Metacognitive avatar scaffolds increase students' proportion of metacognitive activities, with no significant difference between scaffold types¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students receiving either scaffold displayed proportionately more metacognitive activities than other students; the two scaffolds did not differ significantly. → Molenaar 2011

Evidence¶

Molenaar 2011¶

Molenaar, I., Chiu, M. M., Sleegers, P., & van Boxtel, C. (2011). Scaffolding of small groups' metacognitive activities with an avatar. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 601-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9130-z

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Multilevel model predicting % metacognition (N=54, Table 4): structuring 0.017 (0.006)** and problematizing 0.020 (0.006)**, both significant; scaffold difference not significant. No standardized effect size printed.

"the students receiving metacognitive scaffolding displayed proportionately more metacognitive activities than other students. Students receiving problematizing scaffolds showed slightly more metacognitive activities than students receiving structuring scaffolds, but this difference was not significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Both structuring and problematizing avatar scaffolds raise elementary students' metacognitive knowledge relative to no scaffolding — related
• Problematizing scaffolds elicit constructive, interaction-embedded metacognitive activities, whereas structuring scaffolds elicit application of examples — related
• Problematizing scaffolds produced a small significant positive effect on individual metacognitive knowledge compared to structuring scaffolds — reports the opposite
• Metacognitive activities mediate the effects of metacognitive scaffolds on both domain and metacognitive knowledge — related