Procedural learning gains do not significantly differ between the highly and lowly scaffolded tutoring systems¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Borchers 2025: the intervention came bundled with another change (read from the study by two models, 2026-10-30)

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Procedural learning gains were statistically similar across StoichTutor and ORCCA conditions. → Borchers 2025

Evidence¶

Borchers 2025¶

Borchers, C., Fleischer, H., Schanze, S., Scheiter, K., & Aleven, V. (2025). High scaffolding of an unfamiliar strategy improves conceptual learning but reduces enjoyment compared to low scaffolding and strategy freedom. Computers & Education, 236, 105364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105364

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the same crossover experiment, ANOVA on procedural pre/post scores found no significant difference in gains between the two tutoring systems, "suggesting that students did not improve more or less with either of the tutoring systems".

"For procedural learning gain, analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences in gains between students using ORCCA and StoichTutor, F(1, 59) = 1.36, p = .249, suggesting that students did not improve more or less with either of the tutoring systems."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Highly scaffolded tutoring with an unfamiliar strategy yields larger conceptual learning gains than lowly scaffolded tutoring with strategy freedom — related
• Students prefer the lowly scaffolded, strategy-free tutoring system for usability and enjoyment — related
• Strategy freedom leads students to skip unit and substance steps, reducing conceptual practice opportunities — related