Computer-based scaffolding shows a consistently positive effect on cognitive outcomes in STEM education¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q4
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? Across 333 outcomes from 144 studies, students receiving computer-based scaffolding did better on cognitive tests than controls, with the overall mean effect greater than 0 at a statistically significant level, z = 18.19, p < .01. → Belland 2017

Evidence¶

Belland 2017¶

Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-analysis of 144 experimental studies (333 outcomes) of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education, published 1993–2014, each with a control condition. The article reports "z = 18.19, p < .01" for the overall effect, with heterogeneity of Q = 1096.96, I2 = 69.7%.

"The overall mean effect size (see Figure 3) is greater than 0 at a statistically significant level, z = 18.19, p < .01, suggesting that students who receive computer-based scaffolding do better on cognitive tests than students who do not receive scaffolds."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scaffolding's effect did not vary by customization (fading/adding), change logic, or scope, and motivation scaffolds alone showed no significant effect — related
• Scaffolding improves learning — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Study quality moderated estimated effects: quasi-experimental designs yielded higher effect size estimates than random designs, and strong validity reporting was associated with higher estimates — related
• Scaffolding effects varied by education population, with traditional learners significantly outperforming underperforming learners — related
• Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level — related
• Scaffolding's effect was highest in project-based learning contexts; design-based learning was the only context not significantly greater than zero — related
• Intelligent tutoring systems improve achievement over non-individualised instruction — related
• AI applications contributed to STEM students' higher-order thinking, including problem-solving, computational thinking, and self-regulated learning — related
• Scaffolding's effect was greatest among adult learners, though based on a single outcome — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Scaffolding produces strong pre–post gains across all assessment levels (concept ḡ = 0.87 to application ḡ = 0.74), with only minor differences among levels — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Computer-based scaffolding produces consistently strong within-subject (pre–post) cognitive gains in STEM education across student populations, disciplines, and assessment levels — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Scaffolding shows a moderate positive effect on conceptual learning outcomes in STEM pedagogical interventions other than direct instruction — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Computer-based scaffolding improves cognitive outcomes in problem-based learning in STEM education with an overall effect of g = 0.385 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Customized scaffolding (fading/adding) outperforms non-customized scaffolding in PBL-STEM, with fading/adding highest at g = 0.590 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim