Both structuring and problematizing avatar scaffolds raise elementary students' metacognitive knowledge relative to no scaffolding¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students in the structuring and problematizing conditions outscored control students on the metacognitive knowledge test. → Molenaar 2011

Evidence¶

Molenaar 2011¶

Molenaar, I., Chiu, M. M., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups' metacognitive activities with an avatar. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 601-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9130-z

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Multivariate, multilevel regression (N=54, 18 triads) predicting metacognitive knowledge; both scaffold coefficients were significant in Model 1 (1.98 and 2.19 points, "**" printed). No standardized effect size is printed, so impact is null.

"Students in the structuring and problematizing conditions outscored students in the control condition by 1.98 or 2.19 points respectively on the metacognitive knowledge test on average"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds
• Metacognitive activities mediate the effects of metacognitive scaffolds on both domain and metacognitive knowledge
• Only problematizing scaffolds, not structuring scaffolds, significantly raise domain knowledge
• Students' own cognitive and metacognitive activities predict learning, off-task activity lowers metacognitive knowledge, and group mates' relational activities raise domain knowledge — related
• Metacognitive scaffolding produced a small significant positive effect on the individual metacognitive knowledge students acquired — related
• Metacognitive avatar scaffolds increase students' proportion of metacognitive activities, with no significant difference between scaffold types — related