Abstract
Computer-based scaffolding (CBS) has been regarded as an effective way to help individual students complete and gain skill at completing complex tasks beyond their current ability level. Previous meta-analyses also have demonstrated that CBS for collaborative learning leads to positive cognitive outcomes in problem-centered instruction for STEM education. However, while separate synthesis efforts have been conducted on CBS and collaboration guidance, little work has examined the intersection of these approaches. This study addresses this gap by examining the extent to which the effect of CBS is moderated by the group size in which students work, which type of CBS intervention was used in groups or individually, and whether CBS includes supports for both individual and group works or only individual learning. Results from 145 studies indicate that CBS leads to statistically significant cognitive learning effects when students solve problems individually, as well as working in pairs, triads, and small groups. Moderator analyses indicated that (a) effect sizes are higher when students worked in pairs than when they worked in triads, small groups, or individually; (b) the effect size of metacognitive scaffolding on group activity is higher than other types of scaffolding intervention; and (c) the effect size is higher for groups when scaffolding was present but collaboration support was absent. These results suggest that elaborated design and integration of CBS and collaboration guidance are considered to maximize students’ learning in problem-centered instruction within STEM education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students’ understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20005.
Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130391.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practices over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 9–34.
Baker, M. J. (2015). Collaboration in collaborative learning. Interaction Studies, 16(3), 451–473.
Barrows, H. S. (1992). The tutorial process (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer.
Belland, B. R. (2008). Supporting middle school students’ construction of evidence-based arguments: Impact of and student interactions with computerbased argumentation scaffolds (PhD dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (publication number 304502316).
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013a). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.
Belland, B. R., & Drake, J. (2013b). Toward a framework on how affordances and motives can drive different uses of scaffolds: Theory, evidence, and design implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 903-925.
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lifler, M. R. (2014). A preliminary meta-analysis on the influence of scaffolding characteristics and study and assessment quality on cognitive outcomes in STEM education. In proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Vol. 36, no. 36).
Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Kim, N. J., & Turner, D. J. (2016). An ethnomethodological perspective on how middle school students addressed a water quality problem. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1135–1161.
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., & Kim, N. J. (2017a). A Bayesian network meta-analysis to synthesize the influence of contexts of scaffolding use on cognitive outcomes in STEM education. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1042–1081. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317723009.
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017b). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The clearing house, 83(2), 39–43.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Bulu, S. T., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529.
Cahill, C., Kuhn, A., Schmoll, S., Pompe, A., & Quintana, C. (2010). Zydeco: Using mobile and web technologies to support seamless inquiry between museum and school contexts. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 174–177). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810564.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce (p. 64). Washington, DC, USA: Partnership for 21st century skills.
Chang, H., & Linn, M. (2013). Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(7), 858–886. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21089.
Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1201–1212.
Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584.
Chinn, C. A., Duncan, R. G., Dianovsky, M., & Rinehart, R. (2013). Promoting conceptual change through inquiry. In International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 539-559).
Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., Bosagh Zadeh, R., & Balakrishnan, A. D. (2013). Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large group size: A longitudinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological Science, 24(6), 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463082.
Davis, E., & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037.
Del Marie Rysavy, S., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 70–79.
Deters, K. M. (2008). Investigating a computerized scaffolding software for student designed science investigations (PhD Dissertation). University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Retrieved from http://dwb4.unl.edu/Diss/Deters/Deters.pdf
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 1–15). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Doss, K. K. (2017). Engaged learning: Impact of PBL and PjBL with elementary and middle grade students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2).
Dunlap, J. C., & Grabinger, S. (2003). Preparing students for lifelong learning: A review of instructional features and teaching methodologies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(2), 6–25.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157–169.
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.
Fisher, Z., & Tipton, E. (2015). Robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02220.
Fitzgerald, J., & Graves, M. F. (2004). Reading supports for all: Scaffolding reading experiences help English language learners master both reading and content. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 68–71.
Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2012). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369–391.
Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Kazdan, S., Karns, K., Calhoon, M. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Hewlett, S. (2000). Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 183–212.
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(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027.
Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9180-5.
Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
Hedges, L. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.490.
Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65.
Heller, P., Keith, R., & Anderson, S. (1992). Teaching problem solving through collaborative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 60(7), 627–636.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2015). Problem-based learning: Goals for learning and strategies for facilitating. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. E. HmeloSilver, P. A. Ertmer, & P. A. (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows (pp. 69–84). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
Hung, D. W. L., & Wong, A. F. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for project work in learning environments. Educational Technology, 40(2), 33–37.
Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789.
Janssen, J., & Bodemer, D. (2013). Coordinated computer-supported collaborative learning: Awareness and awareness tools. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 40–55.
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139–154.
Janssen, J., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1046–1058.
Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.
Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35(4), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9008-z.
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
Kalaian, S. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2017). Effectiveness of various innovative learning methods in health science classrooms: A meta-analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22(5), 1151–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9753-6.
Kang, J., Liu, M., & Qu, W. (2017). Using gameplay data to examine learning behavior patterns in a serious game. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 757–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.062.
Ke, F., & Abras, T. (2013). Games for engaged learning of middle school children with special learning needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01326.x.
Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.750227.
Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1.
Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Axelrod, D. (2019). Scaffolding for optimal challenge in K–12 problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1712.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306–314.
Koenig, A. D. (2008a). Exploring effective educational video game design: The interplay between narrative and game-schema construction (PhD Dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/7b39dcaff3a9e0b8258dec987e0e61ef/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts - a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2.
Kooloos, J. G. M., Klaassen, T., Vereijken, M., Van Kuppeveld, S., Bolhuis, S., & Vorstenbosch, M. (2011). Collaborative group work: Effects of group size and assignment structure on learning gain, student satisfaction and perceived participation. Medical Teacher, 33(12), 983–988. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.588733.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78.
Laru, J. (2012). Scaffolding learning activities with collaborative scripts and mobile devices. Oulu: Oulu University Library. Retrieved from https://oula.linneanet.fi/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=1197315
Lazakidou, G., & Retalis, S. (2010). Using computer supported collaborative learning strategies for helping students acquire self-regulated problem-solving skills in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.020.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.
Lonchamp, J. (2012). An instrumental perspective on CSCL systems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 211–237.
Looi, C.-K., & Lim, K.-S. (2009). From bar diagrams to letter-symbolic algebra: A technology-enabled bridging. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/jca.2009.25.issue-410.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00313.x.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. (M. Cole, Ed., M. Lopez-Morillas & L. Solotaroff, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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(4), 901–918.
McNeill, K., & 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.
Mende, S., Proske, A., Körndle, H., & Narciss, S. (2017). Who benefits from a low versus high guidance CSCL script and why? Instructional Science, 45(4), 439–468.
Molenaar, I., van Boxtel, C. A. M., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement. Instructional Science, 39(6), 785–803.
Nichols, K., Hanan, J., & Ranasinghe, M. (2013). Transforming the social practices of learning with representations: A study of disciplinary discourse. Research in Science Education, 43, 179–208.
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013a). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013b). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers & Education, 61, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.013.
Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176.
Nussbaum, M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209599887.
Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52(1), 147–153.
Overdijk, M., Van Diggelen, W., Kirschner, P. A., & Baker, M. (2012). Connecting agents and artifacts in CSCL: Towards a rationale of mutual shaping. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(2), 193–210.
