Problematizing scaffolds elicit constructive, interaction-embedded metacognitive activities, whereas structuring scaffolds elicit application of examples¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Discourse excerpts show structuring scaffolds followed by implementation or elaboration of the example, and problematizing scaffolds triggering chains of co-constructed metacognitive activities. → 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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Qualitative discourse analysis of two representative excerpts of triad responses to scaffolds; illustrative, not statistical, so no effect size is coded for this finding (i?). The study's separate multilevel analyses did find effects: both scaffold types led to more metacognitive knowledge than the control, mediated by metacognitive activities, and only problematizing scaffolds led to more domain knowledge. The authors call the difference qualitatively different student involvement.

"A structuring scaffold is typically followed by either the implementation of the scaffold example or a group discussion elaborating on the example. On the other hand, problematizing scaffolds elicit student activities, leading the group to elaborate, share knowledge, resolve a conflict or co-construct new metacognitive activities."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only problematizing scaffolds, not structuring scaffolds, significantly raise domain knowledge
• Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds — related
• Statistical discourse analysis of collaborative learning shows metacognitive planning organizes subsequent cognitive activity while relational activities help enact it — related
• Problematizing scaffolds produced a medium significant positive effect on group performance compared to structuring scaffolds — related
• Metacognitive avatar scaffolds increase students' proportion of metacognitive activities, with no significant difference between scaffold types — related
• Shared and co-constructed intra-group interaction were significantly correlated with deep-level metacognitive activities during pre-task regulation — related