Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of metacognitive scaffolding of project-based learning environments on students’ metacognitive ability and computational thinking

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

How to develop students' computational thinking (CT) is an important topic faced by academics and front-line teachers. However, the solution of programming problems requires paying attention to every detail of the problem and building a solution to the problem step by step, and for beginners, they often get stuck when one of these aspects goes wrong because of the lack of metacognitive abilities. The integration of metacognitive scaffolding in project-based programming instruction can help students identify their strengths, become more aware of their learning status and identify problems in a timely manner. Therefore, this study designed a metacognitive scaffolding in four aspects: planning, monitoring, reflecting and evaluating, and assessed the effects of this scaffolding on students' CT, learning achievement and metacognitive abilities through a quasi-experimental design. The participants were 70 students aged 9–11 years in elementary school, where the experimental group (38 students) used a metacognitive scaffolding-based project-based learning approach, while the control group (32 students) used a traditional project-based learning approach. The results indicate that metacognitive scaffolding has a facilitative effect in helping students improve their CT and learning achievement, but does not significantly improve metacognitive abilities. This study provides insights into the deeper development of students' CT development and metacognitive scaffolding design.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data and materials are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Abdullah, F. P. Y., Wing, C. K., Alizadeh, F., & Hwa, P. C. (2021). The role of instructional scaffolding to facilitate problem solving skills in music improvisation. Mier-Journal of Educational Studies Trends and Practices, 11(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2021/v11/i1/1763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018

  • Apiola, M., & Sutinen, E. (2021). Design science research for learning software engineering and computational thinking: Four cases. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a Computational Thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen, J., Caspersen, M. E., & Kölling, M. (2008). Reflections on the teaching of programming: Methods and implementations (Vol. 4821). Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. (pp. 17–66). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing. Supporting the Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M. A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V., & Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education. JRC Publications Repository. https://doi.org/10.2760/126955

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education-Implications for policy and practice. Joint Research Centre (Seville site).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boom, K.-D., Bower, M., Siemon, J., & Arguel, A. (2022). Relationships between computational thinking and the quality of computer programs. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8289–8310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10921-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callender, A. A., Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Roberts, A. S. (2016). Improving metacognition in the classroom through instruction, training, and feedback. Metacognition and Learning, 11(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9142-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., Tsui, P.-L., & Lee, C.-S. (2021). Is mathematics required for cooking? An interdisciplinary approach to integrating computational thinking in a culinary and restaurant management course. Mathematics, 9(18), 2219. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9182219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, C.-F. (2020). Facilitating k-12 teachers in creating apps by visual programming and project-based learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15(1), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Council, N. R. (2011). Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. https://doi.org/10.17226/13170

  • Davidson, J. E., Deuser, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The role of metacognition in problem solving. In Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 207–226). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4561.001.0001

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognitive and cognitive monitoring: A new era of psychological inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, X., & Hew, K. F. (2022). Toward a 5E-Based flipped classroom model for teaching computational thinking in elementary school: Effects on student computational thinking and problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 512–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211037757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Heinemann Portsmouth, NH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 37(2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, T.-C., & Liang, Y.-S. (2021). Simultaneously improving computational thinking and foreign language learning: Interdisciplinary media with plugged and unplugged approaches. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1184–1207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, H.-P., Wenting, Z., & Hughes, J. E. (2019). Developing elementary students’ digital literacy through augmented reality creation: Insights from a longitudinal analysis of questionnaires, interviews, and projects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1400–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K., Ge, X., & Eseryel, D. (2017). Metaconceptually-enhanced simulation-based inquiry: Effects on eighth grade students’ conceptual change and science epistemic beliefs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9462-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G.-J., Li, K.-C., & Lai, C.-L. (2020). Trends and strategies for conducting effective STEM research and applications: A mobile and ubiquitous learning perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTE. (2016, June). ISTE Standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students