Palmérus, K., & Hägglund, S. (1991). The impact of children/caregiver ratio on activities and social interaction in six day care Centre groups. Early Child Development and Care, 67(1), 29–38.
Pata, K., Lehtinen, E., & Sarapuu, T. (2006). Inter-relations of tutors’ and peers’ scaffolding and decision-making discourse acts. Instructional Science, 34(4), 313–341.
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.
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(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960709336758.
Proske, A., Narciss, S., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Computer-based scaffolding to facilitate students’ development of expertise in academic writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01450.x.
Puntambekar, S. (2015). Distributing scaffolding across multiple levels: Individuals, small groups, and a class of students. Essential readings in problem-based learning, 207-221.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.010.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175.
Reif, F., & Scott, L. A. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 819–831. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19130.
Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL. Computers & Education, 59(3), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.010.
Rogat, T. K., Witham, S. A., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy-relevant practices within an inquiry-based science curricular context: Extending the range of academically significant autonomy-supportive practices. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–46.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (p. 252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010a). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9.
Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J., & Gallagher, L. P. (2010b). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833–878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210367426.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Cognitive engagement in the problem-based learning classroom. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(4), 465–479.
Ruzhitskaya, L. (2011). The effects of computer-supported inquiry-based learning methods and peer interaction on learning stellar parallax (PhD Thesis). University of Missouri--Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3515839).
Saye, J., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026.
Scheuer, O., Mclaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2014). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science; Dordrecht, 42(2), 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5.
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education, 45(8), 792–806.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.
Sills, J., Rowse, G., & Emerson, L. M. (2016). The role of collaboration in the cognitive development of young children: A systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 42(3), 313–324.
Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315.
Smith, P. K., & Connolly, K. J. (1980). The ecology of preschool behaviour. Cambridge University Press.
Soller, A., Goodman, B., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998). Promoting effective peer interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 186–195). Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68716-5_24.
Splichal, J. M., Oshima, J., & Oshima, R. (2018). Regulation of collaboration in project-based learning mediated by CSCL scripting reflection. Computers & Education, 125, 132–145.
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(4), 970–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032447.
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(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.
Stephanou, G., Gkavras, G., & Doulkeridou, M. (2013). The role of teachers’ self-and collective-efficacy beliefs on their job satisfaction and experienced emotions in school. Psychology, 4(03), 268–278.
Strijbos, J. W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), 403–424.
Su, Y. (2007). The impact of scaffolding type and prior knowledge in a hypermedia, problem-based learning environment (PhD Thesis). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3288016).
Su, Y., & Klein, J. D. (2010). Using scaffolds in problem-based hypermedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(3), 327–347.
Sugrue, B. (1995). A theory-based framework for assessing domain-specific problem-solving ability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(3), 29–35.
Sung, Y. T., Yang, J. M., & Lee, H. Y. (2017). The effects of mobile-computer-supported collaborative learning: Meta-analysis and critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 768–805.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600205.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002321.
Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_3.
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(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2005.006518.
Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 13–30.
Tchounikine, P. (2016). Contribution to a theory of CSCL scripts: Taking into account the appropriation of scripts by learners. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9240-8.
Ustunel, H. H., & Tokel, S. T. (2018). Distributed scaffolding: Synergy in technology-enhanced learning environments. Technology, Knowledge and Learning; Dordrecht, 23(1), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9299-y.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521.
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881.
VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.
Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016a). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9380-2.
Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2016b). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 1–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ward, B. A. (1987). Instructional grouping in the classroom. School improvement research series close-up no. 2. Portland, OR: Northwest regional educational lab.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.
Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-004-2322-4.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007.
Weinberger, A., Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., & Stegmann, K. (2013). Inducing socio-cognitive conflict in Finnish and German groups of online learners by CSCL script. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(3), 333–349.
Wever, B. D., Hämäläinen, R., Voet, M., & Gielen, M. (2015). A wiki task for first-year university students: The effect of scripting students’ collaboration. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.002.
Wijnia, L., Loyens, S., & Derous, E. (2011). Investigating effects of problem-based versus lecture-based learning environments on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.003.
Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.
Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9156-x.
Zydney, J. M. (2008). Cognitive tools for scaffolding students defining an ill-structured problem. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(4), 353–385. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.38.4.a.
References with Asterisks Indicates Articles Included in Meta-Analysis
*Adair, D., & Jaeger, M. (2014). Integration of computational fluid dynamics into a fluid mechanics curriculum. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 22, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20539
*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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013995314094
*Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.774
*Aydin, E., & Cagiltay, N. (2012). A new RF and Microwave Engineering course enriched with advanced technologies. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 20(4), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20432
*Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5
CBarak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20027
*Beal, C. R., Arroyo, I., Cohen, P. R., Woolf, B. P., & Beal, C. R. (2010). Evaluation of AnimalWatch: An intelligent tutoring system for arithmetic and fractions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 64–77.
*Belland, B. R. (2008). Supporting middle school students’ construction of evidence-based arguments: Impact of and student interactions with computerbased argumentation scaffolds (PhD dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (publication number 304502316).
*Bornas, X., & Llabrés, J. (2001). Helping students build knowledge: what computers should do. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2001(1), 267–280.
*Butz, B. P., Duarte, M., & Miller, S. M. (2006). An intelligent tutoring system for circuit analysis. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49, 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.872407
*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. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x
*Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94, 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20352
*Chen, C.-H. (2014). An adaptive scaffolding e-learning system for middle school students’ physics learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 342–355. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.v30i3.430
*Chen, Y.-S., Kao, T.-C., & Sheu, J.-P. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00036.x
*Chen, Y.-S., Kao, T.-C., & Sheu, J.-P. (2005). Realizing outdoor independent learning with a butterfly-watching mobile learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 395–417. https://doi.org/10.2190/0PAB-HRN9-PJ9K-DY0C
*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. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2217747
*Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Young children can learn scientific reasoning with teachable agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.24
*Ching, Y.-H. (2009). The effects of computer-based video strategy training for problem representation and self-explanation on undergraduate students representing and solving ill-structured problems (PhD Thesis). The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3399635).
*Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). A knowledge engineering approach to developing mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54, 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.023
*Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.2190/3UL1-4756-H837-2704
*Clark, D. B., Touchman, S., Martinez-Garza, M., Ramirez-Marin, F., & Skjerping Drews, T. (2012). Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1207–1224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.019
*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.
*Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 245–252). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365111
*Dancik, G., & Kumar, A. (2003). A tutor for counter-controlled loop concepts and its evaluation. In Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003 33rd Annual (Vol. 1, pp. T3C–7–12). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263331
*Demetriadis, S. N., Papadopoulos, P. M., Stamelos, I. G., & Fischer, F. (2008). The effect of scaffolding students’ context-generating cognitive activity in technology-enhanced case-based learning. Computers & Education, 51, 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.012
*Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3
*Dori, Y. J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20197
*Dori, Y. J., Barak, M., & Adir, N. (2003). A web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshmen learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 80, 1084–1092. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p1084
*Etheris, A. I., & Tan, S. C. (2004). Computer-supported collaborative problem solving and anchored instruction in a mathematics classroom: an exploratory study. International Journal of Learning Technology, 1, 16. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijlt.2004.003680
*Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., … LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics.
