R. W., 28(2), 127–154. https://doi. org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5, , 1989

4. Who is likely to acquire programming skills?, Shute, V. J., 7(1), 1–24. https://doi. org/10.2190/VQJD-T1YD-5WVB-RYPJ, , 1991

5. Individual differences in working memory and reading, Carpenter, P. A, Daneman, M., 19(4), 450–466. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6, , 1980

6. Role of working memory capacity in cognitive control, Engle, R. W., 51(1), 517–526. https://doi. org/10.1086/650572, , 2010

7. Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky's concept of mediation, Haywood, H. C., Karpov, Y. V., 53(1), 27–36. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.27, , 1998

8. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Cohen , J, 2nd ed., , 1988

9. The star counting test: An attention test for children, Das-Smaal, E., de Jong, P., 11(6), 597–604. https://doi. org/10.1016/0191-8869(90)90043-Q, , 1990

10. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion, Rountree, J., Robins, A., Rountree, N., 13(2), 137–172. https://doi. org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200, , 2003

11. Working memory, attentional regulation and the Star Counting Test, de Jong, P. F., Koopmans, J. R., Das-Smaal, E. A., 14(6), 815–824. https://doi. org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90094-J, , 1993

12. The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups, Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A., Sleegers, P. J., 26(6), 1727–1738. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2010.06.022, , 2010

13. The impact of metacognitive instruction on creative problem solving, Hargrove, R. A., Nietfeld, J. L., 83(3), 291–318. https://doi. org/10.1080/00220973.2013.876604, , 2015

14. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide, Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Wilhelm, O., Hambrick, D. Z., 12(5), 769–786. https://doi. org/10.3758/BF03196772, , 2005

15. A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. org, Kalelioğlu, F., Computers 52, 200–210. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2015.05.047, , 2015

16. Scaffolding of small groups’ metacognitive activities with an avatar, Sleegers, P., Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C., Chiu, M. M., 6(4), 601–624. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11412-011-9130-z, , 2011

17. The digital woodlouse–Scaffolding in science-related scratch projects, Weigend, M., 13(2), 293–305. https://doi. org/10.15388/infedu.2014.18, , 2014

18. The relationship between executive functions and computational thinking, Toye, M., Robertson, J., Booth, J., Gray, S., 3(4), 35–49. https://doi. org/10.21585/ijcses. v3i4.76, , 2020

19. Mapping the developmental constraints on working memory span performance, Jarrold, C., Leigh, E., Bayliss, D., Baddeley, A., Gunn, D., 41, 579–597. https://doi. org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.579, , 2005

20. The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why?, Cowan, N., 19(1), 51–57. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963721409359277, , 2010

21. The impact of cognitive scaffolding on Iranian EFL learners' speaking skill, Yamini, M., Bagheri, M. S., Razaghi, M., 12(4), 95–112, , 2019

22. Distinction between visuo-spatial short-term-memory and working memory span tasks, Lecerf, T., Roulin, J. L., 65(1), 37–54. https://doi. org/10.1024/1421-0185.65.1.37, , 2006

23. Model-It: A design retrospective Innovations in science and mathematics education, R. B. Kozma (Eds, Metcalf, S. J., Soloway, E., Krajcik, J., In M. J. Jacobson, 1st ed., 77–115, , 2000

24. A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments, Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., Lu, C., 28(6), 651–676. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3, , 2019

25. The genesis of higher mental functions The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, In J. V. Wertsch (Ed., Vygotsky, L. S., pp. 144–188, , 1981

26. An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking, Li, Y., Wang, Q., Chen, J., Zhong, B., 53(4), 562–590. https://doi. org/10.1177/0735633115608444, , 2016

27. Effects of teaching concept mapping using practice, feedback, and relational framing, Roessger, K. M., Hafez, D. A., Daley, B. J., 54, 11– 21. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. learninstruc.2018.01.011, , 2018

28. Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors, Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Pérez-González, J. C., Román-González, M., 80, 441–459. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2017.09.030, , 2018

29. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive– developmental inquiry, Flavell, J. H., 34(10), 906–911. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906, , 1979

30. Syntactic/semantic interactions in programmer behavior: A model and experimental results, Mayer, R., Shneiderman, B., 8(3), 219–238. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00977789, , 1979

31. The influence of self-efficacy and working memory capacity on problem-solving efficiency, Schraw, G., Hoffman, B., 19(1), 91–100. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. lindif.2008.08.001, , 2009

32. Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction, Jacobs, J. E., Paris, S. G., 22(3-4), 255– 278. https://doi. org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653052, , 1987

33. Learning basic programming concepts by creating games with scratch programming environment, Ouahbi, I., Lahmine, S., Kaddari, F., Darhmaoui, H., Elachqar, A., 191, 1479–1482. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2015.04.224, , 2015

