Claims

Self- and peer-assessment showed no big differences between groups except a more intensive inquiry process in the scaffolded group

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? In self- and peer assessment of the Three Stage Model, there were no big differences between the groups, though the scaffolded group rated its inquiry process (searching for information) very good while the unscaffolded group rated it good. → Sirpa Kärkkäinen 2014

Evidence

Sirpa Kärkkäinen 2014

Sirpa Kärkkäinen, Jari Kukkonen and Tuula Keinonen. (2014). Scaffolding in a Medicine Education Intervention for Student Teachers Based on the PROFILES Three Stage Model. ceps Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1129505

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Qualitative analysis of the student teachers' self-assessment and peer assessment after their oral presentations, summarised in Table 4 (+++ = very good, ++ = good). The scaffolded group's inquiry process was rated +++ versus ++. No effect size is printed.

"In this respect, there were no big differences between the groups. The scaffolded group’s inquiry process was more intensive, because they used the given websites (not Google); they also highlighted the reliability of the websites in their presentation and in the Decision-making Stage, and included arguments and multiple decisions for treatment suggestions."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.