*Frailich, M., Kesner, M., & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20278
*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(5), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652729.2007.00226.x
*Galleto, P. G., & Refugio, C. N. (2012). Students' skills in mathematical computation using graphing calculator. In Proceedings of the 17th Asian technology conference in mathematics. Thailand: ATCM.
*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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515
*Ge, X., Planas, L. G., & Er, N. (2010). A cognitive support system to scaffold students’ problem-based learning in a web-based learning environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1093
*Gijlers, A. H. (2005). Confrontation and co-construction: exploring and supporting collaborative scientific discovery learning with computer simulations (PhD Thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
*Girault, I., & d’Ham, C. (2013). Scaffolding a complex task of experimental design in chemistry with a computer environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 514–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9481-5
*Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Mathews, E. C., Mitchell, H. H., Olney, A., Ventura, M., … Louwerse, M. M. (2003). Why/AutoTutor: A test of learning gains from a physics tutor with natural language dialog. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1–6).
*Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition & Learning, 2(2/3), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9013-x
Hickey, D. T., Barab, S. A., Ingram-Goble, A., & Zuiker, S. J. (2008). First things first: design principles for worthwhile educational videogames Proceedings of the 8th International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 1 (pp. 350–357): International Society of the Learning Sciences.
*Hmelo, C. E., & Day, R. S. (1999). Contextualized questioning to scaffold learning from simulations. Computers & Education, 32, 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(98)00062-1
*Holland, J. (2009). A constraint-based ITS for the java programming language (PhD Thesis). University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
*Huang, L.-H., Dow, C.-R., Li, Y.-H., & Hsuan, P. (2013). u-TA: A ubiquitous teaching assistant using knowledge retrieval and adaptive learning techniques. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20466
*Hulshof, C. D., & de Jong, T. (2006). Using just-in-time information to support scientific discovery learning in a computer-based simulation. Interactive Learning Environments, 14, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600769171
*Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2008). Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 50, 301–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.06.002
*Hundhausen, C., Agarwal, P., Zollars, R., & Carter, A. (2011). The design and experimental evaluation of a scaffolded software environment to improve engineering students’ disciplinary problem-solving skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 574–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00027.x
*Hung, P.-H., Hwang, G.-J., Lin, Y.-F., Wu, T.-H., & Su, I.-H. (2013). Seamless connection between learning and assessment - Applying progressive learning tasks in mobile ecology inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 194–205.
*Hwang, W.-Y., & Hu, S.-S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education, 62, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.005
*Hwang, G.-J., Shi, Y.-R., & Chu, H.-C. (2010). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 778–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01102.x
*Hwang, G.-J., Tsai, C.-C., Chu, H.-C., Kinshuk, & Chen, C.-Y. (2012). A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a science park. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 931–947. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.v28i5.825
*Hwang, G.-J., Kuo, F.-R., Chen, N.-S., & Ho, H.-J. (2014). Effects of an integrated concept mapping and web-based problem-solving approach on students’ learning achievements, perceptions and cognitive loads. Computers & Education, 71, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.013
*Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated learning in problem-solving scenarios. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52.
*Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9118-3
*Kajamies, A., Vauras, M., & Kinnunen, R. (2010). Instructing low-achievers in mathematical word problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54, 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.493341
*Katai, Z. (2011). Multi-sensory method for teaching-learning recursion. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20305
*Kereluik, K. M. (2013). Scaffolding self-regulated learning online: A study in high school mathematics classrooms (PhD Thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3604541).
*Kinnebrew, J. S., Segedy, J. R., & Biswas, G. (2014). Analyzing the temporal evolution of students' behaviors in open-ended learning environments. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 187–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9112-4
*Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., Hadley, W. H., & Mark, M. A. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43.
*Koenig, A. D. (2008b). Exploring effective educational video game design: The interplay between narrative and game-schema construction (PhD Thesis). Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3303246).
*Kong, S. C. (2011). An evaluation study of the use of a cognitive tool in a one-to-one classroom for promoting classroom-based dialogic interaction. Computers & Education, 57, 1851–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.008
*Korganci, N., Miron, C., Dafinei, A., & Antohe, S. (2014). Comparison of generating concept maps and using concept maps on students achievement. eLearning & Software for Education, 2014(2), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-14-098
*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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00157.x
*Kramarski, B., & Hirsch, C. (2003). Using computer algebra systems in mathematical classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00004.x
*Kramarski, B., & Mizrachi, N. (2006). Online discussion and self-regulated learning: Effects of instructional methods on mathematical literacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.218-231
*Kumar, A. N. (2002). A tutor for using dynamic memory in C++. In Frontiers in education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual (Vol. 1, pp. 12–16). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2002.1158013
*Kumar, A. N. (2005). Results from the evaluation of the effectiveness of an online tutor on expression evaluation. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 216–220). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047422
*Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y.-C., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive collaborative learning support. In R. Luckin & K. R. Koedinger (Eds.), Proceedings of artificial intelligence in education (Vol. 158, pp. 383–390). IOS Press.
*Lane, H. C. (2004). Natural language tutoring and the novice programmer (PhD Thesis). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3159060).
*Lee, Y.-J. (2010). Effects of instructional preparation strategies on problem solving in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 385–406. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.4.b
*Lee, M., Pradhan, S., & Dalgarno, B. (2008). The effectiveness of screencasts and cognitive tools as scaffolding for novice object-oriented programmers. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 7, 61–80.
*Leemkuil, H., & de Jong, T. (2012). Adaptive advice in learning with a computer-based knowledge management simulation game. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0141
*Leutner, D. (1993). Guided discovery learning with computer-based simulation games: Effects of adaptive and non-adaptive instructional support. Learning and Instruction, 3, 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(93)90011-N
*Li, S. (2001). Contingent scaffolding strategies in computer-based learning environments (PhD Thesis). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3024299).
*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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U
*Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2000). Knowledge integration and displaced volume. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009451808539
*Liu, M.-C., Huang, Y.-M., Kinshuk, & Wen, D. (2013). Fostering learners’ metacognitive skills of keyword reformulation in image seeking by location-based hierarchical navigation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(2), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9280-3
*MacGregor, S. K., & Lou, Y. (2004). Web-based learning: How task scaffolding and website design support knowledge acquisition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782431
*Madsen, A., Rouinfar, A., Larson, A. M., Loschky, L. C., & Rebello, N. S. (2013). Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020104–1–020104–16. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020104
*Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00162.x
*Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y
*Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20222
*Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Gil, F. A., Contero, M., & Saorín, J. L. (2013). Dynamic three-dimensional illustrator for teaching descriptive geometry and training visualisation skills. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21, 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20447
*Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.171
*Mendicino, M., Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, N. T. (2009). A comparison of traditional homework to computer-supported homework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782534
*Mitrovic, A., & Ohlsson, S. (1999). Evaluation of a constraint-based tutor for a database language. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1999, 238–256.
*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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117
*Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing two types of model progression in an inquiry learning environment with modelling facilities. Learning and Instruction, 21, 614–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.01.003
*Nichols, K., Hanan, J., & Ranasinghe, M. (2011). Transforming the social practices of learning with representations: A study of disciplinary discourse. Research in Science Education, 43, 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9263-0
*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(2), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y
*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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1201_4
*Pareto, L., Arvemo, T., Dahl, Y., Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2011). A teachable-agent arithmetic game’s effects on mathematics understanding, attitude and self-efficacy. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011, Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 6738, pp. 247–255.
*Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindström, P., Sjödén, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: evaluating math comprehension and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 723–751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5
*Pfahl, D., Laitenberger, O., Ruhe, G., Dorsch, J., & Krivobokova, T. (2004). Evaluating the learning effectiveness of using simulations in software project management education: results from a twice replicated experiment. Information and Software Technology, 46, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(03)00115-0
*Philpot, T. A., Hall, R. H., Hubing, N., & Flori, R. E. (2005). Using games to teach statics calculation procedures: Application and assessment. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 13, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20043
*Pifarré, M., Martorell, I., & Gòdia, S. (2006). Learning from the web: Analyses the incidence of an instructional approach to improve secondary students’ web performance. In Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on cognition & exploratory learning in digital age (pp. 52–59). Barcelona, Spain: International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age.
*Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human–Computer Interaction, 18, 395–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1804_3
*Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00002.x
*Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00030-5
*Revelle, G., Druin, A., Platner, M., Bederson, B., Hourcade, J. P., & Sherman, L. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013947430933
*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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.008
*Rodriguez, D., Sicilia, M. A., Cuadrado-Gallego, J. J., & Pfahl, D. (2006). e-Learning in project management using simulation models: A case study based on the replication of an experiment. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49, 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.882367
*Ronen, M., & Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation — a bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00112.x
*Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). From handheld collaborative tool to effective classroom module: Embedding CSCL in a broader design framework. Computers & Education, 55, 1018–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.012
*Rosen, Y., & Tager, M. (2014). Making student thinking visible through a concept map in computer-based assessment of critical thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50, 249–270. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.2.f
*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 & Technology, 40, 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390902971999
*Rouinfar, A., Agra, E., Murray, J., Larson, A., Loschky, L.C., & Rebello, N.S. (2014). Influence of visual cueing on students’ eye movements while solving physics problems. In Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications (pp. 191–194). New York: ACM.
*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 & Distance Learning, 13(3), 206–227.
*Segedy, J. R. (2014). Adaptive scaffolds in open-ended computer-based learning environments (PhD Thesis). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3674132).
*Siegel, M. A. (2006). High school students’ decision making about sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 12, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620600689003.
*Siler, S., Mowery, D., Magaro, C., Willows, K., & Klahr, D. (2010). Comparison of a computer-based to hands-on lesson in experimental design. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 408–410). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
*Simons, K. D., & Klein, J. D. (2007). The impact of scaffolding and student achievement levels in a problem-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 35, 41–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9002-5
*Stark, D. M. (2013). Ill-structured problems, scaffolding and problem-solving ability of novice nursing students (PhD Thesis). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3553778).
*Sun, C.-T., Wang, D.-Y., & Chan, H.-L. (2011). How digital scaffolds in games direct problem-solving behaviors. Computers & Education, 57, 2118–2125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.022
*Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning; the effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00018-8
*Tan, S. C. (2000). Supporting collaborative problem-solving through computer-supported collaborative argumentation (PhD Thesis). The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 9982414).
*Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00005.x
*Thomas, J. M. (2011). Automated scaffolding of task-based learning in non-linear game environments (PhD Thesis). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (Publication Number 3463833).
*Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86, 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10004
*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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00083.x
*Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505023
*Vanlehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J. A., Shelby, R., Taylor, L., … Wintersgill, M. (2005). The Andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 147–204.
*Vreman de Olde, C., & de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolding learners in designing investigation assignments for a computer simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00160.x
*Ward, W., Cole, R., Bolaños, D., Buchenroth-Martin, C., Svirsky, E., & Weston, T. (2013). My science tutor: A conversational multimedia virtual tutor. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031589
*Weusijana, B. K. A., Riesbeck, C. K., & Walsh, J. T., Jr. (2004). Fostering reflection with Socratic tutoring software: Results of using inquiry teaching strategies with web-based HCI techniques. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 561–567). Santa Monica, California: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
*Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209333183
*Woo, C. W., Evens, M. W., Freedman, R., Glass, M., Shim, L. S., Zhang, Y., … Michael, J. (2006). An intelligent tutoring system that generates a natural language dialogue using dynamic multi-level planning. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 38(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2005.10.004
*Yeh, Y.-F., Chen, M.-C., Hung, P.-H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2010). Optimal self-explanation prompt design in dynamic multi-representational learning environments. Computers & Education, 54, 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.013
*Yin, C., Song, Y., Tabata, Y., Ogata, H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). Developing and implementing a framework of participatory simulation for mobile learning using scaffolding. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 137–150.
*Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers’ explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1741–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239664
*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 of conference on educational use of information and communication technology (pp. 344–351).
*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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00062.x
*Zucker, A., Kay, R., & Staudt, C. (2013). Helping students make sense of graphs: An experimental trial of SmartGraphs software. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9475-3
*Zydney, J. M. (2005). Eighth-grade students defining complex problems: The effectiveness of scaffolding in a multimedia program. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 14(1), 61–90.
*Zydney, J. M., Bathke, A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2014). Finding the optimal guidance for enhancing anchored instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22, 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745436
Funding
