Metacognitive and strategic scaffolding show larger effects in PBL-STEM than conceptual scaffolding¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2–r3 · q3 · i0–i1
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Metacognitive scaffolding had the largest effect (g = 0.384), followed by strategic scaffolding (g = 0.345). → Nam Ju Kim 2018 q3 i0 Conceptual scaffolding showed a small effect (g = 0.126, 95% CrI 0.003 to 0.260). → Nam Ju Kim 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Nam Ju Kim 2018¶

Nam Ju Kim, Brian R. Belland, & Andrew E. Walker. (2018). Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for STEM Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analysis within the Bayesian meta-analysis comparing scaffolding intervention types. Metacognitive scaffolding had the largest effect at "g = 0.384", followed by strategic scaffolding at g = 0.345.

"The effect size was largest for metacognitive scaffolding ( g = 0.384, 95% CrI = 0.17 to 0.785), followed by strategic (g = 0.345, 95% CrI = 0.14 to 0.692)"

Nam Ju Kim 2018 (2)¶

Nam Ju Kim, Brian R. Belland, & Andrew E. Walker. (2018). Effectiveness of Computer-Based Scaffolding in the Context of Problem-Based Learning for STEM Education: Bayesian Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup result for conceptual scaffolding within the scaffolding intervention moderator of the Bayesian meta-analysis. The effect was "g = 0.126, 95% CrI = 0.003 to 0.260", below d = 0.2. Motivational scaffolding could not be tested because no included study involved it.

"and conceptual scaffolding (g = 0.126, 95% CrI = 0.003 to 0.260)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Computer-based scaffolding improves cognitive outcomes in problem-based learning in STEM education with an overall effect of g = 0.385 — a broader claim this one bears on
• Scaffolding effects in PBL are higher in Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics than in Science, and relatively low in integrated STEM education — related
• Scaffolding's effect did not vary by customization (fading/adding), change logic, or scope, and motivation scaffolds alone showed no significant effect — reports the opposite
• Cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports show the largest intervention-category benchmarks, while assessment and contextual interventions show the smallest — a broader claim this one bears on