Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2010 · 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 i1 Students in problematizing triads acquired significantly more metacognitive knowledge than students in structuring triads, t(108) = 1.67, p < 0.05 (one tailed), r = 0.16. → 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 · i1 · causal · r2
Planned comparison between the problematizing and structuring conditions on the procedural knowledge test. The article reports a significant small effect (r = 0.16), confirming the hypothesis that practicing metacognitive activities through problematizing scaffolds would outperform modeling through structuring scaffolds.
"the form of scaffolding did significantly affect the metacognitive knowledge of the individual students t (108) = 1.67; p\ 0.05 (one tailed).The effect size (r = 0.16) indicated a small positive effect of the form of scaffolding on the amount of metacognitive knowledge acquired."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Both structuring and problematizing avatar scaffolds raise elementary students' metacognitive knowledge relative to no scaffolding
- Metacognitive scaffolding produced a small significant positive effect on the individual metacognitive knowledge students acquired — related
- Problematizing scaffolds elicit constructive, interaction-embedded metacognitive activities, whereas structuring scaffolds elicit application of examples — related
- Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on transfer of individual domain knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds — related
- Metacognitive avatar scaffolds increase students' proportion of metacognitive activities, with no significant difference between scaffold types — reports the opposite
- Metacognitive scaffolding had no significant effect on individual domain knowledge (recall, knowledge tests, or transfer), with effect sizes close to zero — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
problematizing-scaffolds-metacognitive-knowledge |
title |
Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds |
description |
Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2010 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — molenaar-2010 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.