This research was partially supported by Grant ____ to the second author from____. Any opinions, findings, and or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of _____.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Summary of included outcomes
Study | Group size | Scaffolding for collaboration | Scaffolding intervention | Assessment level | Education level | Participants (n) | Effect size | Lower CI | Upper CI | Control group |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Hmelo and Day 1999) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | graduate/pro | 35 | 0.82 | 0.12 | 1.49 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | graduate/pro | 34 | 0.83 | 0.12 | 1.50 | BAU | |
(Chen et al. 2003) | pair | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 43 | 1.06 | 0.41 | 1.67 | BAU |
(Mayer et al. 2002) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 48 | 0.84 | 0.24 | 1.41 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 94 | 0.68 | 0.22 | 1.12 | BAU | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 95 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 0.91 | BAU | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 73 | 0.85 | 0.37 | 1.32 | BAU | |
(Chang et al. 2001) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 32 | 0.4 | − 0.30 | 1.08 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 33 | 0.25 | − 0.43 | 0.92 | WOS | |
(Linn and Eylon 2000) | small | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 144 | 0.53 | 0.18 | 0.87 | WOS |
small | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 144 | 0.36 | 0.02 | 0.70 | WOS | |
small | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 144 | 0.32 | − 0.03 | 0.66 | WOS | |
(MacGregor and Lou 2004) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 22 | 0.94 | 0.03 | 1.79 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 22 | 1.22 | 0.27 | 2.08 | WOS | |
(Revelle et al. 2002) | pair | no | strategic | application | primary | 99 | 0.77 | 0.36 | 1.17 | WOS |
pair | no | strategic | application | primary | 96 | 0.79 | 0.37 | 1.20 | WOS | |
(Lane 2004) | individual | no | strategic | application | C/V/T | 21 | 0.91 | − 0.02 | 1.76 | BAU |
(Puntambekar et al. 2003) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 36 | 0.82 | 0.13 | 1.47 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 32 | 0.52 | − 0.19 | 1.21 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 36 | − 0.4 | − 1.05 | 0.26 | WOS | |
(Zhang et al. 2004) | individual | no | strategic | concept | middle | 80 | − 0.16 | − 0.60 | 0.28 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 80 | − 0.34 | − 0.77 | 0.10 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | application | middle | 80 | − 0.1 | − 0.53 | 0.34 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | concept | middle | 30 | − 0.35 | − 1.06 | 0.37 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 30 | − 0.21 | − 0.91 | 0.51 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | application | middle | 30 | 0.06 | − 0.65 | 0.76 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 30 | 0.87 | 0.11 | 1.59 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 30 | 0.64 | − 0.10 | 1.35 | WOS | |
(Ulicsak 2004) | pair | collaboration | strategic | concept | primary | 51 | 0.21 | − 0.34 | 0.75 | BAU |
pair | collaboration | strategic | concept | primary | 51 | 0.13 | − 0.42 | 0.67 | BAU | |
pair | collaboration | strategic | concept | primary | 51 | 0.13 | − 0.42 | 0.67 | BAU | |
pair | collaboration | strategic | concept | primary | 51 | 0.41 | − 0.14 | 0.96 | BAU | |
pair | collaboration | strategic | concept | primary | 51 | 0.22 | − 0.33 | 0.76 | BAU | |
(Vreman de Olde and de Jong 2006) | individual | no | strategic | application | secondary | 35 | 0.77 | 0.04 | 1.46 | WOS |
(Zydney 2005) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 30 | 1.01 | 0.24 | 1.74 | WOS |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 30 | 0.19 | − 0.53 | 0.89 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 30 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 1.46 | WOS | |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 30 | 0.82 | 0.06 | 1.53 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 30 | 0.6 | − 0.14 | 1.30 | WOS | |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 30 | − 0.01 | − 0.71 | 0.70 | WOS | |
(Siegel 2006) | individual | no | strategic | principles | secondary | 47 | 0.43 | − 0.16 | 1.01 | WOS |
(Manlove et al. 2007) | pair | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 35 | − 1.26 | − 1.95 | − 0.51 | WOS |
pair | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 35 | 1.62 | 0.82 | 2.35 | WOS | |
(Fund 2007) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 154 | 0.95 | 0.61 | 1.28 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 147 | 0.67 | 0.34 | 1.00 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 151 | 0.65 | 0.32 | 0.97 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 165 | 0.21 | − 0.10 | 0.51 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 154 | 1.14 | 0.80 | 1.48 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 147 | 0.91 | 0.57 | 1.25 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 151 | 0.67 | 0.34 | 1.00 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 165 | 0.29 | − 0.02 | 0.59 | WOS | |
(Graesser et al. 2007) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 33 | 0.16 | − 0.52 | 0.83 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 33 | − 0.36 | − 1.03 | 0.33 | WOS | |
individual | no | motivational | concept | adult | 38 | 0.87 | 0.20 | 1.52 | WOS | |
(Su 2008) | small | collaboration | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 65 | − 0.11 | − 0.60 | 0.37 | WOS |
small | collaboration | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 63 | − 0.17 | − 0.66 | 0.33 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 216 | 0.15 | − 0.12 | 0.41 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 208 | 0.24 | − 0.04 | 0.51 | WOS | |
(Etheris and Tan 2004) | small | collaboration | strategic | application | middle | 9 | 0.67 | − 0.68 | 1.86 | WOS |
(Tan et al. 2005) | large | collaboration | strategic | principles | middle | 68 | 0.61 | 0.12 | 1.09 | WOS |
large | collaboration | strategic | principles | middle | 68 | 0.7 | 0.20 | 1.18 | WOS | |
large | collaboration | strategic | principles | middle | 68 | 0.36 | − 0.12 | 0.83 | WOS | |
(Demetriadis et al. 2008) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 32 | 0.74 | 0.02 | 1.43 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 32 | 0.86 | 0.12 | 1.55 | WOS | |
(Belland 2009) | small | collaboration | strategic | application | middle | 37 | − 0.25 | − 0.90 | 0.41 | WAS |
small | collaboration | strategic | application | middle | 49 | − 0.09 | − 0.65 | 0.47 | WAS | |
(Pifarré et al. 2006) | pair | no | strategic | principles | middle | 89 | 0.63 | 0.20 | 1.05 | BAU |
(Simons and Klein 2007) | small | no | conceptual | application | middle | 70 | 0.82 | 0.30 | 1.33 | WOS |
small | no | conceptual | application | middle | 64 | 0.99 | 0.45 | 1.52 | WOS | |
small | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 70 | 0.64 | 0.13 | 1.14 | WOS | |
small | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 64 | 0.36 | − 0.16 | 0.87 | WOS | |
(Lee et al. 2008) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | G/P | 38 | − 0.27 | − 0.90 | 0.36 | WOS |
(Zydney 2008) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 41 | 0.47 | − 0.15 | 1.08 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 39 | 0 | − 0.62 | 0.62 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 41 | 0.43 | − 0.19 | 1.04 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 40 | 0.03 | − 0.58 | 0.64 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 38 | 0.52 | − 0.13 | 1.15 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 40 | 0.03 | − 0.59 | 0.64 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 41 | − 0.18 | − 0.78 | 0.43 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 39 | − 0.03 | − 0.65 | 0.60 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 41 | 0.03 | − 0.57 | 0.64 | WOS | |
(Looi and Lim 2009) | pair | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 68 | 1.07 | 0.55 | 1.56 | BAU |
(Yeh et al. 2010) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 163 | 1.56 | 1.21 | 1.91 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 162 | 1.38 | 1.03 | 1.72 | WOS | |
