Expert modeling, feedback, hints, and multiple strategies improve cognitive outcomes, but question prompts show no evident difference from control¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0–i2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Expert modeling (g = 0.523) and feedback (g = 0.474) approached a middle level of effect. → Nam Ju Kim 2018 q3 i1 Hints (g = 0.375) and multi-forms (g = 0.340) also had relatively higher effects than no scaffolding. → Nam Ju Kim 2018 q3 i0 Question prompts showed no evident difference from the control group (g = 0.078, 95% CrI 0.003 to 0.156). → 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 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup analysis of the scaffolding strategies moderator (feedback, question prompts, hints, expert modeling, multiple strategies) in the Bayesian meta-analysis. Expert modeling and feedback effects approached a middle level.

"the effect size for expert modeling ( g = 0.523, 95% CrI = 0.030 to 0.979) and feedback (g = 0.474, 95% CrI = 0.026 to 0.968) approached a middle level."

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

Null subgroup result for question prompts within the strategies moderator. The discussion attributes the small effect to studies not considering students' varying prior knowledge and problem-solving skills, and notes multiple strategies in one system were counter-productive.

"However, in the case of question prompts, there was no evident difference (g = 0.078, 95% CrI = 0.003 to 0.156) as compared to the control group in terms of the effect size."

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
• Human tutoring has a medium effect over no tutoring, and in one small study students learned as well when tutors only prompted them as when tutors also explained and gave feedback — related
• Contingent scaffolding improves learning more than fixed or absent support. — related