Scaffolding's effect was greatest among adult learners, though based on a single outcome¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The effect size estimate among adult learners was significantly higher than among college, secondary, middle level, and primary students, p < .01, but rests on one outcome. → 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 education level (primary, middle, secondary, college, adult) across the same 333-outcome corpus, reported in Figure 3. The article reports the adult-learner contrast as significant at p < .01 with no effect size printed for the difference.

"The effect size estimate among adult learners was higher than that among college, secondary, middle level, and primary students, p < .01. However, caution is warranted, as the effect size estimate for adult learners is based on one outcome."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Age and Developmental Stage — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Scaffolding improves learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Scaffolding's effect was highest in project-based learning contexts; design-based learning was the only context not significantly greater than zero — related
• Computer-based scaffolding shows a consistently positive effect on cognitive outcomes in STEM education — a broader claim this one bears on
• Teacher-supported learning scaffolds show the largest effect (ES = 0.92), and longer intervention durations yield larger effects — related
• Pre–post scaffolding gains are highest among college- and graduate-level learners (ḡ = 1.16 and ḡ = 1.2), with secondary education an exception — reports the opposite
• Scaffolding shows a particularly large pre–post effect among students with learning disabilities (ḡ = 3.13), though this estimate is tentative, and a large effect among ELL students (ḡ = 0.92) — related
• Scaffolding targeting analysis-level skills yields much larger effects (g = 0.537) than scaffolding targeting synthesis or evaluation — related