(Mendicino et al. 2009) | individual | no | strategic | concept | primary | 56 | 0.62 | 0.08 | 1.15 | WOS |
(Gijlers 2005) | pair | collaboration | conceptual | principles | secondary | 44 | 0.69 | 0.08 | 1.28 | BAU |
pair | collaboration | conceptual | concept | secondary | 44 | 0.61 | 0.00 | 1.20 | BAU | |
pair | collaboration | conceptual | principles | secondary | 44 | − 0.15 | − 0.73 | 0.44 | BAU | |
pair | collaboration | conceptual | concept | secondary | 44 | − 0.27 | − 0.85 | 0.32 | BAU | |
pair | collaboration | strategic | principles | secondary | 24 | 0.38 | − 0.42 | 1.16 | WOS | |
pair | collaboration | strategic | concept | secondary | 24 | − 0.49 | − 1.27 | 0.32 | WOS | |
pair | collaboration | strategic | principles | secondary | 24 | 0.73 | − 0.11 | 1.52 | WOS | |
(Ross and Bruce 2009) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 178 | 0.27 | − 0.03 | 0.56 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 217 | 0.08 | − 0.27 | 0.42 | BAU | |
(Kajamies et al. 2010) | pair | no | strategic | principles | primary | 16 | 0.7 | − 0.32 | 1.64 | BAU |
pair | no | strategic | principles | primary | 16 | 0.58 | − 0.42 | 1.52 | BAU | |
pair | no | strategic | principles | primary | 16 | 0.78 | − 0.25 | 1.73 | WOS | |
pair | no | strategic | principles | primary | 16 | 0.51 | − 0.49 | 1.45 | WOS | |
(Sun et al. 2011) | individual | no | strategic | concept | middle | 46 | 0.32 | − 0.26 | 0.89 | WOS |
(Toth et al. 2002) | small | collaboration | strategic | concept | secondary | 10 | 1.06 | − 0.30 | 2.21 | WOS |
small | collaboration | metacognitive | concept | secondary | 10 | − 1.03 | − 2.19 | 0.32 | WOS | |
(Yoon et al. 2012) | triad | collaboration | conceptual | concept | middle | 119 | 0.16 | − 0.34 | 0.66 | WOS |
triad | collaboration | conceptual | principles | middle | 34 | 0.93 | 0.21 | 1.61 | WOS | |
(Reid et al. 2003) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 38 | − 0.35 | − 0.98 | 0.29 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 38 | − 0.32 | − 0.95 | 0.32 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 38 | − 0.03 | − 0.66 | 0.60 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | concept | middle | 38 | 0.08 | − 0.55 | 0.71 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | application | middle | 38 | 0.75 | 0.08 | 1.38 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 38 | 0.59 | − 0.07 | 1.22 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | concept | middle | 38 | 0.38 | − 0.27 | 1.01 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 38 | 0.6 | − 0.05 | 1.23 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | application | middle | 38 | 0.53 | − 0.12 | 1.16 | WOS | |
(Ward et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 1098 | 0.18 | − 0.05 | 0.40 | BAU |
(Clark et al. 2012) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 50 | 0.41 | − 0.15 | 0.96 | WAS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 50 | 0.59 | 0.02 | 1.15 | WAS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 50 | 0.52 | − 0.05 | 1.07 | WAS | |
(Raes et al. 2012) | pair | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 135 | 0.02 | − 0.32 | 0.36 | WOS |
(Liu et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 128 | 1.37 | 0.97 | 1.74 | WOS |
(Stark 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 42 | 0.13 | − 0.50 | 0.77 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 37 | − 0.78 | − 1.44 | − 0.08 | WOS | |
(Tan 2000) | small | collaboration | strategic | application | C/V/T | 53 | − 0.2 | − 0.75 | 0.36 | WOS |
small | collaboration | strategic | application | C/V/T | 53 | 0.35 | − 0.21 | 0.90 | WOS | |
(Li 2001) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 36 | 0.93 | 0.23 | 1.59 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 36 | 0.1 | − 0.55 | 0.74 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 35 | 1.17 | 0.43 | 1.85 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 35 | 0.24 | − 0.42 | 0.89 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 36 | 0.6 | − 0.07 | 1.25 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 36 | − 0.21 | − 0.85 | 0.44 | WOS | |
(Chu et al. 2010) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 13 | 1.72 | 0.37 | 2.83 | BAU |
(Ge et al. 2010) | small | collaboration | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 96 | 1.83 | 1.34 | 2.29 | WOS |
(Ching 2009) | individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 49 | 0.33 | − 0.24 | 0.88 | WOS |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | C/V/T | 50 | 0.21 | − 0.35 | 0.76 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 50 | 0.53 | − 0.04 | 1.08 | WOS | |
(Thomas 2011) | individual | no | strategic | concept | G/P | 18 | 0.85 | − 0.13 | 1.75 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | concept | G/P | 20 | 2.29 | 1.09 | 3.29 | BAU | |
(Ruzhitskaya 2011) | pair | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 132 | 0.39 | 0.04 | 0.73 | BAU |
pair | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 131 | 0.44 | 0.10 | 0.79 | BAU | |
(Clarebout and Elen 2006) | individual | no | strategic | application | C/V/T | 128 | 0.48 | 0.13 | 0.83 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | application | C/V/T | 121 | 0.33 | − 0.03 | 0.68 | WOS | |
(Chen et al. 2005) | pair | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 12 | 1.9 | 0.44 | 3.06 | WOS |
(Barab et al. 2009) | pair | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 25 | 1.38 | 0.48 | 2.19 | WOS |
pair | no | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 25 | 1.53 | 0.60 | 2.35 | WOS | |
(Hickey et al. (2008) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 26 | 0.93 | 0.10 | 1.70 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 26 | 0.51 | − 0.28 | 1.26 | WOS | |
(Lee 2010) | triad | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 247 | 0.73 | 0.47 | 0.98 | WOS |
triad | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 248 | 0.48 | 0.22 | 0.73 | WOS | |
triad | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 248 | 0.37 | 0.12 | 0.62 | WOS | |
(Su and Klein 2010) | small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 109 | 0.14 | − 0.23 | 0.52 | WOS |
small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 99 | 0.33 | − 0.08 | 0.72 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | metacognitive | concept | C/V/T | 104 | 0.05 | − 0.34 | 0.43 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | metacognitive | concept | C/V/T | 112 | − 0.34 | − 0.71 | 0.03 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 63 | − 0.71 | − 1.20 | − 0.19 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | metacognitive | principles | C/V/T | 65 | − 0.12 | − 0.60 | 0.37 | WOS | |
(Schrader and Bastiaens 2012) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 59 | 1.17 | 0.61 | 1.71 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 59 | 0.95 | 0.40 | 1.47 | WOS | |
(Chen et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 28 | 0.83 | 0.02 | 1.60 | BAU |
(Holland 2009) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 35 | − 0.04 | − 0.72 | 0.64 | WOS |
(Kumar 2005) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 64 | 0.26 | − 0.23 | 0.75 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 48 | 0.48 | − 0.10 | 1.04 | WOS | |
(Bornas and Llabrés 2001) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 30 | 0.71 | 0.50 | 0.92 | BAU |
(Barak and Dori 2005) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 215 | 0.68 | 0.40 | 0.95 | BAU |
(Ronen and Eliahu 2000) | pair | no | conceptual | application | secondary | 42 | 1.64 | 0.87 | 2.35 | BAU |
pair | no | conceptual | application | secondary | 34 | 1.04 | 0.29 | 1.74 | BAU | |
(Deters 2008) | individual | no | metacognitive | application | secondary | 51 | 0.33 | − 0.22 | 0.88 | WOS |
individual | no | metacognitive | application | secondary | 52 | 0.34 | − 0.22 | 0.88 | WOS | |
(Conati and Vanlehn 2000) | individual | no | metacognitive | principles | C/V/T | 56 | 0.1 | − 0.42 | 0.62 | WOS |
(Dori and Belcher 2005) | triad | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 811 | 0.55 | 0.35 | 0.74 | BAU |
(Kaberman and Dori 2009) | individual | no | strategic | application | secondary | 241 | 0.64 | 0.33 | 0.94 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | application | secondary | 176 | 0.58 | 0.27 | 0.88 | WOS | |
