Mathematics and technology show the highest pre–post scaffolding effect sizes among STEM disciplines (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06)¶

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? Mathematics and technology had the highest pre–post effect sizes (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06) and the highest and second highest probability of the best. → 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

STEM discipline moderator analysis (Figure 6 and Table 4): mathematics ranked first (51% probability of the best) and technology second (35%); science and mathematics had the most coded outcomes, giving tighter credible intervals than engineering and technology.

"Mathematics and technology had the highest pre–post effect sizes: ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06, respectively (see Figure 6)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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
• Differences in AI-supported instruction effects across STEM disciplines are not statistically significant — reports the opposite
• Science-related subject areas (mathematics, science, medical science) show larger effects than programming technology and other fields — related
• Scaffolding effects in PBL are higher in Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics than in Science, and relatively low in integrated STEM education — related