Cited by 18Teaching and Learning ProgrammingVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The Effects of Worked-Out Example and Metacognitive Scaffolding on Problem-Solving Programming

Shin, Yoonhee, Jung, Jaewon, Zumbach, Joerg, Yi, Eunseon·2023·Journal of Educational Computing Research

Abstract

This study explores the effects of worked-out examples and metacognitive scaffolding on novice learners’ knowledge performance, cognitive loads, and self-regulation skills in problem-solving programming. 126 undergraduate students in a computer programming fundamentals course were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) task performance with a traditional WOE (TW), 2) task performance with a faded WOE (FW), 3) task performance with traditional WOE and metacognitive scaffolding (TWM), and 4) task performance with a faded WOE and metacognitive scaffolding (FWM). Over the course of 3 weeks, participants in these four groups were asked to solve programming problems using Python with WOE and metacognitive scaffolding. The results demonstrate that the provision of metacognitive scaffolding with faded WOE (FWM) is the most effective for problem-solving programming and self-regulation skills. In addition, an interaction effect exists between the two treatments for the germane load in FWM. Therefore, results in this study provide empirical insights into ways to effectively apply WOE and metacognitive scaffolding to problem-solving processes for programming-based complex problem-solving, especially for novice learners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/07356331231174454

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ge X., 2016, The pre-conference workshop at the 12th international conference of the learning sciences, 19
  2. López-Vargas O., 2017, Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 20, 145
  3. Renkl A., 2000, In proceeding of the 22nd annual Conference of the cognitive science society, 393
  4. Salleh S. M., 2018, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118, 77
  5. van Rossum, 2018, Python Tutorial Release 3.7.0
  6. Yousoof M., 2007, International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, 1, 4100

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shin, Y., Jung, J., Zumbach, J., & Yi, E.
Affiliations
  • Hanyang University (KR)
  • Korean Educational Development Institute (KR)
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
Corresponding author
Jung, Jaewon
Venue
Journal of Educational Computing Research
Published
2023-05-16
Volume
61
Issue
6
Pages
1312-1331
ISSN
  • 0735-6331 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-4140
OpenAlex
W4376875422
Cited by
18
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Computing Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
worked examples, metacognitive scaffolding, cognitive load, self-regulation, germane load, novice learners, programming education, Python

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review