(Dori and Sasson 2008) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 661 | 0.84 | 0.57 | 1.10 | WOS |
(Nichols et al. 2011) | triad | collaboration | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 269 | − 0.07 | − 0.31 | 0.17 | WOS |
triad | collaboration | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 254 | − 0.15 | − 0.40 | 0.10 | WOS | |
triad | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 254 | 0.24 | − 0.01 | 0.49 | WOS | |
triad | collaboration | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 269 | 0.15 | − 0.09 | 0.39 | WOS | |
(Leutner 1993) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 32 | 0.63 | − 0.09 | 1.32 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 32 | − 0.99 | − 1.69 | − 0.24 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 38 | 0.84 | 0.16 | 1.48 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 38 | − 0.56 | − 1.19 | 0.09 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 40 | 0.23 | − 0.39 | 0.84 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 40 | 0.19 | − 0.43 | 0.80 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 40 | 0.19 | − 0.42 | 0.81 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 40 | − 0.17 | − 0.78 | 0.45 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 32 | − 0.01 | − 0.69 | 0.68 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 40 | 0.27 | − 0.35 | 0.88 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 32 | 0.36 | − 0.34 | 1.04 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 40 | 0.1 | − 0.51 | 0.71 | WOS | |
(Vanlehn et al. 2005) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 912 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 0.47 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 1066 | 0.5 | 0.38 | 0.62 | BAU | |
(Parchman et al. 2000) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 37 | 0.49 | − 0.19 | 1.16 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 37 | 0.14 | − 0.53 | 0.80 | BAU | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 47 | 0.27 | − 0.30 | 0.84 | BAU | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 47 | 0.3 | − 0.27 | 0.87 | BAU | |
(Renkl 2002) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 48 | 0.5 | − 0.09 | 1.07 | WAS |
(Rieber et al. 2004) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 26 | 1.61 | 0.68 | 2.42 | WOS |
(Wiley et al. 2009) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 60 | 0.51 | − 0.01 | 1.02 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 60 | 0.63 | 0.11 | 1.14 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 60 | 1.05 | 0.50 | 1.57 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 60 | 0.77 | 0.24 | 1.29 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 60 | 0.74 | 0.21 | 1.25 | WOS | |
(Ardac and Akaygun 2004) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 49 | 0.88 | 0.25 | 1.48 | BAU |
(Chang et al. 2010) | small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | middle | 110 | 0.47 | 0.08 | 0.85 | WOS |
small | collaboration | conceptual | principles | middle | 110 | 0.63 | 0.24 | 1.01 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | middle | 114 | − 0.49 | − 0.87 | − 0.11 | WOS | |
small | collaboration | conceptual | principles | middle | 114 | − 0.2 | − 0.57 | 0.18 | WOS | |
(Frailich et al. 2009) | triad | collaboration | conceptual | concept | secondary | 233 | 0.76 | 0.48 | 1.03 | BAU |
(Hundhausen et al. 2011) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 21 | − 0.22 | − 1.05 | 0.63 | WOS |
(Dori et al. 2003) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 215 | 1.03 | 0.74 | 1.31 | BAU |
(Finkelstein et al. 2005) | small | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 231 | 0.43 | 0.17 | 0.70 | WOS |
small | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 231 | 0.25 | − 0.02 | 0.51 | WOS | |
(Adair and Jaeger 2014) | individual | no | strategic | concept | C/V/T | 81 | 0.68 | 0.22 | 1.12 | BAU |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 81 | 0.13 | − 0.31 | 0.56 | BAU | |
(Mitrovic and Ohlsson 1999) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 46 | 0.75 | 0.14 | 1.33 | BAU |
(Huang et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 86 | 0.54 | 0.11 | 0.96 | WOS |
(Martín-Gutiérrez et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 40 | 0.22 | − 0.40 | 0.84 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 40 | 0.09 | − 0.53 | 0.70 | BAU | |
(Aydin and Cagiltay 2012) | large | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 112 | 1.43 | 1.00 | 1.84 | WOS |
(Katai 2011) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 43 | 1.06 | 0.40 | 1.67 | BAU |
(Van Eck and Dempsey 2002) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 35 | 0.66 | − 0.03 | 1.32 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 35 | 0.2 | − 0.46 | 0.86 | WOS | |
(Rodriguez et al. 2006) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 11 | 1.09 | − 0.22 | 2.21 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 11 | 0.67 | − 0.55 | 1.78 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 11 | 0.92 | − 0.36 | 2.03 | WOS | |
(Pfahl et al. 2004) | individual | no | strategic | concept | graduate/pro | 34 | 0.63 | − 0.06 | 1.30 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | principles | graduate/pro | 34 | 0.08 | − 0.58 | 0.75 | WOS | |
(Hwang et al. 2010) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 45 | 0.34 | − 0.25 | 0.91 | WOS |
(Roschelle et al. 2010a, Roschelle et al. 2010b, Roschelle et al. 2010) | triad | collaboration | conceptual | concept | primary | 158 | 0.32 | 0.01 | 0.63 | WOS |
(Marbach-Ad et al. 2008) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 132 | 0.22 | − 0.13 | 0.56 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 132 | 0.56 | 0.21 | 0.91 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 132 | 0.7 | 0.35 | 1.05 | BAU | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 132 | 1.92 | 1.49 | 2.32 | BAU | |
(Pareto et al. 2011) | individual | no | metacognitive | concept | primary | 153 | 0.38 | 0.05 | 0.70 | BAU |
(Hwang and Hu 2013) | small | collaboration | conceptual | principles | primary | 58 | 0.59 | 0.06 | 1.10 | WOS |
(Hulshof and de Jong 2006) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 25 | 0.61 | − 0.20 | 1.39 | WOS |
(Swaak et al. 1998) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 42 | 0.1 | − 0.50 | 0.69 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 42 | 0.77 | 0.14 | 1.38 | WOS | |
(Manlove et al. 2006) | triad | collaboration | conceptual | principles | secondary | 17 | 0.92 | − 0.10 | 1.85 | WOS |
(Ardac and Sezen 2002) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 39 | 0.66 | 0.01 | 1.29 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 43 | 0.13 | − 0.47 | 0.72 | BAU | |
(Zhang et al. 2000) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 26 | − 0.08 | − 0.84 | 0.67 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 26 | − 0.45 | − 1.20 | 0.33 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 26 | − 0.18 | − 0.93 | 0.59 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 26 | − 0.75 | − 1.51 | 0.06 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 26 | − 0.29 | − 1.04 | 0.48 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 26 | 0.21 | − 0.55 | 0.97 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 26 | 0.65 | − 0.15 | 1.41 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 26 | 0 | − 0.76 | 0.76 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 26 | − 0.11 | − 0.87 | 0.65 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 26 | − 0.23 | − 0.98 | 0.54 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 26 | − 0.12 | − 0.87 | 0.64 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | middle | 26 | − 0.03 | − 0.79 | 0.73 | WOS | |
(Leemkuil and de Jong 2012 | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 194 | 0.05 | − 0.23 | 0.33 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 194 | 0.22 | − 0.06 | 0.50 | WOS | |
(Mulder et al. 2011) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 58 | 0.02 | − 0.49 | 0.53 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 58 | 1.05 | 0.49 | 1.58 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 56 | 0.31 | − 0.22 | 0.83 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 56 | 0.07 | − 0.45 | 0.59 | WOS | |
