Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding in Programming on Students’ Computational Thinking: Evidence From a Three-Level Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Promoting computational thinking (CT) through programming activities is crucial for cultivating talent in today’s digital landscape. However, recent research have revealed that students often face significant CT challenges during actual programming tasks. While it is widely recognized that additional scaffolding should be provided to support students’ programming activities, there is a lack of comprehensive quantitative synthesis on its impact and how it could function more effectively. The present study adopted a novel three-level meta-analytic method to determine the effectiveness of scaffolding within programming contexts for improving students’ CT, as well as to identify key influencing factors. Analyzing 30 empirical studies with a total of 47 effect sizes, the findings demonstrate that: (1) Scaffolding in programming has a high positive effect on students’ CT development (Hedges’s g = 0.71, p < 0.0001). (2) Intervention duration and educational level emerged as significant moderators, with scaffolding showing greater effects in short-term interventions and among younger students. Based on these findings, several implications for both educational practice and future research have been proposed.

Keywords

scaffolding programming activities computational thinking three-level meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

* = study included in the meta-analysis.

* Aksit

Wiebe

E. N.

(2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z

* Alghamdi

M. Y.

(2025). Measuring the impact of web‐based educational tools on enhancing student learning indicators in programming skills, computational thinking, and problem‐solving. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 33(2), Article e70011. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.70011

* Angeli

Georgiou

(2023). Investigating the effects of gender and scaffolding in developing preschool children’s computational thinking during problem-solving with Bee-Bots. Frontiers in Education, 7, 757627. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.757627

Babakr

Z. H.

Mohamedamin

Kakamad

(2019). Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory: Critical review. Education Quarterly Review, 2(3), 517–524. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.03.84

Bailey

Duncan

G. J.

Odgers

C. L.

(2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of research on educational effectiveness, 10(1), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459

Ballard

E. D.

Haroldson

(2022). Analysis of computational thinking in children’s literature for K-6 students: Literature as a non-programming unplugged resource. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(8), 1487–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211004048

Belland

Walker

Kim

Lefler

(2016). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999

Belland

B. R.

Kim

Hannafin

M. J.

(2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920

10.

Belland

B. R.

Walker

A. E.

Kim

N. J.

Lefler

(2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999

11.

Belland

B. R.

Weiss

D. M.

Kim

N. J.

Piland

(2019). An examination of credit recovery students’ use of computer-based scaffolding in a problem-based, scientific inquiry unit. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(2), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9872-9

12.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2010). A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12

13.

Cai

Mao

Wang

Chen

Fan

(2022). Effects of scaffolding in digital game-based learning on student’s achievement: A three-level meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 537–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09655-0

14.

Carranza-Pinedo

Diprossimo

(2025). Scaffolding and individuality in early childhood development. Topoi, 44(2), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10155-3

15.

Chang

L. C.

Lin

H. R.

Lin

J. W.

(2024). Learning motivation, outcomes, and anxiety in programming courses—A computational thinking–centered method. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 545–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12313-3

16.

Cheah

C. S.

(2020). Factors contributing to the difficulties in teaching and learning of computer programming: A literature review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), Article ep272. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8247

17.

Chen

Zhang

Luo

Zhu

Lin

(2024). Effects of group awareness support in CSCL on students’ learning performance: A three-level meta-analysis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 19(1), 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-024-09418-3

18.

Chen

Yang

Metwally

A. H. S.

Lavonen

Wang

(2023). Fostering computational thinking through unplugged activities: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00434-7

19.

* Chen

C. H.

Chung

H. Y.

(2024). Fostering computational thinking and problem-solving in programming: Integrating concept maps into robot block-based programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(1), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231205052

20.

* Chen

S. J.

Shan

Liu

Z. M.

Chen

C. Q.

(2025). Employing large language models to enhance K-12 students’ programming debugging skills, computational thinking, and self-efficacy. Educational Technology & Society, 28(2), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202504_28(2).TP01

21.

Chernikova

Heitzmann

Fink

Timothy

Seidel

Fischer

(2019). Facilitating diagnostic competences in higher education—A meta-analysis in medical and teacher education. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 157–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09492-2

22.

Cheung

(2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968

23.

* Chevalier

Giang

El-Hamamsy

Bonnet

Papaspyros

Pellet

J. P.

Audrin

Romero

Baumberger

Mondada

(2022). The role of feedback and guidance as intervention methods to foster computational thinking in educational robotics learning activities for primary school. Computers & Education, 180, 104431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104431

24.

Choi

Jovanovic

Poquet

Brooks

Joksimović

Williams

J. J.

(2023). The benefit of reflection prompts for encouraging learning with hints in an online programming course. The Internet and Higher Education, 58, 100903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2023.100903

25.

Cohen

(2016). A power primer. In Kazdin

A. E.

(Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed., pp. 279–284). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-018

26.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1(20), 416–436. https://digital.casalini.it/9781446250068-Casaliniid:5017496

27.

Dennen

V. P.

Burner

K. J.

(2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In Spector

J. M.

Merrill

M. D.

van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

Driscoll

M. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 3rd ed., 425–439). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869

28.

Ezeamuzie

N. O.

Leung

J. S.

(2022). Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 481–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158

29.

* Fanchamps

N. L.

Slangen

Hennissen

Specht

(2021). The influence of SRA programming on algorithmic thinking and self-efficacy using lego robotics in two types of instruction. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09559-9

30.

* Fang

J. W.

Shao

Hwang

G. J.

Chang

S. C.

(2022). From critique to computational thinking: A peer-assessment-supported problem identification, flow definition, coding, and testing approach for computer programming instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1301–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211060470

31.

Fernández-Castilla

Said-Metwaly

Kreitchmann

R. S.

Van Den Noortgate

(2024). What do meta-analysts need in primary studies? Guidelines and the SEMI checklist for facilitating cumulative knowledge. Behavior Research Methods, 56(4), 3315–3329. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02373-9

32.

Fischer

K. W.

(1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.477

33.

* Gao

Yang

Sun

(2025). Effect of mind mapping-based scaffolding on elementary students’ computational thinking in block-based programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(1), 236–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241303067

34.

Land

S. M.

(2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515

35.

Grover

Pea

(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

36.

* Gu

Cheng

Xia

Cheng

Dong

(2025). Scaffolding self-regulation in project-based programming learning through online collaborative diaries to promote computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 30(12), 16243–16267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13367-1

37.

* Luis Castro‐San Martín Hijón‐Neira

Pizarro

José

M. C.

(2024). Fostering computational thinking with simulated 3D robots in secondary education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(4), Article e22740. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22740

38.

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

39.

Huang

Y. P.

Kim

Pan

Zheng

X. L.

Y. F.

(2025). Promoting elementary school students’ programming learning: Effects of metacognitive vs. cognitive scaffolding. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(4), 914–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2338086

40.

* Huang

Han

Villanueva

Liu

Zhu

Ramani

Peppler

(2024). Deepening children’s STEM learning through making and creative writing. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 40, 100651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100651

41.

* Huang

S. Y.

Tarng

K. L.

(2023). Effectiveness of AR board game on computational thinking and programming skills for elementary school students. Systems, 11(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11010025

42.

Huertas

López

Sanabria

(2017). Influence of a metacognitive scaffolding for information search in b-learning courses on learning achievement and its relationship with cognitive and learning style. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116656634

43.

* Jin

Sun

Wang

(2021, December). The impact of different types of scaffolding in project-based learning on girls’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. In 2021 tenth international conference of educational innovation through technology (EITT) (pp. 362-366). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT53287.2021.00077

44.

Kalyuga

(2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3

45.

* Kastner-Hauler

Tengler

Sabitzer

Lavicza

(2022). Combined effects of block-based programming and physical computing on primary students’ computational thinking skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 875382. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875382

46.

Kim

N. J.

Belland

B. R.

Walker

A. E.

(2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1

47.

Lai

Wong

G. K. W.

(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

48.

Lefa

(2014). The Piaget theory of cognitive development: An educational implications. Educational Psychology, 1(1), 1–8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265916960

49.

* Lin

X.-F.

Wang

Chen

Zhou

Luo

Wang

Liang

Z.-M.

(2023). Effect of a reflection-guided visualized mindtool strategy for improving students’ learning performance and behaviors in computational thinking development. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 165–180. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48721003

50.

Lye

S. Y.

Koh

J. H. L.

(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

51.

Zhang

Zhu

Zhao

Wang

(2023). Game-based learning for students’ computational thinking: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(7), 1430–1463. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231178948

52.

* Ma

Liu

Chen

(2020, December). Effects of integrating collaboration scripts into pair programming for developing computational thinking. In 2020 ninth international conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) (pp. 246–249). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT50754.2020.00050

53.

Medeiros

Ramalho

Falcao

T. P.

(2019). A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2864133

54.

Miguel-Alonso

Checa

Guillen-Sanz

Bustillo

(2024). Evaluation of the novelty effect in immersive virtual reality learning experiences. Virtual Reality, 28(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00926-5

55.

Mills

K. A.

Cope

Scholes

Rowe

(2025). Coding and computational thinking across the curriculum: A review of educational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 95(3), 581–618. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241241327

56.

Mladenović

Žanko

Ž.

Zaharija

(2024). From blocks to text: Bridging programming misconceptions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(5), 1082–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241240047

57.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

PRISMA Group . (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

58.

Schunn

C. D.

(2025). The good, bad, and ugly of comment prompts: Effects on length and helpfulness of peer feedback. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00502-8

59.

* Ou Yang

F. C.

Lai

H. M.

Wang

Y. W.

(2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students’ enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 195, 104721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104721

60.

Peeters

(2016). Practical significance: Moving beyond statistical significance. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPTL.2015.09.001

61.

Polat

Hopcan

Kucuk

Sisman

(2021). A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1965–1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13092

62.

Puntambekar

Hubscher

(2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1

63.

Rabindran

Madanagopal

(2020). Piaget’s theory and stages of cognitive development-an overview. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences, 8(9), 2152–2157. https://doi.org/10.36347/sjams.2020.v08i09.034

64.

Ran

Zhang

Niu

(2022). The association between social anxiety and mobile phone addiction: A three-level meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107198

65.

Rasku-Puttonen

Eteläpelto

Arvaja

Häkkinen

(2003). Is successful scaffolding an illusion? shifting patterns of responsibility and control in teacher-student interaction during a long-term learning project. Instructional Science, 31(6), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025700810376

66.

* Rich

Browning

S. F.

(2022). Using dr. Scratch as a formative feedback tool to assess computational thinking. In Handbook of research on integrating computer science and computational thinking in K-12 education (pp. 220–242). IGI Global. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357487173

67.

Rodrigues

Pereira

F. D.

Toda

A. M.

Palomino

P. T.

Pessoa

Carvalho

L. S. G.

Fernandes

Oliveira

E. H. T.

Cristea

A. I.

Isotani

(2022). Gamification suffers from the novelty effect but benefits from the familiarization effect: Findings from a longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00314-6

68.

Rosenberg

M. S.

(2005). The file‐drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail‐safe numbers in meta‐analysis. Evolution, 59(2), 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01004.x

69.

Rosenthal

(1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(79)90291-6

70.

Saygıner

Ş.

Tüzün

(2023). The effects of block‐based visual and text‐based programming training on students’ achievement, logical thinking skills, and motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12771

71.

* Shanshan

Sen

(2024). Empowering learners with AI‐generated content for programming learning and computational thinking: The lens of extended effective use theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(4), 1941–1958. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12996

72.

Shin

Jung

Zumbach

(2023). The effects of worked-out example and metacognitive scaffolding on problem-solving programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(6), 1312–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231174454

73.

Shute

V. J.

Sun

Asbell-Clarke

(2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

74.

Silva

Mendes

Gomes

Fortes

(2023). Fostering regulatory processes using computational scaffolding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 18(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09388-y

75.

* Sivasakthi

Meenakshi

(2025). Generative AI in programming education: Evaluating ChatGPT’s effect on computational thinking. SN Computer Science, 6(5), 541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-025-04051-9

76.

Stemler

S. E.

(2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.7275/96jp-xz07

77.

Stewart

W. H.

Baek

Kwid

Taylor

(2021). Exploring factors that influence computational thinking skills in elementary students’ collaborative robotics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1208–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992479

78.

Sun

Guo

(2023). Educational games promote the development of students’ computational thinking: A meta-analytic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3476–3490. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1931891

79.

