The paper examines the effect of scaffolding (support) programs on meta-cognitive skills in a computerized learning environment. The environment presents simulations of scientific laboratory experiments followed by qualitative problems that the students are required to solve.

Four unique cognitive and meta-cognitive support programs based on human teaching (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) were constructed using different configurations of scaffolding: cognitive (COG) and meta-cognitive (META) support, domain-specific knowledge (DOMAIN) and supplementary enrichment questions (ENR). The support programs, implemented by appropriate worksheets, ranged from low (Enrichment) to full support (Integrated). The scaffolded groups are compared to one another and to a non-scaffolded control group as regards increasing effectiveness of three meta-cognitive skills: (1) self-assessment of the solving process, (2) of the final solution, and (3) in the case of an incorrect solution, identifying the error and its source.

Participants were 187 junior high school students, in five experimental groups, each composed of three academic levels. All groups used the same textbook and worked within the computerized learning environment ‘Inquire and Solve’ (Educational Technology Center, Israel). The treatments were conducted as part of the regular class program, once every two weeks for a period of approximately 6 months. The students were interviewed at the end of the study, and their problem solving activities in the computerized learning environment were observed and transcribed. 

 The resultant protocols were analyzed, each student being assigned an effectiveness score for each meta-cognitive skill. These scores were subjected to a 5x3 (groups by academic levels) ANOVA analysis. Results showed highly significant differences between the groups in all three skills, and different patterns of effectiveness, depending on treatment and academic level. Further contrast analyses showed a strong effect of COG+META, and a weak or even negative effect of DOMAIN. Both are explained and elaborated upon in the paper.

The notion of scaffolding learners to help them succeed in solving problems otherwise too difficult for them is an important idea that has extended into science education. Action-oriented tasks such as inquiry learning and problem solving put extremely high cognitive and meta-cognitive demands on students, hence scaffolding is required. The current paper examines the effect of scaffolding (support) programs on meta-cognitive skills in a computerized learning environment. This environment presents simulations of scientific laboratory experiments followed by qualitative problems that the students are required to solve.

The main goal of the current paper was to find for science problem solving, the most appropriate scaffolding program--in a computerized learning environment--to elicit and maximally improve effectiveness of students’ meta-cognitive skills.

Four unique cognitive and meta-cognitive support programs based on human teachers (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991) were constructed using different configurations of the following components: cognitive (COG) and meta-cognitive (META) support, domain-specific inquiry knowledge (DOMAIN) and supplementary enrichment questions (ENR). We called these programs: Integrated (COG+META+DOMAIN+ENR), Strategic (COG+META+ENR), Operative (COG+ DOMAIN+ENR) and Enrichment (only ENR). These programs were allimplemented by appropriate worksheets. The effects of these scaffolding programs on the meta-cognitive skillfulness of the students, for three academic levels, were examined and compared with each other and with a non-scaffolded control group.

The sample was formed from 187 junior high school students (seventh grade) from among 12 classes that were randomly assigned one of the five treatments. All groups used the same textbook and worked within the computerized learning environment ‘Inquire and Solve’ (Educational Technology Center, Israel). Each group was classified into three academic levels by means of mathematics and reading comprehension measures. No significant differences in averageability levels existedbetweenany of the sample conditions. The treatments were conducted as part of the regular class program, once every two weeks for a period of approximately 6 months. The students were interviewed at the end of the study, and their problem solving activities in the computerized learning environment were observed and transcribed.  

The resultant protocols were analyzed, using the ‘Computerized Science Problem Solving’ scheme (see Fund, 2003). This scheme includes 11main categories (skills) of which eight are cognitive and three meta-cognitive (self-assessing problem solving process; assessing final answer; finding the error and its causes for incorrect solution). Each category is further sub-divided into detailed sub-skills, which were assigned effectiveness scores, based on external judgment, reliability and content validity processes. For each category, each student was assigned a “maximal effectiveness” score (the score assigned to his/her most effective sub-category--performed at least once, over all observed solutions).

The maximal effectiveness scores were evaluated for the 187 participants for each category, and were subjected to a 5x3 (groups by academic levels) ANOVA analysis. Results (see Table 1 below) showed highly significant differences between the groups in the three meta-cognitive categories, with the Integrated and Strategic groups having much more effective meta-cognitive skills.

 

 

P<.001

 

Furthermore, the ‘self-assessment during process’ (Assess Process) category was found to depend only on the scaffolding treatment, and not on the academic level. ‘Finding the error and its causes’ (Find Err) category depends on both treatment and academic level, while the ‘assessing final solution’ (Assess Final) category depends on treatment and academic level, as also an interaction of these variables. The results might be explained in terms of the complexity of each skill and as a function of internalization of the induced reflective processes.

Based on theoretical considerations and anticipated differences, the maximal effectiveness scores (see Table 1) were subjected to contrast analyses to find the source of differences among groups. These analyses indicated the combination of COG+META scaffolding (Integrated group with DOMAIN, Strategic group without) improves efficiencies of two skills (Assess During and Assess Final), significantly better than the combination of COG+DOMAIN (Operative group). Any combination that includes DOMAIN (Integrated or Operative groups) decreases the efficiency of the third skill (Find Err), probably due to lesser effort and fewer errors – hence less experience in finding its causes. The strong effect of COG+META, and the weak or even negative effect of DOMAIN are explained and elaborated upon in the paper.

The practical conclusion from these results is that Strategic scaffolding, comprising cognitive and meta-cognitive support--which is remarkably easy to prepare--is likely to benefit meta-cognitive skills within computerized problem-solving environments.