Scaffolding effects in PBL are higher in Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics than in Science, and relatively low in integrated STEM education¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Scaffolding had higher effect sizes in Engineering (g = 0.528), Technology (g = 0.379), and Mathematics (g = 0.425) than in Science (g = 0.146). → Nam Ju Kim 2018 q3 i1 In integrated STEM education the effect size was relatively lower (g = 0.201, 95% CrI 0.005 to 0.428). → Nam Ju Kim 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Nam Ju Kim 2018¶

Nam Ju Kim, Brian R. Belland, & Andrew E. Walker. (2018). Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for STEM Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis of the discipline moderator in the Bayesian meta-analysis. Engineering showed the highest effect at "g = 0.528", with Science the lowest at g = 0.146.

"Scaffolding had higher effect sizes when it was used in Engineering ( g = 0.528, 95% CrI = 0.025 to 0.983), Technology ( g = 0.379, 95% CrI = 0.011 to 0.782), and Mathematics education (g = 0.425, 95% CrI = 0.024 to 0.883) than when it was utilized in Science (g = 0.146, 95% CrI = 0.003 to 0.295)"

Nam Ju Kim 2018 (2)¶

Nam Ju Kim, Brian R. Belland, & Andrew E. Walker. (2018). Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for STEM Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup result for integrated STEM within the discipline moderator of the Bayesian meta-analysis. The effect was "g = 0.201, 95% CrI = 0.005 to 0.428", which the discussion notes was contrary to prior meta-analyses on integrated STEM education.

"In the case of integrated STEM education, which integrated the content and process of disciplines, the effect size was relatively lower (g = 0.201, 95% CrI = 0.005 to 0.428)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Computer-based scaffolding improves cognitive outcomes in problem-based learning in STEM education with an overall effect of g = 0.385 — a broader claim this one bears on
• Mathematics and technology show the highest pre–post scaffolding effect sizes among STEM disciplines (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06) — related
• Computer-based scaffolding produces consistently strong within-subject (pre–post) cognitive gains in STEM education across student populations, disciplines, and assessment levels — a broader claim this one bears on
• Metacognitive and strategic scaffolding show larger effects in PBL-STEM than conceptual scaffolding — related