Tang

Yin

Lin

Hadad

Zhai

(2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

80.

Tawfik

A. A.

Law

Xing

Kim

(2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035

81.

* Threekunprapa

Yasri

(2021). The role of augmented reality-based unplugged computer programming approach in the effectiveness of computational thinking. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 15(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2021.116506

82.

* Tikva

Tambouris

(2023). The effect of scaffolding programming games and attitudes towards programming on the development of computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6845–6867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11465-y

83.

Tirado-Morueta

Ceada-Garrido

Barragán

A. J.

Enrique

J. M.

Andujar

J. M.

(2024). The association of self-determination with student engagement moderated by teacher scaffolding in a Project-Based Learning (PBL) case. Educational Studies, 50(5), 806–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.2003185

84.

Tsay

C. H.

Kofinas

A. K.

Trivedi

S. K.

Yang

(2020). Overcoming the novelty effect in online gamified learning systems: An empirical evaluation of student engagement and performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12385

85.

Vanbecelaere

Said‐Metwaly

Van den Noortgate

Reynvoet

Depaepe

(2023). The effectiveness of tier 1 digital interventions for early reading: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1397–1432. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13351

86.

Vandercruysse

ter Vrugte

de Jong

Wouters

van Oostendorp

Verschaffel

Moeyaert

Elen

(2016). The effectiveness of a math game: The impact of integrating conceptual clarification as support. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.004

87.

van Nooijen

C. C. A.

de Koning

B. B.

Bramer

W. M.

Isahakyan

Asoodar

Kok

van Merrienboer

J. J. G.

Paas

(2024). A cognitive load theory approach to understanding expert scaffolding of visual problem-solving tasks: A scoping review. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3

88.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (86). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4

89.

* Wang

C. Y.

Gao

B. L.

Chen

S. J.

(2024). The effects of metacognitive scaffolding of project-based learning environments on students’ metacognitive ability and computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 29(5), 5485–5508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12022-x

90.

* Wan

Zhang

Yang

(2024). Which approach is effective: Comparing problematization-oriented and structuring-oriented scaffolding in instructional videos for programming education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(14), 17807–17823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12550-0

91.

Wing

J. M.

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

92.

Wood

Bruner

J. S.

Ross

(1976). 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. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228039919

93.

Xing

(2022). Predicting key factors affecting secondary school students’ computational thinking skills under the smart classroom environment: Evidence from the science course. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(1), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.156

94.

* Xu

Tong

M. W.

Meng

Fan

C. Y.

(2019, August). Application of concept map in the study of computational thinking training. In 2019 14th international conference on computer science & education (ICCSE) (pp. 454–459). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2019.8845505

95.

Yadav

Ocak

Oliver

(2022). Computational thinking and metacognition. TechTrends, 66(3), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00695-z

96.

* Yan

Y. M.

Chen

C. Q.

Y. B.

X. D.

(2025). LLM-based collaborative programming: Impact on students’ computational thinking and self-efficacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 149–1142. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04471-1

97.

* Yang

F. C. O.

Lai

H. M.

Wang

Y. W.

98.

(2025). Effects of block-based visual programming on K-12 students’ learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(1), 64–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241293163

99.

Zhang

Luo

Zhu

Yin

(2021). Educational robots improve K-12 students’ computational thinking and STEM attitudes: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1450–1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994070

100.

* Zhang

J. H.

Meng

Zou

L. C.

Zhu

Hwang

G. J.

(2023). Progressive flowchart development scaffolding to improve university students’ computational thinking and programming self-efficacy. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3792–3809. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943687

101.

* Zhao

Liu

Wang

Y. S.

(2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education, 181, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445

102.

Zheng

Zhen

Niu

Zhong

(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

103.

Zhong

(2020). Troubleshooting to learn via scaffolds: Effect on students’ ability and cognitive load in a robotics course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120951871

104.

* Zhou

Chai

C. S.

Liang

J. C.

(2023). Application of metacognitive planning scaffolding for the cultivation of computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(6), 1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231160294

105.

Zuo

Kong

Xiao

(2023). The effects of using scaffolding in online learning: A meta-analysis. Education Sciences, 13(7), 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070705

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.91 MB