The significance of scaffolding in education has received considerable attention. Many studies have examined the effects of scaffolding with diverse groups of participants, purposes, learning outcomes, and learning environments. The purpose of this research was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effects of scaffolding on learning outcomes in an online learning environment in higher education. This meta-analysis included studies with 64 effect sizes from 18 journal articles published in English, in eight countries, from 2010 to 2019. The meta-analysis revealed that scaffolding in an online learning environment has a large and statistically significant effect on learning outcomes. The meta-cognitive domain yielded a larger effect size than did the affective and cognitive domains. In terms of types of scaffolding activities, meta-cognitive scaffolding outnumbered other types of scaffolding. Computers as a scaffolding source in an online learning environment were also more prevalent than were human instructors. In addition, scholars in the United States have produced a large portion of the scaffolding research. Finally, the academic area of language and literature has adopted scaffolding most widely. Given that effective scaffolding can improve the quality of learning in an online environment, the current research is expected to contribute to online learning outcomes and learning experiences.
- online learning,
- higher education,
- effect sizes
Download the article in PDF to read it.
- Adams Becker, S., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2018/8/2018horizonreport.pdf
- Ak, S. (2016). The role of technology-based scaffolding in problem-based online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12254
- An, Y.-J., & Cao, L. (2014). Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design problem solving and metacognitive skills in an online environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 552-568. Retrieved from https://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no4/An_1214.pdf
- Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.
- Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived learning, and game experiences. Computers and Education, 70, 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.003
- Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 505-518). New York, NY: Springer.
- Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding in STEM education: Strategies and efficacy evidence. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0
- Belland, B. R., Walker, A., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). 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
- Belland, B. R., Walker, A., Olsen, M. W., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational Technology and Society, 18(1), 183-197.https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1093
- BestCollege (2019). Online education trends report. Retrieved from https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/annual-trends-in-online-education/
- Doo, M. Y., Tang, Y., Bonk, C. J., & Zhu, M. (2020). MOOC instructor motivation and career and professional development. Distance Education, 41(1), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724770
- Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
- Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Harbord, R. M., Egger, M., & Sterne, J. A. (2006). A modified test for small study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 3443-3457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2380
- Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
- Higgins, J. & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
- Holmes, N. G., Day, J., Park, A. H. K., Bonn, D., & Roll, I. (2014). Making the failure more productive: Scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instructional Science, 42, 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9300-7
- Huang, Y., & Huang, Y-M. (2015). A scaffolding strategy to develop handheld sensor-based vocabulary games for improving students’ learning motivation and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(5), 691-708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9382-9
- Huang, Y., Liu, M., Chen, N., Kinshuk, & Wen, D. (2014). Facilitating learners’ web-based information problem-solving by query expansion-based concept mapping. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 517-532. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.613
- Kim, J. Y., & Lim, K. Y. (2019). Promoting learning in online, ill-structured problem solving: The effects of scaffolding type and metacognition level. Computers & Education, 138, 116-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.001
- Kim, M., & Hannafin, M. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology-enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39, 255-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9127-4
- 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
- Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090
- Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Extending the scaffolding metaphor. Instructional Science, 33, 541-557. http:/doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1279-2
- Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257-279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Maderer, J. (2017, January 9). Jill Watson, round three, Georgia Tech course prepares for third semester with virtual teaching assistants. Georgia Tech News Center. Retrieved from http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/01/09/jill-watson-round-three
- McFarland, M. (2016, March 11). What happened when a professor built a chatbot to be his teaching assistant? Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/05/11/this-professor-stunned-his-students-when-he-revealed-the-secret-identity-of-his-teaching-assistant/
- Metz, C., & Satariano, A. (2018, July 3). Silicon Valley’s giants take their talent hunt to Cambridge. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/03/technology/cambridge-artificial-intelligence.html
- Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2017). Why study on a MOOC? The motives of learners and professionals. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 92-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.3033
- Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1076/ilee.220.127.116.1136
- Özçinar, H. (2015). Scaffolding computer-mediated discussion to enhance moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Journal of Moral Education, 44(2), 232-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1043875
- Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
- 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
- Richey, R. C. (2013). Encyclopedia of terminology for educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer.
- Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D. T., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. H. (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
- Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Roll, I., Butler, D., Yee, N., Welsh, A., Perez, S., Briseno,... Bonn, D. (2017). Understanding the impact of guiding inquiry: The relationship between directive support, student attributes, and transfer of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in inquiry learning. Instructional Science, 46, 77-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9437-x
- Sas, M., Bendixen, L. D., Crippen, K. J., & Saddler, S. (2017). Online collaborative misconception mapping strategy enhanced health science students’ discussion and knowledge of basic statistical concepts. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(6), 88-99. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44579950
- Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
- Shah, D. (2019, January 6). Year of MOOC-based degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2018. Class Central. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2018/
- 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
- Tegos, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2017). Conversational agents improve peer learning through building on prior knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 99-111. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1125830
- van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
- van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Minds in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child. Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
- Wu, H. L., & Pedersen, S. (2011). Integrating computer- and teacher-based scaffolds in science inquiry. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2352-2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.011
- Yilmaz, F. G. K., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). Impact of pedagogic agent-mediated metacognitive support towards increasing task and group awareness in CSCL. Computers & Education, 134, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.001