  • Janneke, V., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Spector, M. J., Driscoll, M., Merrill, M. D., van Merrienboer, J., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(3), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V., & Cole, M. (2002). Individual and collective activities in educational computer game playing. Cscl, 2, 303–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y., & Lim, K. Y. (2019). Promoting learning in online, ill-structured problem solving: The effects of scaffolding type and metacognition level. Computers & Education, 138, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S. C., & Liu, B. (2020). A performance-based assessment platform for developing computational thinking concepts and practices: EasyCode. Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Learning Technology (ISSN: 2306-0212), 20(2), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem–solving, meta–cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3–4), 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, X., & Wong, G. K. (2022). Collaborative versus individual problem solving in computational thinking through programming: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laura-Ochoa, L., Bedregal-Alpaca, N., & Vidal, E. (2022). Improving computational thinking in nursing students through learning computer programming. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 13(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2022.0130571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., Drake, M. F., & O'Donnell-Johnson, T. (1997). Scaffolding techniques of expert human tutors. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 108–144). Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loksa, D., & Ko, A. J. (2016). The role of self-regulation in programming problem solving process and success. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 83–91.

  • Lye, S., & Koh, J. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, J. A., & Magana, A. J. (2020). Computational thinking in higher education: A review of the literature. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference, 1–29.

  • Metcalfe, J. F., & Shimamura, P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science, 39(6), 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9154-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pala, F. K., & Turker, P. M. (2021). The effects of different programming trainings on the computational thinking skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1090–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1635495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019). Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieger, E., & Bannert, M. (2018). Differential effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozuelos, J. P., Combita, L. M., Abundis, A., Paz-Alonso, P. M., Conejero, Á., Guerra, S., & Rueda, M. R. (2019). Metacognitive scaffolding boosts cognitive and neural benefits following executive attention training in children. Developmental Science, 22(2), e12756. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12756

    Article  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. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287374

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Volume II. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics (Reprint). Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, K., Papavlasopoulou, S., & Giannakos, M. (2019). Coding games and robots to enhance computational thinking: How collaboration and engagement moderate children’s attitudes? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, S., & Song, H.-D. (2016). Finding the optimal scaffoldings for learners’ epistemological beliefs during ill-structured problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2032–2047. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1073749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding. Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development (1th ed., pp. 169–183). Routledge.

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valencia-Vallejo, N., Lopez-Vargas, O., & Sanabria-Rodriguez, L. (2019). Effect of a metacognitive scaffolding on self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement in e-learning environments. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 11(1), Article 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallejos-Yopan, R., & Rodriguez-Gonzalez, E. (2022). Infusing metacognition into advanced linguistics courses. Language, 98(3), E131–E155. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (2006). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60, 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Ocak, C., & Oliver, A. (2022). Computational thinking and metacognition. TechTrends, 66(3), 405–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. D., & Lewis, S. E. (2022). Evaluating peer-led team learning integrated into online instruction in promoting general chemistry student success. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(3), 1392–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, L., Zhen, Y., Niu, J., & Zhong, L. (2022). An exploratory study on fade-in versus fade-out scaffolding for novice programmers in online collaborative programming settings. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(2), 489–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09307-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the philosophy and social science research program of Zhejiang Province [22NDJC140YB], and Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LY20F020031].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, 325035, China

    Cui-Yu Wang, Bao-Lian Gao & Shu-Jie Chen

Authors
  1. Cui-Yu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bao-Lian Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu-Jie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Cui-Yu Wang. and Bao-Lian Gao. designed research, performed research. Cui-Yu Wang. analyzed data, and wrote the paper. Shu-Jie Chen. reviewed and edited the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu-Jie Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The experiment was approved by the Ethical Committee of Wenzhou University and was run in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

The participants all agreed to take part in this study.

Consent for publication

The publication of this study has been approved by all authors.

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

There is no potential conflict of interest in this study.

Institutional review board statement

Not applicable.

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

Wang, CY., Gao, BL. & Chen, SJ. The effects of metacognitive scaffolding of project-based learning environments on students’ metacognitive ability and computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol 29, 5485–5508 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12022-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12022-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation