Abstract
Collaborative programming can develop computational thinking and knowledge of computational programming. However, the researchers pointed out that because students often fail to mobilize metacognition to regulate and control their cognitive activities in a cooperation, this results in poor learning effects. Especially low-achieving students need more metacognitive support. Therefore, this study proposed a metacognition-based collaborative programming approach (M-CPA) to improve students' performance in collaborative programming. To evaluate the effectiveness of the method for students with different levels of learning achievement, a 7-week experiment was conducted. A total of 222 middle school students were divided into the experimental group with the M-CPA learning and the control group with the conventional collaborative programming approach (C-CPA). The results showed that learning methods and learning achievement had interactive effects on computational thinking tendency, critical thinking tendency, and metacognition tendency. M-CPA could significantly improve students' computational thinking tendency, critical thinking tendency, and metacognition tendency. Moreover, the proposed approach is more effective for low-achieving students. The results also showed that M-CPA could improve the students' achievement in program analysis questions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
The data in this study can be accessed by sending request e-mails to the corresponding author.
References
Akinola, S. O. (2015). Computer programming skill and gender difference: An empirical study. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 7(1), 1–9.
Altintas, T., Gunes, A., & Sayan, H. (2014). A peer-assisted learning experience in computer programming language learning and developing computer programming skills. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(3), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.993418
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading (Vol. 1, pp. 353–395). Longman.
Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
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
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096
Cai, H., & Gu, X. (2019). Supporting collaborative learning using a diagram-based visible thinking tool based on cognitive load theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2329–2345. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12818
Çakıroğlu, Ü., & Öztürk, M. (2017). Flipped classroom with problem based activities-exploring self-regulated learning in a programming language course. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 337–349.
Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Tsai, P., Koh, J. H., & Tsai, C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional students’ perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9379-4
Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149883
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Demir, Ö., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2020). A Comparison of Solo and Pair Programming in Terms of Flow Experience, Coding Quality, and Coding Achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1448–1466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120949788
Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair Programming: Under What Conditions Is It Advantageous for Middle School Students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272
Diella, D., & Ardiansyah, R. (2017). The correlation of metacognition with critical thinking skills of grade XI students on human excretion system concept. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 3(2), 134. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v3i2.2576
DiFrancesca, D., Nietfeld, J. L., & Cao, L. (2016). A comparison of high and low achieving students on self-regulated learning variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.010
Dirkes, M. A. (1985). Metacognition: Students in charge of their thinking. Roeper Review, 8(2), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198509552944
Elia, I., Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009). Exploring strategy use and strategy flexibility in non-routine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(5), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0184-6
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (pp. 315–423). Research Findings and Recommendations. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED3155423). https://philarchive.org/archive/FACCTA. Accessed Dec 2020.
Fanchamps, N., Slangen, L., Hennissen, P., & Specht, M. (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
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906
Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s Oral Communication Skill (pp. 35–60). Academic Press.
Garcia, M. B. (2021). Cooperative learning in computer programming: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Jigsaw teaching strategy with novice programmers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4839–4856.
Goel, S., & Kathuria, V. (2010). A novel approach for collaborative pair programming. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 9, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.28945/1290
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
Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. (pp. 65–84). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, 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
Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21(2), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808
Hayes, J., & Stewart, I. (2016). Comparing the effects of derived relational training and computer coding on intellectual potential in school-age children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12114
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. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmlo.2020.106166
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2009). Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and ability grouping in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.001
Iskrenovic-Momcilovic, O. (2019). Pair programming with scratch. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2943–2952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09905-3
Järvelä, S., Malmberg, J., & Koivuniemi, M. (2016). Recognizing socially shared regulation by using the temporal sequences of online chat and logs in CSCL. Learning and Instruction, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.006
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500111
Kalyuga, S. (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
Kinnunen, R., & Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high- and low-achieving primary school children’s reading. Learning and Instruction, 52(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00009-r
Klang, N., Karlsson, N., Kilborn, W., Eriksson, P., & Karlberg, M. (2021). Mathematical problem-solving through cooperative learning—The importance of peer acceptance and friendships. Frontiers in Education, 6, 710296. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.710296
Koriat, A., Ma’ayan, H., & Nussinson, R. (2006). The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: Lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 36–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.36
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Lieberman, A. (2001). Effects of multilevel versus Unilevel Metacognitive training on mathematical reasoning. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598765
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. R., & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016282811724
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
Ku, K. Y., & Ho, I. T. (2010). Metacognitive strategies that enhance critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9060-6
Kwon, K., Hong, R.-Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2013). The educational impact of metacognitive group coordination in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1271–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.003
Lai, C. L. (2021). Effects of the group-regulation promotion approach on students’ individual and collaborative learning performance, perceptions of regulation and regulation behaviours in project-based tasks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2278–2298. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13138
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), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmlo.2014.067029
Law, N., Woo, D., de la Torre, J., & Wong, G. (2018). A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4. 2. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/ip51-global-framework-reference-digital-literacy-skills-2018-en.pdf. Accessed Jan 2022.
Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.25.6.0660
Li, J. S., Liu, J., Yuan, R., & Shadiev, R. (2022). The Influence of Socially Shared Regulation on Computational Thinking Performance in Cooperative Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 48–60.
Lin, H., Hwang, G., & Hsu, Y. (2019). Effects of ASQ-based flipped learning on nurse practitioner learners’ nursing skills, learning achievement and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 139, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.014
Linn, M. C., & Dalbey, J. (1985). Cognitive consequences of Programming Instruction: Instruction, Access, and Ability. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2004_4
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
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1), 49–63.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Cognitive, Metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Metacognition in Learning and Instruction, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8_5
McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In I. B. Weiner & D. K. Freedheim (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, educational psychology (pp. 79–102). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Mohd Rum, S. N., & Ismail, M. A. (2017). Metacognitive support accelerates computer assisted learning for novice programmers. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 170–181.
Monrat, N., Phaksunchai, M., & Chonchaiya, R. (2022). Developing students’ mathematical critical thinking skills using open-ended questions and activities based on student learning preferences. Education Research International, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3300363
Ouyang, F., Chen, S., Yang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2022). Examining the Effects of Three Group-Level Metacognitive Scaffoldings on In-Service Teachers’ Knowledge Building. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 352–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211030847
Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000226
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: a case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmlo.2016.077867
Patarakin, E., Burov, V., & Yarmakhov, B. (2019). Computational pedagogy: Thinking, participation, reflection. Digital Turn in Schools—Research, Policy, Practice, 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7361-9_9
Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.005
Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9421-5
Rahmat, M., Shahrani, S., Latih, R., Yatim, N. F. M., Zainal, N. F. A., & Rahman, R. A. (2012). Major Problems in Basic Programming that Influence Student Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.277
Rao, N., Moely, B. E., & Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and mathematics attainment in high- and low-achieving chinese secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1003
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
Rubio Sánchez, M., Kinnunen, P., Pareja Flores, C., & Velázquez Iturbide, Á. (2014). Student perception and usage of an automated programming assessment tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.001
Scherer, R. (2016). Learning from the past–the need for empirical evidence on the transfer effects of computer programming skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1390. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01390
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02212307
Schwonke, R., Ertelt, A., Otieno, C., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. J. C. M. (2013). Metacognitive support promotes an effective use of instructional resources in intelligent tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 23, 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.003
Seventika, S. Y., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., & Mariani, S. (2018). Critical thinking analysis based on Facione (2015) – Angelo (1995) logical mathematics material of vocational high school (VHS). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012067
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
Teong, S. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00005.x
Wang, Y., Li, H., Feng, Y., Jiang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2012). Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report. Computers & Education, 59(2), 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.007
Wang, J., Stebbins, A., & Ferdig, R. E. (2022). Examining the effects of students' self-efficacy and prior knowledge on learning and visual behavior in a physics game. Computers & Education, 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104405
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S.-C., & Kinshuk. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ Computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
Wong, G.K.-W., & Cheung, H.-Y. (2018). Exploring children’s perceptions of developing twenty-first century skills through computational thinking and programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1534245
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
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.017
Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (2008). The effects of explicit teaching of metastrategic knowledge on low- and high-achieving students. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.001
Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00007-5
Funding
This work was supported by National Science and Technology Council of the Republic of China [MOST 109–2511-H-216–001-MY3]; and the Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science Project of the People's Republic of China [21YJA880027].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Wei Li], [Cheng-Ye Liu] and [Judy C.R. Tseng]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Wei Li] and [Judy C.R. Tseng] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The participants were protected by hiding their personal information during the research process. They knew that the participation was voluntary, and they could retreat at any time. All participants agree to have their data published in a journal article.
Competing interests
All the authors have approved the manuscript and agree to submit it to Education and Information Technologies. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, W., Liu, CY. & Tseng, J.C.R. Effects of the interaction between metacognition teaching and students’ learning achievement on students’ computational thinking, critical thinking, and metacognition in collaborative programming learning. Educ Inf Technol 28, 12919–12943 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11671-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11671-2