Synthesizing Results From Empirical Research on Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education

Abstract

Computer-based scaffolding assists students as they generate solutions to complex problems, goals, or tasks, helping increase and integrate their higher order skills in the process. However, despite decades of research on scaffolding in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education, no existing comprehensive meta-analysis has synthesized the results of these studies. This review addresses that need by synthesizing the results of 144 experimental studies (333 outcomes) on the effects of computer-based scaffolding designed to assist the full range of STEM learners (primary through adult education) as they navigated ill-structured, problem-centered curricula. Results of our random effect meta-analysis (a) indicate that computer-based scaffolding showed a consistently positive (ḡ = 0.46) effect on cognitive outcomes across various contexts of use, scaffolding characteristics, and levels of assessment and (b) shed light on many scaffolding debates, including the roles of customization (i.e., fading and adding) and context-specific support. Specifically, scaffolding’s influence on cognitive outcomes did not vary on the basis of context-specificity, presence or absence of scaffolding change, and logic by which scaffolding change is implemented. Scaffolding’s influence was greatest when measured at the principles level and among adult learners. Still scaffolding’s effect was substantial and significantly greater than zero across all age groups and assessment levels. These results suggest that scaffolding is a highly effective intervention across levels of different characteristics and can largely be designed in many different ways while still being highly effective.

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis to Synthesize the Influence of Contexts of Scaffolding Use on Cognitive Outcomes in STEM Education

“…Effect size estimates were highest in mathematics and technology. This contrasts with our traditional meta-analysis of scaffolding, which found no significant difference in effect size estimate based on STEM discipline ( Belland et al, 2017 ). That the effect size is highest in mathematics is not surprising, since much work on intelligent tutoring systems is done in mathematics ( Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 ; VanLehn, 2011 ) and it has long benefitted from more synthesis of research results and systematic refinement ( Murray, 1999 ; Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 , 2014; VanLehn, 2011 ) than other scaffolding types.…”

“…Scaffolding showed its largest within-subject effects in contexts (i.e., college and graduate) far removed from its origins in early childhood education ( Wood et al, 1976 ), which is consistent with our earlier traditional meta-analysis ( Belland et al, 2017 ). Also, scaffolding has strong effects among special education students, ELLs, and students who are otherwise underrepresented, and when used with diverse problem-centered instructional models.…”

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis to Synthesize the Influence of Contexts of Scaffolding Use on Cognitive Outcomes in STEM Education

“…Effect size estimates were highest in mathematics and technology. This contrasts with our traditional meta-analysis of scaffolding, which found no significant difference in effect size estimate based on STEM discipline ( Belland et al, 2017 ). That the effect size is highest in mathematics is not surprising, since much work on intelligent tutoring systems is done in mathematics ( Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 ; VanLehn, 2011 ) and it has long benefitted from more synthesis of research results and systematic refinement ( Murray, 1999 ; Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 , 2014; VanLehn, 2011 ) than other scaffolding types.…”

“…Scaffolding showed its largest within-subject effects in contexts (i.e., college and graduate) far removed from its origins in early childhood education ( Wood et al, 1976 ), which is consistent with our earlier traditional meta-analysis ( Belland et al, 2017 ). Also, scaffolding has strong effects among special education students, ELLs, and students who are otherwise underrepresented, and when used with diverse problem-centered instructional models.…”

Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding in Programming on Students’ Computational Thinking: Evidence From a Three-Level Meta-Analysis

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies and can be explained from several educational theoretical perspectives (Angeli & Georgiou, 2023; Belland et al, 2016; Carranza-Pinedo & Diprossimo, 2025). First, according to Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, younger learners are still in the preoperational or concrete operational stages, during which abstract reasoning and other higher-order thinking skills are not yet fully developed (Babakr et al, 2019; Lefa, 2014).…”

Effects of Constructivist and Transmission Instructional Models on Mathematics Achievement in Mainland China: A Meta-Analysis

“…In addition to the main findings, the results of moderator analysis also have some implications for Chinese and international research communities. The fact that we did not find significant differences between the effect sizes of randomized studies and matched control studies does not correspond with the findings of prior meta-analyses (Torgerson, 2007 ; Li and Ma, 2010 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ; Cheung and Slavin, 2013 , 2016 ; de Boer et al, 2014 ; Belland et al, 2017 ; Pellegrini, 2017 ). The unit of random assignment in the randomized studies included in this review is at the student level, but that in the prior meta-analyses is usually at the school level.…”

