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)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The highest pre–post effect size was for project-based learning (ḡ = 1.21), which needs cautious interpretation due to a wide credible interval. → Belland Brian R. 2017 q2 i? Inquiry-based learning (ḡ = 0) and modeling/visualization (ḡ = 0.28) were exceptions to otherwise quite large pre–post effect sizes. → Belland Brian R. 2017 (2)

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

Context-of-use moderator analysis (Figure 5): project-based learning had the highest estimate (ḡ = 1.21) and the highest probability of the best (44%, Table 3), but the article states this ES needs to be interpreted cautiously because of the wide credible interval.

"The highest pre–post effect size was for project-based learning (ḡ = 1.21; see Figure 5). Due to the low number of coded outcomes for the characteristics, the range of true effects (credible interval) is wide."

Belland Brian R. 2017 (2)¶

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

Context-of-use moderator analysis (Figure 5): inquiry-based learning (ḡ = 0) and modeling/visualization (ḡ = 0.28) fell well below other problem-centered models; the article notes coded outcomes per model were very small apart from problem solving, producing a very large range of true effects.

"Most pre–post effect sizes were quite large, with the exception of inquiry-based learning (ḡ = 0) and modeling/visualization (ḡ = 0.28)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — a broader claim this one bears on
• Pre–post scaffolding gains are highest among college- and graduate-level learners (ḡ = 1.16 and ḡ = 1.2), with secondary education an exception — related
• 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 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 produces strong pre–post gains across all assessment levels (concept ḡ = 0.87 to application ḡ = 0.74), with only minor differences among levels — related