SpringerLink
Log in

Which approach is effective: Comparing problematization-oriented and structuring-oriented scaffolding in instructional videos for programming education

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of problematization-oriented scaffolding and structuring-oriented scaffolding, incorporated within instructional videos, on students’ computational thinking and their performance in programming education. We recruited 86 participants from three senior classes at a high school. Each of the three classes was assigned to one of the experimental conditions: the problematization-oriented scaffolding group, the structuring-oriented scaffolding group, and the control group, which received no scaffolding. Pre- and post-tests were conducted to assess students’ computational thinking and programming performance during a three-week period. We observed significant improvements in the computational thinking skills of the problematization-oriented scaffolding group, particularly in the algorithmic thinking and cooperativity subdimensions, when compared to the control group. Structuring-oriented scaffoldings in videos also helped enhance students’ computational thinking, especially in the algorithmic thinking subdimension. In contrast, students in the control group primarily improved their problem-solving skills, although the difference across the three groups was not significant. Furthermore, this study revealed that the use of learning scaffolds, whether problematization-oriented or structured, significantly contributes to students’ learning achievements in comparison to the control group. These findings emphasize the importance of selecting the appropriate scaffolding approach to enhance specific dimensions of computational thinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  • Anmarkrud, Ø., Andresen, A., & Bråten, I. (2019). Cognitive load and working memory in multimedia learning: Conceptual and measurement issues. Educational Psychologist, 54(2), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding: Foundations and evolving definition. In: Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0_2

  • Belland, B., Walker, A., Kim, N., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1974). From communication to language—A psychological perspective. Cognition, 3(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(74)90012-2

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. Culture Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, 21, 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagiltay, K. (2006). Scaffolding strategies in electronic performance support systems: Types and challenges. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. Y. (2017). How to augment the learning impact of computer simulations? The designs and effects of interactivity and scaffolding. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 1083–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482.2016.1250222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation: A longitudinal case study grounded in an ethnographic perspective. Science & Education, 29(2), 331–375.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Chorianopoulos, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Usability design for video lectures. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video, 163, 164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2465958.2465982

  • Cojean, S., & Jamet, E. (2017). Facilitating information-seeking activity in instructional videos: The combined effects of micro- and macroscaffolding. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cojean, S., & Jamet, E. (2018). The role of scaffolding in improving information seeking in videos. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 960–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, Y., Zhao, G., & Zhang, D. (2022). Improving students’ inquiry learning in web-based environments by providing structure: Does the teacher matter or platform matter? British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 1049–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, I. C., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.1.005

  • Kao, G. Y. M., Chiang, C. H., & Sun, C. T. (2017). Customizing scaffolds for game-based learning in physics: Impacts on knowledge acquisition and game design creativity. Computers & Education, 113, 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokoç, M., IIgaz, H., & Altun, A. (2020). Effects of sustained attention and video lecture types on learning performances. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3015–3039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09829-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, C., Gorbunova, A., Shmeleva, E., & Costley, J. (2022). The relationship between instructional scaffolding strategies and maintained situational interest. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482.2022.2042314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, I., Van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). The effects of scaffolding metacognitive activities in small groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1727–1738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, N. M., & Seufert, T. (2018). Effects of self-regulation prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and self-efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 58, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploetzner, R., Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2020). A review of learning demands in instructional animations: The educational effectiveness of animations unfolds if the features of change need to be learned. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 838–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S. (2022). Distributed scaffolding: Scaffolding students in classroom environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 451–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (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, 5–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. C., Caskurlu, S., Castellanos-Reyes, D., Duan, S., Duha, M. S., Fiock, H., & Long, Y. (2021). Instructors’ conceptualization and implementation of scaffolding in online higher education courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34, 242–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruf, A., Zahn, C., Roos, A.-L., & Opwis, K. (2023). How do enhanced videos support generative learning and conceptual understanding in individuals and groups? Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10275-4

  • Saleh, A., Chen, Y., Hmelo-Silver, C., Glazewski, K., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2020). Coordinating scaffolds for collaborative inquiry in a game-based learning environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1490–1518.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P. (2018). Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 70–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L., Kangas, M., Ruokamo, H., & Siklander, S. (2023). A systematic literature review of teacher scaffolding in game-based learning in primary education. Educational Research Review, 40, 100546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szpunar, K. K., Khan, N. Y., & Schacter, D. L. (2013). Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(16), 6313–6317.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Torrington, J., & Bower, M. (2021). Teacher-created video instruction in the elementary classroom—its impact on students and teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1107–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, S. S. (2021). The influence of teacher annotations on student learning engagement and video watching behaviors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00242-5

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Meij, H., & Bӧckmann, L. (2021). Effects of embedded questions in recorded lectures. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(1), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09263-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Antonenko, P., Keil, A., & Dawson, K. (2020). Converging subjective and psychophysiological measures of cognitive load to study the effects of instructor-present video. Mind Brain and Education, 14(3), 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wischgoll, A., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2019). High levels of cognitive and motivational contingency with increasing task complexity results in higher performance. Instructional Science, 47(3), 319–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09485-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-761.1976.tb00381.x

  • Yang, H. Y. (2021). Effects of interactivity and progressive visuospatial cues on learners’ comprehension of dynamic visualizations. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(2), 178–205.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, B., & Si, Q. (2021). 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the Education and Scientific Planning of Bei**g Office “Research on the Construction of Online Adaptive Diagnosis Mode for Primary and Middle School Students” [Grant No. CEEA2020018].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Artificial Intelligence Education, Capital Normal University, Bei**g, China

    Haipeng Wan

  2. College of Education, Capital Normal University, Bei**g, China

    Haipeng Wan & Xue Zhang

  3. No. 12 High School, Bei**g, China

    **nxue Yang

  4. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18105, USA

    Shan Li

Authors
  1. Haipeng Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xue Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. **nxue Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shan Li.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. And the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Computational thinking scales (CTS)

Dimensions

Items

 

Creativity

1

I like the people who are sure of most of their decisions.

2

I have a belief that I can solve the problems possible to occur when I encounter with a new situation.

3

I trust my intuitions and feelings of “trueness” and “wrongness” when I approach the solution of problem.

4

When I encounter a problem, I stop before proceeding to another subject and think over that problem.

Algorithmic thinking

5

I can choose the appropriate algorithm according to the requirements of the task and use the Python to solve the problem.

6

I think that I solve problem better with the help of Python or digital tools.

7

I believe that I can easily catch the relation between codes.

8

I can use Python to solve a problem expressed by natural language.

Cooperativity

9

I like experiencing cooperative learning together with my group friends.

10

In the cooperative learning, I think that I attain/will attain more successful results because I am working in a group.

11

I like solving problems related to group project together with my friends in cooperative learning.

12

More ideas occur in cooperative learning.

Critical thinking

13

I am good at preparing regular plans regarding the solution of the complex problems.

14

It is fun to try to solve the complex problems.

15

I am willing to learn challenging things.

16

I make use of a systematic method while comparing the options at my hand and while reaching a decision

Problem solving

17

I have problems in the demonstration of the solution of a problem in my mind.

18

I have problems in the issue of where and how I should use Python variables, statements, algorithms and other factors to solve problems.

19

I cannot apply the solution ways I plan respectively and gradually.

20

I cannot produce so many options while thinking of the possible solution ways regarding a problem.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wan, H., Zhang, X., Yang, X. et al. Which approach is effective: Comparing problematization-oriented and structuring-oriented scaffolding in instructional videos for programming education. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12550-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12550-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation