Highly scaffolded tutoring with an unfamiliar strategy yields larger conceptual learning gains than lowly scaffolded tutoring with strategy freedom¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Students gained significantly more conceptual knowledge with the highly scaffolded StoichTutor (d = 0.42) than with the lowly scaffolded ORCCA (d = 0.10). → Borchers 2025

Evidence¶

Borchers 2025¶

Borchers, C., Fleischer, H., Schanze, S., Scheiter, K., & Aleven, V. (2025). High scaffolding of an unfamiliar strategy improves conceptual learning but reduces enjoyment compared to low scaffolding and strategy freedom. Computers & Education, 236, 105364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105364

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

A crossover experiment with 61 German undergraduates in remedial chemistry preparatory courses compared learning gains from two tutoring systems. ANOVA on conceptual pre/post scores showed significantly larger gains with StoichTutor than ORCCA, "suggesting that students improved more with StoichTutor (Cohen's d = 0.42) than ORCCA".

"For conceptual learning gain, ANOVA revealed significant differences in gains between students using ORCCA and StoichTutor based on conceptual pre- and post-tests, F(1, 59) = 6.47, p = .014, suggesting that students improved more with StoichTutor (Cohen's d = 0.42) than ORCCA (Cohen's d = 0.10; see Table 3)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Procedural learning gains do not significantly differ between the highly and lowly scaffolded tutoring systems — related
• Students prefer the lowly scaffolded, strategy-free tutoring system for usability and enjoyment — related
• Strategy freedom leads students to skip unit and substance steps, reducing conceptual practice opportunities — related
• Self-efficacy increases after tutoring practice but does not differ by tutoring system — related