This study explores instructional interventions designed to support mastery learning among fifth- and sixth-grade students in an after-school setup using block-based coding platforms. It presents a cognitive apprenticeship-based pair programming (PP) approach through which educators can design lessons that can offer targeted learning support to enhance computational thinking (CT) and co-regulation. Specifically, the study examines the effects of integrating role switching within three core phases of the cognitive apprenticeship in a PP environment. Using a quasi-experimental design (N = 85), we administered a pre- and post-test CT questionnaire, a post-test co-regulation questionnaire, activity sheets, and reflective journals to novice learners in an after-school program. The findings indicate that embedding the three core phases of cognitive apprenticeship, together with structured role switching in PP, significantly enhanced elementary students’ CT and co-regulation. An integrated instructional design, comprising brief modeling videos for knowledge delivery, structured scaffolding and reflection for CT development, and role switching to foster co-regulation and reduce cognitive load, offers a practical and scalable approach to collaborative learning. The study also offers recommendations for future research and instructional design to refine PP practices in collaborative learning contexts.
AI Convergence Education Research Support Center. (2021). Excellence case collection of the 1st AI convergence education lesson plan contest. https://aied.dnue.ac.kr/
2.
AkpanB. (2020). Mastery learning—Benjamin bloom. In Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory (pp. 149–162). Springer International Publishing.
3.
AllalL. (2020). Assessment and the co-regulation of learning in the classroom. Assessment in education: Principles. Policy & Practice, 27(4), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1609411
4.
AngeliC.GiannakosM. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, Article 106185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185
5.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory: Prentice-Hall.
6.
BhattacherjeeA. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices (pp. 89–92). University of South Florida.
7.
BloomB. S.CarrollJ. B. (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. In BlockJ. H. (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
CampeS.DennerJ.GreenE.TorresD. (2020). Pair programming in middle school: Variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119
10.
ChenH. E.SunD.HsuT. C.YangY.SunJ. (2023). Visualising trends in computational thinking research from 2012 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101224
11.
CollinsA.BrownJ. S.HolumA. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6–11.
12.
CollinsA.KapurM. (2022). Cognitive apprenticeship. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 156–174). Cambridge University Press.
13.
DennenV. P. (2004). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 813–828). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
14.
DiDonatoN. C. (2013). Effective self-and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9
15.
DongoT.ReedA. H.O’HaraM. T. (2016). Exploring pair programming benefits for MIS majors. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 223–239. https://doi.org/10.28945/3625
16.
GarciaM. B. (2023). Facilitating group learning using an apprenticeship model: Which master is more effective in programming instruction?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(6), 1207–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231170382
17.
GreerD. A.CathcartA.NealeL. (2016). Helping doctoral students teach: Transitioning to early career academia through cognitive apprenticeship. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137873
18.
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/10.3102/0013189X12463
19.
GroverS.PeaR. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer Science Education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school, 19(1), 19–38.
20.
HaS. Y. (2020). Factors influencing the effect of online SW liberal education: The mediating effect of learning engagement[Unpublished Master’s dissertation]. Ewha womans University.
21.
HadwinA.OshigeM. (2011). Self-regulation, co-regulation and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300204
22.
HawlitschekA.BerndtS.SchulzS. (2022). Empirical research on pair programming in higher education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 400–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2039504
23.
HawlitschekA.JoeckelS. (2017). Increasing the effectiveness of digital educational games: The effects of a learning instruction on students’ learning, motivation and cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.040
24.
HiroseM.CreswellJ. W. (2023). Applying core quality criteria of mixed methods research to an empirical study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221086346
25.
HopcanS.PolatE.AlbayrakE. (2022). Collaborative behavior patterns of students in programming instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 1035–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211062260
26.
JärveläS. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00007-P
JärveläS.KirschnerP. A.HadwinA.Ja ̈rvenojaH.MalmbergJ.MillerM.LaruJ. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: Understanding and prompting individual- and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9238-2
29.
JärvenojaH.JärveläS.MalmbergJ. (2015). Understanding regulated learning in situative and contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075400
30.
KorkmazÖ.ÇakirR.ÖzdenM. 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
31.
LamR.KapurM. (2018). Preparation for future collaboration: Cognitively preparing for learning from collaboration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1386156
32.
LemanP. J.AhmedS.OzarowL. (2005). Gender, gender relations, and the social dynamics of children's conversations. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.64
33.
LiebenbergJ.MentzE.BreedB. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject Information Technology (IT). Computer Science Education, 22(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.713180
34.
LimK. Y.LimJ. Y.KimH. J. (2017). Exploratory study of the self-regulation in collaborative context scale for college students. Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 567–598. https://doi.org/10.17232/KSET.33.3.567
35.
MayerR. (2008). Teaching by creating cognitive apprenticeship in classrooms and beyond. Learning and Instruction, 2, 458–489.
36.
Ministry of Education. (2015). Guidelines for software education operation. Ministry of Education.
37.
PuntambekarS.KolodnerJ. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048
38.
RadkowitschA.VogelF.FischerF. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International journal of computer-supported collaborative learning, 15(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09316-4
39.
RelkinE.de RuiterL. E.BersM. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & education, 169, Article 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222
40.
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.Monroy-HernándezA.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.MillnerA.RosenbaumE.SilverJ.SilvermanB.KafaiY. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
41.
SchulzS.BerndtS.HawlitschekA. (2022). Exploring students’ and lecturers’ views on collaboration and cooperation in computer science courses - A qualitative analysis. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 318–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.2022361
42.
SchunkD. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective. Pearson Education.
43.
ShafferJ. A.DeGeestD.LiA. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281155982
44.
SongD.HongH.OhE. Y. (2021). Applying computational analysis of novice learners’ computer programming patterns to reveal self-regulated learning, computational thinking, and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106746
45.
SuJ.YangW. (2023). A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education. Computers and Education Open, 4, Article 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122
46.
SunL.HuL.ZhouD. (2021). Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K-12 students' computational thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12545
47.
TsanJ.LynchC. F.BoyerK. E. (2018). “Alright, what do we need?”: A study of young coders’ collaborative dialogue. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17(2018), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.03.001
48.
VygotskyL. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (2). Springer.
49.
WeiX.LinL.MengN.TanW.KongS. C.Kinshuk (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & education, 160, Article 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023
50.
WilliamsL.WiebeE.YangK.FerzliM.MillerC. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.12.3.197.8618
51.
WilliamsL. A. (2010). Pair programming. In LaplanteP. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of software engineering (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
WorrellB.BrandC.RepenningA. (2015, October). Collaboration and computational thinking: A classroom structure. In 2015 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 183–187). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2015.7357215
54.
WuY. T.ShenP. D.LinC. H. (2022). The effects of cognitive apprenticeship and Co-Regulated learning on improving student computer problem-solving skills and learning motivation: A quasi-experiment in an “Applied Information Technology: Office Software” course. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.299355
55.
XiaoranL. (2023, July). Exploring the relationship between individual learners' physiological arousal and learning outcomes in collaborative learning. In 2023 IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 139–143). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT58122.2023.00047
56.
YadavA.MayfieldC.ZhouN.HambruschS.KorbJ. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
57.
YangS.BairdM.O'RourkeE.BrennanK.SchneiderB. (2025). Decoding debugging instruction: A systematic literature review of debugging interventions. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 24(4), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3690652
58.
YinS. X.GohD. H.-L.QuekC. L.LiuZ. (2025). Mapping the public understanding of computational thinking education: Insights from social Q&A platform discussions. Educational Technology & Society, 28(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202504_28(2).RP02
59.
ZhongB.WangQ.ChenJ.LiY. (2017). Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 220–233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26196132
60.
ZimmermanB. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
61.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (2002). Albert Bandura: The man and his contributions to educational psychology. In ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H. (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431–457). Erlbaum.
62.
ZimmermanB. J.SchunkD. H.DiBenedettoM. K. (2015). A personal agency view of self-regulated learning: The role of goal setting. In GuayF.MarshH.McInerneyD. M.CravenR. G. (Eds.), Self-concept, motivation, and identity: Underpinnings of success with research and practice (pp. 83–114). Information Age Publishing.
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.