(Atkinson et al. 2003) | individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 39 | 0.93 | 0.26 | 1.57 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 39 | 0.31 | − 0.33 | 0.92 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 39 | 0.74 | 0.08 | 1.37 | WOS | |
(Hundhausen and Brown 2008) | pair | collaboration | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 79 | 0.47 | 0.02 | 0.91 | WAS |
(Kramarski and Hirsch 2003) | individual | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 43 | 0.95 | 0.31 | 1.56 | WOS |
(Teong 2003) | pair | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 40 | 0.59 | − 0.05 | 1.20 | WOS |
pair | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 40 | 0.74 | 0.09 | 1.36 | WOS | |
(Kramarski and Gutman 2006) | pair | no | metacognitive | concept | secondary | 65 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.99 | WOS |
pair | no | metacognitive | application | secondary | 65 | 0.84 | 0.33 | 1.34 | WOS | |
pair | collaboration | metacognitive | principles | middle | 43 | 1.95 | 1.20 | 2.64 | WOS | |
pair | collaboration | metacognitive | concept | middle | 43 | 1.39 | 0.70 | 2.02 | WOS | |
(Zydney et al. 2014) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 30 | 0.54 | − 0.19 | 1.25 | WOS |
(Galleto and Refugio 2012) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 95 | 0.48 | 0.07 | 0.88 | BAU |
(Kong 2011) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | G/P | 68 | 0.51 | 0.01 | 0.99 | BAU |
(Graesser et al. 2003) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 48 | 1.56 | 0.86 | 2.20 | BAU |
(Pareto et al. 2012) | pair | collaboration | conceptual | concept | primary | 38 | 0.76 | 0.10 | 1.40 | BAU |
(Chin et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 133 | 0.97 | 0.57 | 1.36 | WOS |
(Hwang et al. 2012) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | primary | 43 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 1.24 | WOS |
(Corbett and Anderson 2001) | individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 20 | 0.73 | − 0.19 | 1.59 | WOS |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 20 | 0.95 | 0.01 | 1.82 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | C/V/T | 20 | 1.14 | 0.16 | 2.01 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | concept | C/V/T | 20 | 0.58 | − 0.32 | 1.43 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | concept | C/V/T | 20 | 0.79 | − 0.13 | 1.65 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | concept | C/V/T | 20 | 0.9 | − 0.04 | 1.76 | WOS | |
(Girault and d’Ham 2013) | individual | no | strategic | concept | C/V/T | 23 | 0.59 | − 0.27 | 1.40 | WOS |
(Korganci et al. 2014) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 30 | 1.7 | 0.83 | 2.47 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 32 | 0.75 | 0.02 | 1.44 | WOS | |
(Zucker et al. 2013) | small | no | conceptual | principles | middle level | 781 | 0.28 | 0.14 | 0.42 | BAU |
(Reif and Scott 1999) | individual | no | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 30 | 1.33 | 0.51 | 2.08 | BAU |
(Hung et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 49 | 0.62 | 0.04 | 1.18 | WOS |
(Ifenthaler 2012) | individual | no | metacognitive | concept | C/V/T | 58 | 0.83 | 0.29 | 1.36 | WOS |
individual | no | metacognitive | concept | C/V/T | 66 | − 0.02 | − 0.51 | 0.47 | WOS | |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | C/V/T | 58 | 0.52 | − 0.01 | 1.04 | WOS | |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | C/V/T | 66 | − 0.19 | − 0.68 | 0.30 | WOS | |
(Yin et al. 2013) | small | collaboration | conceptual | concept | G/P | 41 | 1.07 | 0.40 | 1.70 | WOS |
(Osman and Lee 2013) | individual | no | strategic | principles | secondary | 127 | 0.52 | 0.17 | 0.87 | BAU |
(Moreno and Mayer 2005) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 54 | 0.32 | − 0.22 | 0.86 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 54 | 1.19 | 0.60 | 1.76 | WOS | |
(Kereluik 2013) | individual | no | metacognitive | principles | secondary | 45 | 0.07 | − 0.54 | 0.69 | WOS |
(Butz et al. 2006) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 39 | 0.97 | 0.30 | 1.61 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 39 | 1.31 | 0.59 | 1.97 | BAU | |
(Philpot et al. 2005) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 114 | 0.64 | 0.17 | 1.10 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 78 | 0.8 | 0.29 | 1.29 | BAU | |
(Segedy 2014) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 65 | 0.01 | − 0.47 | 0.50 | WOS |
(Kinnebrew et al. 2014) | individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 35 | 0.15 | − 0.52 | 0.81 | WOS |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 32 | 0.71 | − 0.02 | 1.40 | WOS | |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 35 | 0.18 | − 0.48 | 0.84 | WOS | |
individual | no | metacognitive | principles | middle | 32 | 0.06 | − 0.63 | 0.75 | WOS | |
(Hwang et al. 2014) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 66 | 0.65 | 0.15 | 1.14 | WOS |
Rosen and Tager 2014) | individual | no | strategic | principles | secondary | 190 | 0.65 | 0.35 | 0.94 | WOS |
(Chen 2014) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 170 | 0.94 | 0.62 | 1.25 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 170 | − 0.16 | − 0.46 | 0.14 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | middle | 170 | 1.47 | 1.12 | 1.80 | WOS | |
(Zacharia 2005) | triad | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 88 | 0.69 | 0.26 | 1.12 | WOS |
triad | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 88 | 0.79 | 0.35 | 1.22 | WOS | |
(Rouinfar et al. 2014) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 80 | 0.74 | 0.28 | 1.18 | WOS |
(Madsen et al. 2013) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 37 | 0.69 | 0.02 | 1.33 | WOS |
(Siler et al. 2010) | individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 28 | 0.8 | 0.02 | 1.53 | BAU |
individual | no | strategic | principles | middle | 25 | 0.84 | 0.01 | 1.62 | BAU | |
Woo et al. 2006) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | G/P | 50 | − 0.48 | − 1.03 | 0.09 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | G/P | 50 | 1.22 | 0.60 | 1.80 | BAU | |
(Weusijana et al. 2004) | triad | collaboration | strategic | concept | C/V/T | 54 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 1.08 | WOS |
(Koedinger et al. 1997) | small | no | conceptual | principles | secondary | 169 | 0.66 | 0.30 | 1.01 | BAU |
(Koedinger et al. 1997) | small | no | conceptual | concept | secondary | 169 | 0.32 | − 0.03 | 0.67 | BAU |
(Lin and Lehman 1999) | individual | no | metacognitive | principles | C/V/T | 45 | 0.6 | − 0.01 | 1.18 | WOS |
individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 45 | 0.1 | − 0.49 | 0.68 | WOS | |
individual | no | motivational | principles | C/V/T | 45 | 0.06 | − 0.52 | 0.64 | WOS | |
individual | no | metacognitive | application | C/V/T | 45 | 1.41 | 0.74 | 2.04 | WOS | |
individual | no | conceptual | application | C/V/T | 45 | 0.6 | 0.00 | 1.19 | WOS | |
individual | no | motivational | application | C/V/T | 46 | 0.4 | − 0.19 | 0.97 | WOS | |
(Kumar et al. 2007) | pair | collaboration | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 58 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 1.11 | WOS |
(Ge and Land 2003) | small | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 24 | 1.77 | 0.78 | 2.64 | WOS |
small | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 31 | 1.21 | 0.43 | 1.94 | WOS | |
(Dancik and Kumar 2003) | individual | no | conceptual | principles | C/V/T | 47 | 0.59 | 0.00 | 1.16 | BAU |
Kumar 2002) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | C/V/T | 33 | − 0.16 | − 0.83 | 0.52 | BAU |
(Beal et al. 2010) | individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 23 | 0.71 | − 0.21 | 1.58 | BAU |
individual | no | conceptual | concept | middle | 32 | − 0.28 | − 1.10 | 0.56 | BAU |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, N.J., Belland, B.R., Lefler, M. et al. Computer-Based Scaffolding Targeting Individual Versus Groups in Problem-Centered Instruction for STEM Education: Meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 32, 415–461 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3