Use computer-based scaffolding within problem-centered instruction to support concept-level as well as application-level outcomes¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 9 claims (9 for) · 2 studies (2 quant-synthesis), q2–q3 · 0 of 2 report an effect size · 9 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article recommends integrating computer-based scaffolding into problem-centered learning because scaffolding counteracts the purported weaknesses of problem-centered instructional models in helping learners achieve strong concept-level learning outcomes. Teachers often face a quandary between engaging students in authentic problem solving and ensuring performance on standardized tests emphasizing declarative knowledge; scaffolding within problem-centered instruction produced strong pre–post gains of at least 0.74 across concept-, principles-, and application-level assessment, with the strongest outcomes at the concept level.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Scaffolding must be embedded within a problem-centered instructional model addressing an ill-structured problem in STEM

Constraints¶

• Effects were exceptions for inquiry-based learning (ḡ = 0) and modeling/visualization (ḡ = 0.28)

Target Learners¶

• K–12 students
• college students
• graduate students

Target Learning Goals¶

• concept-level knowledge
• principles-level knowledge
• application-level problem solving

Affordances¶

• Scaffolding Contingent Support Three Attributes

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 [+M]
• Computer-based scaffolding produces consistently strong within-subject (pre–post) cognitive gains in STEM education across student populations, disciplines, and assessment levels [+M]
• 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 [+W]
• Scaffolding's influence was greater when measured at the principles assessment level than at the concept level [+W]
• Scaffolding's effect was highest in project-based learning contexts; design-based learning was the only context not significantly greater than zero [+W]
• 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) [+M]
• Pre–post scaffolding gains are highest among college- and graduate-level learners (ḡ = 1.16 and ḡ = 1.2), with secondary education an exception [+W]
• Scaffolding shows a particularly large pre–post effect among students with learning disabilities (ḡ = 3.13), though this estimate is tentative, and a large effect among ELL students (ḡ = 0.92) [+M]
• Mathematics and technology show the highest pre–post scaffolding effect sizes among STEM disciplines (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06) [+M]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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