Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Effects were significantly greater than zero across all assessment levels (concept, principles, application), and the principles-level effect exceeded the concept-level effect, z = 2.17, p < .05. → 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
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Moderator analysis using Sugrue's (1995) assessment framework (concept, principles, application) across the 333-outcome corpus, reported with Figure 6. Discussion reports effect sizes of 0.40, 0.51, and 0.44 for concept, principles, and application levels respectively.
"Hedges' ḡ estimates were significantly greater than zero across all assessment levels; thus, scaffolding positively influences learning for a variety of assessment types (see Figure 6). Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level, z = 2.17, p < .05."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Scaffolding improves learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Computer-based scaffolding shows a consistently positive effect on cognitive outcomes in STEM education — related
- Scaffolding's effect was highest in project-based learning contexts; design-based learning was the only context not significantly greater than zero — related
- Scaffolding's effect did not vary by customization (fading/adding), change logic, or scope, and motivation scaffolds alone showed no significant effect — related
- 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 — reports the opposite
- Computer-based scaffolding counteracts the purported weakness of problem-centered instructional models at the concept level, producing strong gains across concept-, principles-, and application-level assessment — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
principles-level-assessment-highest-scaffolding-effect |
title |
Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level |
description |
Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-13 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — belland-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.