Scaffolding's effect did not vary by customization (fading/adding), change logic, or scope, and motivation scaffolds alone showed no significant effect¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr?·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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 i? Effects were significantly greater than zero for conceptual, metacognitive, and strategic scaffolds but not for motivation scaffolds, with no statistically significant differences among intervention types. → Belland 2017
Evidence¶
Belland 2017¶
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing Results From Empirical Research on Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309-344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?
Moderator analysis of scaffolding intervention type (conceptual, strategic, metacognitive, motivation) across the 333-outcome corpus, reported with Figure 10. Motivation scaffolds was the only type whose estimate was not significantly greater than zero.
"Hedges' ḡ estimates were significantly greater than zero across all scaffolding intervention types except for motivation scaffolds (see Figure 10), which means that conceptual, metacognitive, and strategic scaffolds all improve cognitive outcomes. Despite the range in effect sizes, there were no statistically significant differences among the scaffolding intervention types, p > .05."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Fading support promotes the transfer of responsibility from instructor to learner. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Computer-based scaffolding shows a consistently positive effect on cognitive outcomes in STEM education — related
- Scaffolding improves learning — a broader claim this one bears on
- Metacognitive prompts improve learning — related
- Presence versus absence of individual scaffolding types did not support the added-value hypothesis, but scaffolding combinations partly did — related
- Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level — related
- Scaffolding shows a moderate positive effect on conceptual learning outcomes in STEM pedagogical interventions other than direct instruction — related
- Merrill's instructional design principles and feedback features did not significantly moderate the effects of ICT-supported writing interventions — related
- Customized scaffolding (fading/adding) outperforms non-customized scaffolding in PBL-STEM, with fading/adding highest at g = 0.590 — reports the opposite
- Metacognitive and strategic scaffolding show larger effects in PBL-STEM than conceptual scaffolding — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
scaffolding-design-features-no-moderation |
title |
Scaffolding's effect did not vary by customization (fading/adding), change logic, or scope, and motivation scaffolds alone showed no significant effect |
description |
Scaffolding's effect did not vary by customization (fading/adding), change logic, or scope, and motivation scaffolds alone showed no significant effect |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-13 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — belland-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.