A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 183-197

  Belland, Brian R ^a   Walker, Andrew E ^a   Olsen, Megan Whitney ^a   Leary, Heather ^b  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment quality; Computer based scaffolding; Meta analysis; Methodological quality; STEM education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84936761015     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084
2. Achieve. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved August 8, 2013, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
3. American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40. doi:10.3102/0013189X035006033
4. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813
6. Bagno, E., & Eylon, B. S. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics, 65(8), 726. doi:10.1119/1.18642
7. Belland, B. R. (2010). Portraits of middle school students constructing evidence-based arguments during problem-based learning: The impact of computer-based scaffolds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 285-309. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9139-4
8. Belland, B. R. (2011). Distributed cognition as a lens to understand the effects of scaffolds: The role of transfer of responsibility. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 577-600. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9176-5
9. Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505-518). New York, NY, USA: Springer.
10. Belland, B. R., French, B. F., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). Validity and problem-based learning research: A review of instruments used to assess intended learning outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 59-89. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1059
11. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 401-422. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1
12. Belland, B. R., Walker, A., Leary, H., Kuo, Y.-C., & Can, G. (2010, May). A meta-analysis of problem-based learning corrected for attenuation, and accounting for internal threats. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, USA.
13. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Chambers, E. A. (2004). An introduction to meta-analysis with articles from the Journal of Educational Research (1992-2002). Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 35. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.1.35-45
15. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 483-511. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1277-4
16. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241-1257. doi:10.1002/tea.3660301007
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. N. p.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Cooper, H. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage.
20. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation.
21. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4
22. Feller, R. W. (2003). Aligning school counseling, the changing workplace, and career development assumptions. Professional School Counseling, 6(4), 262-71.
23. Foley, B. J. (1999). Visualization tools: Models, representations and knowledge integration (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International. (Publication Number: AAI9966375).
24. Foster, D. P., & George, E. I. (1994). The risk inflation criterion for multiple regression. Annals of Statistics, 22(4), 1947-1975. doi:10.1214/aos/1176325766
25. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
26. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38. doi:10.1007/BF02504515
27. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5-22. doi:10.1007/BF02504836
28. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. doi:10.3102/0013189X005010003
29. Hamdy, H., Prasad, K., Anderson, M. B., Scherpbier, A., Williams, R., Zwierstra, R., & Cuddihy, H. (2006). BEME systematic review: Predictive values of measurements obtained in medical schools and future performance in medical practice. Medical Teacher, 28(2), 103-116. doi:10.1080/01421590600622723
30. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Hogan, T. P., & Agnello, J. (2004). An empirical study of reporting practices concerning measurement validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 802-812. doi:10.1177/0013164404264120
32. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
33. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
34. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145-161). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Kolodner, J. L., Owensby, J. N., & Guzdial, M. (2004). Case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 829-862). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C., & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of BioWorld. Instructional Science, 29(2), 155-186. doi:10.1023/A:1003996000775
37. Li, D. D., & Lim, C. P. (2008). Scaffolding online historical inquiry tasks: A case study of two secondary school classrooms. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1394-1410. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.013
38. Lin, H., Ching, Y.-H., Ke, F., & Dwyer, F. (2007). Effectiveness of various enhancement strategies to complement animated instruction: A meta-analytic assessment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(2), 215-237. doi:10.2190/M200-5558-52V7-2287
39. Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781-796. doi:10.1080/095006900412275
40. Loevinger, J. (1954). The attenuation paradox in test theory. Psychological Bulletin, 51(5), 493-504. doi:10.1037/h0058543
41. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240-246. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.240
42. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. doi:10.1080/10508400903013488
43. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York, NY: American Council on Education.
44. Metcalf, S. J. (1999). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication No. 9959821).
45. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 329-389. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0904_2
46. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards.
47. Nordgren, R. D. (2002). Globalization and education: What students will need to know and be able to do in the global village. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(4), 318-321.
48. Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student management of web-based hypermedia resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 75-92. doi:10.1080/00220670009598746
49. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
50. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1-12. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep4001_1
51. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217. doi:10.1002/tea.20048
52. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4
53. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
54. Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation-A bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(1), 14-26. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00112.x
55. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77-96. doi:10.1007/BF02505026
56. Shadish, W., & Myers, D. (2001). Research design policy brief. Group. Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/artman2/uploads/1/C2_Research_Design_Policy_Brief-2.pdf.
57. Sugrue, B. (1995). A theory-based framework for assessing domain-specific problem-solving ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(3), 29-35. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00865.x
58. Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 435-452). New York, N: Russell Sage Foundation.
59. Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124-135. doi:10.1177/002221940303600205
60. Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321-363. doi:10.3102/00346543071002321
61. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
62. VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
65. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x