34. Role of working memory in typically developing children’s complex sentence comprehension, Magimairaj, B. M., O’Malley, M. H., Montgomery, J. W., 37, 331–354. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10936-008-9077-z, , 2008

35. Instruction, cognitive scaffolding, and motivational scaffolding in writing center tutoring, Mackiewicz, J., Thompson, I, 42(1), 54–78. https://www. jstor. org/stable/compstud.42.1.0054, , 2014

36. Scratching beyond the surface of literacy: Programming for early adolescent gifted students, Hagge, J., 40(3), 154–162. https://doi. org/10.1177/1076217517707233, , 2017

37. Can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the Computational Thinking Test, Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Pérez-González, J. C., 18, 47–58. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. ijcci.2018.06.004, , 2018

38. Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia, Moos, D. C., Winters, F. I., Cromley, J. G., Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., 33(5), 381–412. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11251-005-1273-8, , 2005

39. Working memory and access to numerical information in children with disability in mathematics, Siegel, L., Passolunghi, M. C., 88, 348–367. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. jecp.2004.04.002, , 2004

40. Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming, Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Flórez, F. B., Danies, G., Casallas, R., Restrepo, S., 87(4), 834–860. https://doi. org/10.3102/0034654317710096, , 2017

41. Effects of prior knowledge, working memory, and navigation tools on performance with hypertext, Yum, S. C., Kim, H. S., Schallert, D. L., 18(1), 79–108, , 2002

42. Relating natural language aptitude to individual differences in learning programming languages, Kuo, C. H., Prat, C. S., Mottarella, M. J., Madhyastha, T. M., 10(1), 1–10. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-020-60661-8, , 2020

43. Effect of mind mapping on creative thinking of children in scratch visual programming education, Su, Y. S., Zhao, L., Shao, M., 60(4), 906–929. https://doi. org/10.1177/07356331211053383, , 2022

44. Intraindividual variability and level of performance in four visuo-spatial working memory tasks, Jouffray, C., Ghisletta, P., Lecerf, T., 63(4), 261–272. https://doi. org/10.1024/1421-0185.63.4.261, , 2004

45. Designing for metacognition—applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking, Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B. M., Koedinger, K. R., 2(2), 125–140. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11409-007-9010-0, , 2007

46. Sequential and coordinative complexity: age-based processing limitations in figural transformations, Kliegl, R., Mayr, U., 19(6), 1297–1320. https://doi. org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1297, , 1993

47. Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?, Seibert, D., Cromley, J. G., Azevedo, R., 29(3), 344–370. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. cedpsych.2003.09.002, , 2004

48. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?, Koh, J. H. L., Lye, S. Y., Computers 41, 51–61. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2014.09.012, , 2014

49. Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming, Barth-Cohen, L., Shen, J., Chen, G., Huang, X., Eltoukhy, M., Jiang, S., 109, 162–175. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. compedu.2017.03.001, , 2017

50. Children’s use of metacognition in solving everyday problems: An initial study from an Asian context, Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Bergin, D., 36(3), 89–102. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF03216907, , 2009

51. The precursors of mathematics learning: Working memory, phonological ability, and numerical competence, Passolunghi, M. C., Vercelloni, B., Schadee, H., 22, 165–184. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. cogdev.2006.09.001, , 2007

52. Using cognitive mapping to foster deeper learning with complex problems in a computer-based environment, Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., Wu, B., Spector, J. M., Computers 87, 450–458. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2018.01.024, , 2018

53. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis, Curran, P. J., Finch, J. F., West, S. G., 1(1), 16–29. https://doi. org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16, , 1996

54. Cognitive vs. metacognitive scaffolding strategies and EFL learners’ listening comprehension development, Motaghi, F., Ahmadi Safa, M., 1–24. https://doi. org/10.1177/13621688211021821, , 2021

55. Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students, Noh, J., Lee, J., 68(1), 463–484. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w, , 2020

56. An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. On the iPad, Falloon, G., 32(6), 576–593. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcal.12155, , 2016

57. Working memory and intelligence-Their correlation and their relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle, Oberauer, K., Süß, H. M., Wilhelm, O., Schulze, R., 131, 61–65. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.61, , 2005

58. The effects of navigation methods and working memory on learning achievement and cognitive load in hypertext, Kim. J. Y., Kim, H. S., 19(1), 109–128, , 2013

59. The effects of goal specificity and scaffolding on programming performance and self‐regulation in game design, Chen, M. P., Feng, C. Y., 45(2), 285–302. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12022, , 2014

60. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test, Jiménez-Fernández, C., Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., 72, 678–691. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2016.08.047, , 2017

61. Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study, Aksit, O., Wiebe, E. N., 29(1), 65–82. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z, , 2020

62. Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school students and their thinking scale skills level, Korkmaz, Ö., Bai, X., 6(1), 10–26. https://doi. org/10.17275/per.19.2.6.1, , 2019

63. Generative strategies, working memory, and word problem solving accuracy in children at risk for math disabilities, Bocian, K., Zheng, X., Moran, A. S., Lussier, C., Swanson, H. L., 36(4), 203–214. https://doi. org/10.1177/0731948712464034, , 2013

64. Promoting general metacognitive awareness Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice, In H. J. Hartman (Ed, Schraw, G., pp. 3– 16 https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8_1, , 2001

65. The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners' perspective, Gülbahar, Y., Kalelioğlu, F., 13(1), 33–50, , 2014

66. Cognitive strategy interventions improve word problem solving and working memory in children with math disabilities, Swanson, H. L., 6, Article 1099. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01099, , 2015

67. A two-tier test-based approach to improving students' computer-programming skills in a web-based learning environment, Hwang, G.-J., Yang, T.-C., Yang, S. J., Hwang, G.-H., 18(1), 198– 210. https://www. jstor. org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.1.198, , 2015

68. Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model, Saritepeci, M., Durak, H. Y., 116, 191–202. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. compedu.2017.09.004, , 2018

69. Effects of metacognitive scaffolding on the mathematics performance of grade 6 pupils in a cooperative learning environment, Tan, D. A., Dagoc, D., 7(4), 378–391, , 2018

70. The effect of cognitive and metacognitive writing strategies on content of the Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ writing, Ardestani, E. M., Modaberi, A., Pitenoee, M. R., 8(3), 594–600. http://dx. doi. org/10.17507/jltr.0803.19, , 2017

71. The effects of teaching programming with scratch on pre-service information technology teachers' motivation and achievement, Kurt, A. A., Erol, O., 77, 11–18. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2017.08.017, , 2017

72. Does cognitive strategy training on word problems compensate for working memory capacity in children with math difficulties?, Swanson, H. L., 106, 831–848. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0035838, , 2014

73. Programming skill, knowledge, and working memory among professional software developers from an investment theory perspective, Bergersen, G. R., Gustafsson, J. E., 32(4), 201–209. https://doi. org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000052, , 2011

74. Comparison of the effects of project-based computer programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students, Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., Hwang, G. J., 3(1), 33–45. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40692-015-0047-9, , 2016

75. Improving problem solving in primary school students: The effect of a training programme focusing on metacognition and working memory, Tencati, C., Drusi, S., Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., 85(3), 424–439. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjep.12083, , 2015

76. Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K‐12 students' computational thinking skills? A metaanalysis, Zhou, D., Hu, L., Sun, L., 37(4), 1048–1062. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcal.12545, , 2021

77. Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children?, Bacelo, A., Hijón-Neira, R., Pizarro, C., Pérez-Marín, D., 105, Article 105849. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. chb.2018.12.027, , 2020

78. Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using Scratch in five schools, Román-González, M., Vázquez-Cano, E., Sáez-López, J. M., 97, 129–141. https://doi. org/10.1016/j. compedu.2016.03.003, , 2016

79. Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design problem solving and metacognitive skills in an online environment, Cao, L., An, Y. J., 10(4), 552–568. https://jolt. merlot. org/vol10no4/An_1214. pdf, , 2014

80. Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment, Bulu, S. T., Pedersen, S., 58(5), 507–529. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9, , 2010

81. Investigating the role of computer‐supported annotation in problem-solving-based teaching: An empirical study of a Scratch programming pedagogy, Hwang, W. Y., Tern, M. Y., Huang, C. S., Su, A. Y., Yang, S. J., 45(4), 647–665. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12058, , 2014

82. Enhancing students’ computer programming performances, critical thinking awareness and attitudes towards programming: An online peer-assessment attempt, Liang, Z.-Y., Wang, H.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., Wang, X.-M., 20(4), 58–68. https://www. jstor. org/stable/26229205, , 2017

83. Effectiveness of collaborative learning of computer programming under different learning group formations according to students' prior knowledge: A cognitive load perspective, KaLyuga, S., Lei, C., Lee, C., Zhang, L., 27(2), 171–192. https://www. learntechlib. org/primary/p/111825/, , 2016

84. Algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving: exploring the relationship between computational thinking skills and academic performance, Saxena, A., Lemay, D. J., Bazelais, P., Basnet, R. B., Doleck, T., 4(4), 355–369. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40692-017-0090-9, , 2017

85. Metacognitive scaffolding in reading comprehension: Classroom observations reveal strategies to overcome reading obstacles of engineering students at QUEST, Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan, Abassi, A. M., Nordin, Z. S., Channa, M. A., 8(3), 131–140. http://doi. org/10.5539/ijel. v8n3p131, , 2018

86. Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self‐efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences, Durak, H. Y., 34(6), 740–752. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcal.12281, , 2018