Synthesizing Results From Empirical Research on Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education: A Meta-Analysis

Review of Educational Research

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 309-344

  Belland, Brian R ^a   Walker, Andrew E ^a   Kim, Nam Ju ^a   Lefler, Mason ^a  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cognitive tutor; intelligent tutoring systems; meta analysis; problem based instruction; problem centered instruction; scaffold; STEM

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015294253     PISSN: 00346543     EISSN: 19351046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0034654316670999     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Abrami P. C., Bernard R. M., Borokhovski E., Waddington D. I., Wade C. A., Persson T., (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
2. 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, 1102–1134. doi:10.3102/0034654308326084
3. Albanese M., (2000). Problem-based learning: Why curricula are likely to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Medical Education, 34, 729–738. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00753.x
4. Alexander P. A., (2014). Thinking critically and analytically about critical-analytic thinking: An introduction. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 469–476. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9283-1
5. Alias N. A., (2012). Design of a motivational scaffold for the Malaysian e-Learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15, 137–151.
6. Ardac D., Sezen A. H., (2002). Effectiveness of computer-based chemistry instruction in enhancing the learning of content and variable control under guided versus unguided conditions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 39–48. doi:10.1023/A:1013995314094
7. Aydin E., Cagiltay N., (2012). A new RF and microwave engineering course enriched with advanced technologies. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 20, 634–645. doi:10.1002/cae.20432
8. Barab S. A., Squire K. D., Dueber W., (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(2), 37–62. doi:10.1007/BF02313400
9. 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, 577–600. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9176-5
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, 59–89. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1059
11. Belland B. R., Kim C., Hannafin M., (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48, 243–270. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
12. Belland B. R., Walker A., Olsen M. W., Leary H., (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational Technology and Society, 18, 183–197.
13. Bernard R. M., Abrami P. C., Lou Y., Borokhovski E., Wade A., Wozney L... Huang B., (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439. doi:10.3102/00346543074003379
14. Biemiller A., Meichenbaum D., (1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who learn slowly: A commentary on C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 365–369. doi:10.1177/002221949803100405
15. Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., Rothstein H. R., (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
16. Brush T., Saye J., (2001). The use of embedded scaffolds with hypermedia-supported student-centered learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10, 333–356.
17. Chang K. E., Sung Y. T., Chen S. F., (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 21–33. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x
18. Chen H.-H., Chen Y.-J., Chen K.-J., (2013). The design and effect of a scaffolded concept mapping strategy on learning performance in an undergraduate database course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56, 300–307. doi:10.1109/TE.2012.2217747
19. Cheung A. C., Slavin R. E., (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
20. Chua B. L., Tan O. S., Liu W. C., (2015). Using technology to scaffold problem-based learning in teacher education: Its tensions and implications for educational leaders. In Koh C., (Ed.), Motivation, leadership and curriculum design (pp. 119–135). Singapore: Springer.
21. Cohen J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Collins A., Brown J. S., Newman S. E., (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick L. B., (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Conati C., Vanlehn K., (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415.
24. Cooper H., Hedges L. V., Valentine J. C., (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
25. Davis E. A., (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_4
26. Davis E. A., Linn M. C., (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819–837. doi:10.1080/095006900412293
27. Deters K. M., (2009). Investigating a computerized scaffolding software for student designed science investigations (Doctoral dissertation). Avaliable from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 304942256)
28. Dillenbourg P., (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In Dillenbourg P., Kanselaar G., (Eds.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, Netherlands: Open Universiteit Nederland.
29. Dochy F., Segers M., Van den Bossche P., Gijbels D., (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
30. Doppelt Y., Mehalik M. M., Schunn C. D., Silk E., Krysinski D., (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 21–38.
31. DuBois D. L., Holloway B. E., Valentine J. C., Cooper H., (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197. doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714
32. Durlak J. A., (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34, 917–928. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004
33. Duval S., Tweedie R., (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
34. Egger M., Smith G., Schneider M., Minder C., (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
35. Ennis R. H., (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
36. Fund Z., (2007). The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: A comparative study of support programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 410–424. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00226.x
37. 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 & Development, 51(1), 21–38. doi:10.1007/bf02504515
38. Gijbels D., Dochy F., Van den Bossche P., Segers M., (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61. doi:10.3102/00346543075001027
39. González-Calero J. A., Arnau D., Puig L., Arevalillo-Herráez M., (2015). Intensive scaffolding in an intelligent tutoring system for the learning of algebraic word problem solving. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 1189–1200. doi:10.1111/bjet.12183
40. Guyotte K. W., Sochacka N. W., Costantino T. E., Walther J., Kellam N. N., (2014). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art Education, 67(6), 12–19.
41. Hadwin A. F., Wozney L., Pontin O., (2005). Scaffolding the appropriation of self-regulatory activity: A socio-cultural analysis of changes in teacher–student discourse about a graduate research portfolio. Instructional Science, 33, 413–450. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1274-7
42. Hannafin M., Land S., Oliver K., (1999). Open-ended learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In Reigeluth C. M., (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Hawkins J., Pea R. D., (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 291–307. doi:10.1002/tea.3660240404
44. Hedges L. V., Tipton E., Johnson M. C., (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5
45. Hill C. J., Bloom H. S., Black A. R., Lipsey M. W., (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x
46. Hmelo-Silver C. E., (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. doi:10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
47. Hmelo-Silver C. E., Duncan R. G., Chinn C. A., (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368
48. Hong Z.-R., Lin H., Wang H.-H., Chen H.-T., Yang K.-K., (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students’ attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 1625–1648. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.734935
49. Hung D., Chen D., (2007). Context-process authenticity in learning: implications for identity enculturation and boundary crossing. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(2), 147–167. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9008-3
50. Jeong A., Joung S., (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48, 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002
51. Jonassen D., (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85. doi:10.1007/BF02300500
52. Jonassen D., (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
53. Katai Z., (2011). Multi-sensory method for teaching-learning recursion. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19, 234–243. doi:10.1002/cae.20305
54. Kettler T., (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 127–136. doi:10.1177/0016986214522508
55. Keys C. W., Bryan L. A., (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631–645. doi:10.1002/tea.1023
56. Kim M., Hannafin M., (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39, 255–282. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4
57. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., Clark R. E., (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
58. Knowles M. S., (1984). Andragogy in action. Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59. Koedinger K., Aleven V., (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0
60. Kolodner J. L., Camp P. J., Crismond D., Fasse B., Gray J., Holbrook J... Ryan M., (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design(tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
61. Krajcik J., Blumenfeld P. C., Marx R. W., Bass K. M., Fredricks J., Soloway E., (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313–350. doi:10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057
62. Kramarski B., Gutman M., (2006). How can self-regulated learning be supported in mathematical E-learning environments? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 24–33. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00157.x
63. Krippendorff K., (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Lauer P. A., Akiba M., Wilkerson S. B., Apthorp H. S., Snow D., Martin-Glenn M. L., (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313. doi:10.3102/00346543076002275
65. Leont’ev A. N., (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33. doi:10.2753/RPO1061-040513024
66. Lesh R., Harel G., (2003). Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 157–189. doi:10.1080/10986065.2003.9679998
67. Lin T.-C., Hsu Y.-S., Lin S.-S., Changlai M.-L., Yang K.-Y., Lai T.-L., (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 437–455. doi:10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z
68. Lin X., Lehman J. D., (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 837–858. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U
69. Linn M. C., (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 781–796. doi:10.1080/095006900412275
70. Linn M. C., Eylon B.-S., (2000). Knowledge integration and displaced volume. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 287–310. doi:10.1023/A:1009451808539
71. Lipsey M., Puzio K., Yun C., Hebert M., Steinka-Fry K., Cole M... Busick M., (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537446
72. Looi C.-K., Lim K.-S., (2009). From bar diagrams to letter-symbolic algebra: A technology-enabled bridging. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 358–374. doi:10.1111/jca.2009.25.issue-410.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00313.x
73. Luria A. R., (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations (Cole M., Ed.; Lopez-Morillas M., Solotaroff L., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74. Ma W., Adesope O. O., Nesbit J. C., Liu Q., (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 901–918. doi:10.1037/a0037123
75. McLaughlin M., Overturf B. J., (2012). The common core: Insights into the K-5 standards. The Reading Teacher, 66, 153–164. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01115
76. 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, 416–460. doi:10.1080/10508400903013488
77. McNeill K. L., Lizotte D. J., Krajcik J., Marx R. W., (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153–191. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
78. Moos D. C., Azevedo R., (2008). Monitoring, planning, and self-efficacy during learning with hypermedia: The impact of conceptual scaffolds. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1686–1706. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.001
79. Moreno R., Mayer R. E., (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–128. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117
80. Murphy P. K., Rowe M. L., Ramani G., Silverman R., (2014). Promoting critical-analytic thinking in children and adolescents at home and in school. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 561–578. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9281-3
81. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
82. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
83. National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
84. Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
85. Niu L., Behar-Horenstein L. S., Garvan C. W., (2013). Do instructional interventions influence college students’ critical thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.12.002
86. Nussbaum E. M., (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 93, 79–83. doi:10.1080/00377990209599887
87. Osman K., Lee T. T., (2013). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students’ understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 395–421. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y
88. Palincsar A. S., (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh: A response to C. Addison Stone’s “The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370–373. doi:10.1177/002221949803100406
89. Palincsar A. S., Brown A. L., (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
90. Parchman S. W., Ellis J. A., Christinaz D., Vogel M., (2000). An evaluation of three computer-based instructional strategies in basic electricity and electronics training. Military Psychology, 12, 73–87. doi:10.1207/S15327876MP1201_4
91. 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, 423–451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
92. Perkins D., Salomon G., (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18, 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001016
93. Perkins D., Salomon G., (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47, 248–258. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.693354
94. Piaget J., (1947). Le jugement et le raisonnement chez l’enfant [Judgment and reasoning in the child]. Paris, France: Delachaux & Niestlé.
95. Proctor C. P., Dalton B., Grisham D. L., (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 71–93. doi:10.1080/10862960709336758
96. Puntambekar S., Hubscher 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
97. Quintana C., Zhang M., Krajcik J., (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist, 40, 235–244. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_5
98. Raes A., Schellens T., De Wever B., Vanderhoven E., (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59, 82–94. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010
99. Reid D. J., Zhang J., Chen Q., (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9–20. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00002.x
100. Reiser B. J., (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2
101. Rieber L. P., Tzeng S.-C., Tribble K., (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14, 307–323. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.008
102. Ross J. A., Bruce C. D., (2009). Student achievement effects of technology-supported remediation of understanding of fractions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40, 713–727. doi:10.1080/00207390902971999
103. Saye J., Brush T., (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 77–96. doi:10.1007/BF02505026
104. Schrader C., Bastiaens T., (2012). Learning in educational computer games for novices: The impact of support provision types on virtual presence, cognitive load, and learning outcomes. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13, 206–227.
105. Scruggs T. E., Brigham F. J., Mastropieri M. A., (2013). Common Core Science Standards: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 49–57. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12002
106. Shadish W. R., Myers D., (2004). Campbell collaboration research design policy brief. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaboration Methods.
107. Siegel M. A., (2006). High school students’ decision making about sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 12, 201–215. doi:10.1080/13504620600689003
108. Srinivasan M., Wilkes M., Stevenson F., Nguyen T., Slavin S., (2007). Comparing problem-based learning with case-based learning: Effects of a major curricular shift at two institutions. Academic Medicine, 82, 74–82. doi:10.1097/01.ACM.0000249963.93776.aa
109. Stage E. K., Asturias H., Cheuk T., Daro P. A., Hampton S. B., (2013). Opportunities and challenges in Next Generation Standards. Science, 340, 276–277. doi:10.1126/science.1234011
110. Stark D. M., (2013). Ill-structured problems, scaffolding and problem-solving ability of novice nursing students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3553778)
111. Stearns P. N., (1994). Meaning over memory: Recasting the teaching of culture and history. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
112. Steenbergen-Hu S., Cooper H., (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K-12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 970–987. doi:10.1037/a0032447
113. Steenbergen-Hu S., Cooper H., (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 331–347. doi:10.1037/a0034752
114. Stone C. A., (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364. doi:10.1177/002221949803100404
115. Su Y., Klein J., (2010). Using scaffolds in problem-based hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19, 327–347.
116. 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
117. Swanson H. L., Deshler D., (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135. doi:10.1177/002221940303600205
118. Swanson H. L., Lussier C. M., (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321–363. doi:10.3102/00346543071002321
119. Tamim R., Bernard R., Borokhovski E., Abrami P., Schmid R., (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4–28. doi:10.3102/0034654310393361
120. Tan S. C., Loong D. H. W., So K. L., (2005). Fostering scientific inquiry in schools through science research course and computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). International Journal of Learning Technology, 1, 273–292.
121. Thistlethwaite J. E., Davies D., Ekeocha S., Kidd J. M., MacDougall C., Matthews P... Clay D., (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Medical Teacher, 34, e421–e444. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939
122. Ulicsak M. H., (2004). “How did it know we weren’t talking?” An investigation into the impact of self-assessments and feedback in a group activity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 205–211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00083.x
123. Vacha-Haase T., Thompson B., (2004). How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 473–481. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.473
124. van de, Pol J., Volman M., Beishuizen J., (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
125. VanLehn K., (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46, 197–221. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.611369
126. Walker A., Leary H., (2009). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3, 12–43. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1061
127. Wood D., Bruner J., Ross G., (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
128. Zhang J., Chen Q., Reid D. J., (2000). Simulation-based scientific discovery learning: a research on the effects of experimental support and learners’ reasoning ability. In Proceedings IFIP World Computer Congress, Educational Uses of Communication and Information Technologies (pp. 344–351). Beijing, China: ICEUT.
129. Zhang J., Chen Q., Sun Y., Reid D. J., (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269–282. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00062.x
130. Zydney J. M., (2008). Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 353–385. doi:10.2190/EC.38.4.a