Problematizing scaffolds produced a medium significant positive effect on group performance compared to structuring scaffolds¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Triads receiving problematizing scaffolds scored significantly higher on the quality of the group paper than triads receiving structuring scaffolds, t(49) = 2.07, p < 0.02 (one tailed), r = 0.28. → Molenaar 2010

Evidence¶

Molenaar 2010¶

Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2010). Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9154-1

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Planned comparison between the problematizing condition (19 triads) and the structuring condition (17 triads) on group paper quality. The article reports a significant medium positive effect (r = 0.28), confirming the hypothesis that problematizing scaffolds would outperform structuring scaffolds.

"the form of the scaffolds had a significant effect on group performance as measured by the quality of the group paper, t (49) = 2.07; p\0.02 (one tailed) see Table 4. The effect size (r = 0.28) indicated a medium positive effect of the form of scaffolding on the quality of the paper."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on transfer of individual domain knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds — related
• Problematizing scaffolds elicit constructive, interaction-embedded metacognitive activities, whereas structuring scaffolds elicit application of examples — related
• Metacognitive scaffolding did not significantly affect group performance of collaborating triads, though the effect size indicated a small to medium positive effect — related
• Problematizing scaffolds timed to metacognitive moments led students to learn the most domain knowledge — related