Metacognitive and strategic scaffold-use subgroups solved more problems correctly than moderate and low-use subgroups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Person-centered analysis identified four scaffold-use subgroups; the metacognitive and strategic subgroups solved more problems correctly, and the metacognitive subgroup had better efficacy and confidence scores than the moderate and low scaffold-use subgroups. → Joep van der Graaf 2023

Evidence¶

Joep van der Graaf 2023¶

Joep van der Graaf, Michelle Taub, Yizhou Fan. (2023). Introduction to special issue on facilitating self-regulated learning with scaffolds: Recent advances and future directions. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09364-9

q2 · i? · review · r2

The introduction reports, citing J. Zheng et al. (this issue), a person-centered study with university medical students in which scaffolds addressed conceptual understanding, strategy execution, and metacognition, and four subgroups were identified based on interaction frequency and scaffold type. No effect sizes are printed.

"The metacognitive and strategic subgroups solved more problems correctly, and the metacognitive subgroup had better efficacy and confidence scores than the other subgroups (moderate and low scaffold use)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Failure-driven and success-driven scaffolding before instruction produce similar posttest conceptual understanding — related
• Metacognitive self-regulation mediates the relationships between all three AI interaction mechanisms and both higher-order outcomes — related