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.
*AksitO.WiebeE. 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
3.
*AlghamdiM. 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
4.
*AngeliC.GeorgiouK. (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
BaileyD.DuncanG. J.OdgersC. L.YuW. (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
7.
BallardE. D.HaroldsonR. (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
8.
BellandB.WalkerA.KimN.LeflerM. (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
9.
BellandB. R.KimC.HannafinM. 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.
BellandB. R.WalkerA. E.KimN. J.LeflerM. (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.
BellandB. R.WeissD. M.KimN. J.PilandJ.GuJ. (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.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. 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.
CaiZ.MaoP.WangD.HeJ.ChenX.FanX. (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
ChangL. C.LinH. R.LinJ. 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.
CheahC. 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.
ChenD.ZhangY.LuoH.ZhuZ.MaJ.LinY. (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.
ChenP.YangD.MetwallyA. H. S.LavonenJ.WangX. (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.
*ChenC. H.ChungH. 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.
*ChenS. J.ShanX.LiuZ. M.ChenC. 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.
ChernikovaO.HeitzmannN.FinkM.TimothyV.SeidelT.FischerF. (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.
CheungM. (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.
*ChevalierM.GiangC.El-HamamsyL.BonnetE.PapaspyrosV.PelletJ. P.AudrinC.RomeroM.BaumbergerB.MondadaF. (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.
ChoiH.JovanovicJ.PoquetO.BrooksC.JoksimovićS.WilliamsJ. 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.
CohenJ. (2016). A power primer. In KazdinA. E. (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed., pp. 279–284). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-018
DennenV. P.BurnerK. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. In SpectorJ. M.MerrillM. D.van MerriënboerJ. J. G.DriscollM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 3rd ed., 425–439). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880869
28.
EzeamuzieN. O.LeungJ. 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.
*FanchampsN. L.SlangenL.HennissenP.SpechtM. (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.
*FangJ. W.ShaoD.HwangG. J.ChangS. 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-CastillaB.Said-MetwalyS.KreitchmannR. S.Van Den NoortgateW. (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.
FischerK. 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.
*GaoX.YangY.DuY.SunD. (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.
GeX.LandS. 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.
GroverS.PeaR. (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.
*GuP.WuJ.ChengZ.XiaY.ChengM.DongY. (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 MartínHijón‐NeiraR.PizarroC.JoséM. 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.
HsuT. C.ChangS. C.HungY. 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.
HuangY. P.KimH.PanY.ZhengX. L.TuY. 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.
*HuangJ.HanA.VillanuevaA.LiuZ.ZhuZ.RamaniK.PepplerK. (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.
*HuangS. Y.TarngW.OuK. 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.
HuertasA.LópezO.SanabriaL. (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.
*JinY.SunJ.MaH.WangX. (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.
KalyugaS. (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-HaulerO.TenglerK.SabitzerB.LaviczaZ. (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.
KimN. J.BellandB. R.WalkerA. 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.
LaiX.WongG. 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
*LinX.-F.WangJ.ChenY.ZhouY.LuoG.WangZ.LiangZ.-M.HuX.LiW. (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.
LyeS. Y.KohJ. 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.
MaJ.ZhangY.ZhuZ.ZhaoS.WangQ. (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.
*MaZ.LiuY.ChenM. (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.
MedeirosR.RamalhoG.FalcaoT. 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-AlonsoI.ChecaD.Guillen-SanzH.BustilloA. (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.
MillsK. A.CopeJ.ScholesL.RoweL. (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.
MladenovićM.ŽankoŽ.ZaharijaG. (2024). From blocks to text: Bridging programming misconceptions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(5), 1082–1106. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241240047
57.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. 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.
MuH.SchunnC. 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 YangF. C.LaiH. M.WangY. 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.
PeetersM. (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.
PolatE.HopcanS.KucukS.SismanB. (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.
PuntambekarS.HubscherR. (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.
RabindranR.MadanagopalD. (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.
RanG.LiJ.ZhangQ.NiuX. (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-PuttonenH.EteläpeltoA.ArvajaM.HäkkinenP. (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.
*RichP.BrowningS. 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.
RodriguesL.PereiraF. D.TodaA. M.PalominoP. T.PessoaM.CarvalhoL. S. G.FernandesD.OliveiraE. H. T.CristeaA. I.IsotaniS. (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.
RosenbergM. 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
SaygınerŞ.TüzünH. (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.
*ShanshanS.SenG. (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.
ShinY.JungJ.ZumbachJ.YiE. (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
SilvaL.MendesA.GomesA.FortesG. (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.
*SivasakthiM.MeenakshiA. (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.
StemlerS. 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.
StewartW. H.BaekY.KwidG.TaylorK. (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.
SunL.GuoZ.HuL. (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.
TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
80.
TawfikA. A.LawV.GeX.XingW.KimK. (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.
*ThreekunprapaA.YasriP. (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.
*TikvaC.TambourisE. (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-MoruetaR.Ceada-GarridoY.BarragánA. J.EnriqueJ. M.AndujarJ. 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.
TsayC. H.KofinasA. K.TrivediS. K.YangY. (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.
VanbecelaereS.Said‐MetwalyS.Van den NoortgateW.ReynvoetB.DepaepeF. (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.
VandercruysseS.ter VrugteJ.de JongT.WoutersP.van OostendorpH.VerschaffelL.MoeyaertM.ElenJ. (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 NooijenC. C. A.de KoningB. B.BramerW. M.IsahakyanA.AsoodarM.KokE.van MerrienboerJ. J. G.PaasF. (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.
VygotskyL. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (86). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
89.
*WangC. Y.GaoB. L.ChenS. 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.
*WanH.ZhangX.YangX.LiS. (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
XingD.LuC. (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.
*XuL.TongM. W.LiB.MengJ.FanC. 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
*YanY. M.ChenC. Q.HuY. B.YeX. 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.
*YangF. C. O.LaiH. M.WangY. 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
98.
YuQ.YuK.LiB. (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
*ZhangJ. H.MengB.ZouL. C.ZhuY.HwangG. 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.
*ZhaoL.LiuX.WangC.SuY. 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.
ZhengL.ZhenY.NiuJ.ZhongL. (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.
ZhongB.SiQ. (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.
*ZhouY.ChaiC. S.LiX.MaC.LiB.YuD.LiangJ. 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.
ZuoM.KongS.MaY.HuY.XiaoM. (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.
