Metacognitive activities mediate the effects of metacognitive scaffolds on both domain and metacognitive knowledge¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Controlling for individual metacognitive activities reduced scaffold regression coefficients substantially, confirming mediation. → 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 · i3 · causal · r2

Multilevel mediation tests (Krull and MacKinnon) on metacognitive knowledge: coefficients reduced by 86% and 77%, with printed mediation correlations r=.39 and r=.50 (r=.50 exceeds .37, hence impact 3). A separate test showed a 35% reduction for problematizing scaffolds on domain knowledge.

"Controlling for individual proportion of metacognitive actions reduced the structuring scaffold and problematizing scaffold conditions ' regression coefficients by 86% and 77% respectively (multilevel mediation tests: z=2.02; p<.05;"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Both structuring and problematizing avatar scaffolds raise elementary students' metacognitive knowledge relative to no scaffolding
• Students' own cognitive and metacognitive activities predict learning, off-task activity lowers metacognitive knowledge, and group mates' relational activities raise domain knowledge — related
• Metacognitive avatar scaffolds increase students' proportion of metacognitive activities, with no significant difference between scaffold types — related
• Only problematizing scaffolds, not structuring scaffolds, significantly raise domain knowledge — related
• Metacognitive scaffolding had no significant effect on individual domain knowledge (recall, knowledge tests, or transfer), with effect sizes close to zero — related