Computer-based scaffolding counteracts the purported weakness of problem-centered instructional models at the concept level, producing strong gains across concept-, principles-, and application-level assessment¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Computer-based scaffolding leads to consistently strong pre–post effect sizes of at least 0.74 across concept-, principles-, and application-level assessment, with the strongest outcomes at the concept level. → Belland Brian R. 2017

Evidence¶

Belland Brian R. 2017¶

Belland Brian R., Walker Andrew E., Kim Nam Ju. (2017). A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis to Synthesize the Influence of Contexts of Scaffolding Use on Cognitive Outcomes in STEM Education. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317723009

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Discussion section interpreting the assessment-level results: unlike problem-based learning alone, which meta-analyses indicate leads to equal or inferior effects at the concept level compared with lecture, scaffolding within problem-centered instruction shows its strongest outcomes at the concept level.

"This article indicated that computer-based scaffolding leads to consistently strong pre–post effect sizes of at least 0.74 across concept-, principles-, and application-level assessment, with the strongest outcomes at the concept level."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scaffolding produces strong pre–post gains across all assessment levels (concept ḡ = 0.87 to application ḡ = 0.74), with only minor differences among levels — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Computer-based scaffolding produces consistently strong within-subject (pre–post) cognitive gains in STEM education across student populations, disciplines, and assessment levels — a broader claim this one bears on
• Scaffolding yields strong pre–post gains with most problem-centered instructional models, with project-based learning highest (ḡ = 1.21), but exceptions for inquiry-based learning (ḡ = 0) and modeling/visualization (ḡ = 0.28) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level — reports the opposite
• Scaffolding's effect was highest in project-based learning contexts; design-based learning was the only context not significantly greater than zero — related