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis to Synthesize the Influence of Contexts of Scaffolding Use on Cognitive Outcomes in STEM Education

“…Effect size estimates were highest in mathematics and technology. This contrasts with our traditional meta-analysis of scaffolding, which found no significant difference in effect size estimate based on STEM discipline ( Belland et al, 2017 ). That the effect size is highest in mathematics is not surprising, since much work on intelligent tutoring systems is done in mathematics ( Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 ; VanLehn, 2011 ) and it has long benefitted from more synthesis of research results and systematic refinement ( Murray, 1999 ; Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 , 2014; VanLehn, 2011 ) than other scaffolding types.…”

“…Scaffolding showed its largest within-subject effects in contexts (i.e., college and graduate) far removed from its origins in early childhood education ( Wood et al, 1976 ), which is consistent with our earlier traditional meta-analysis ( Belland et al, 2017 ). Also, scaffolding has strong effects among special education students, ELLs, and students who are otherwise underrepresented, and when used with diverse problem-centered instructional models.…”

Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding in Programming on Students’ Computational Thinking: Evidence From a Three-Level Meta-Analysis

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies and can be explained from several educational theoretical perspectives (Angeli & Georgiou, 2023; Belland et al, 2016; Carranza-Pinedo & Diprossimo, 2025). First, according to Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, younger learners are still in the preoperational or concrete operational stages, during which abstract reasoning and other higher-order thinking skills are not yet fully developed (Babakr et al, 2019; Lefa, 2014).…”

Effects of Constructivist and Transmission Instructional Models on Mathematics Achievement in Mainland China: A Meta-Analysis

“…In addition to the main findings, the results of moderator analysis also have some implications for Chinese and international research communities. The fact that we did not find significant differences between the effect sizes of randomized studies and matched control studies does not correspond with the findings of prior meta-analyses (Torgerson, 2007 ; Li and Ma, 2010 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ; Cheung and Slavin, 2013 , 2016 ; de Boer et al, 2014 ; Belland et al, 2017 ; Pellegrini, 2017 ). The unit of random assignment in the randomized studies included in this review is at the student level, but that in the prior meta-analyses is usually at the school level.…”

A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis to Synthesize the Influence of Contexts of Scaffolding Use on Cognitive Outcomes in STEM Education

“…Effect size estimates were highest in mathematics and technology. This contrasts with our traditional meta-analysis of scaffolding, which found no significant difference in effect size estimate based on STEM discipline ( Belland et al, 2017 ). That the effect size is highest in mathematics is not surprising, since much work on intelligent tutoring systems is done in mathematics ( Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 ; VanLehn, 2011 ) and it has long benefitted from more synthesis of research results and systematic refinement ( Murray, 1999 ; Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013 , 2014; VanLehn, 2011 ) than other scaffolding types.…”

“…Scaffolding showed its largest within-subject effects in contexts (i.e., college and graduate) far removed from its origins in early childhood education ( Wood et al, 1976 ), which is consistent with our earlier traditional meta-analysis ( Belland et al, 2017 ). Also, scaffolding has strong effects among special education students, ELLs, and students who are otherwise underrepresented, and when used with diverse problem-centered instructional models.…”

Exploring the Impact of Scaffolding in Programming on Students’ Computational Thinking: Evidence From a Three-Level Meta-Analysis

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies and can be explained from several educational theoretical perspectives (Angeli & Georgiou, 2023; Belland et al, 2016; Carranza-Pinedo & Diprossimo, 2025). First, according to Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, younger learners are still in the preoperational or concrete operational stages, during which abstract reasoning and other higher-order thinking skills are not yet fully developed (Babakr et al, 2019; Lefa, 2014).…”

Effects of Constructivist and Transmission Instructional Models on Mathematics Achievement in Mainland China: A Meta-Analysis

“…In addition to the main findings, the results of moderator analysis also have some implications for Chinese and international research communities. The fact that we did not find significant differences between the effect sizes of randomized studies and matched control studies does not correspond with the findings of prior meta-analyses (Torgerson, 2007 ; Li and Ma, 2010 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ; Cheung and Slavin, 2013 , 2016 ; de Boer et al, 2014 ; Belland et al, 2017 ; Pellegrini, 2017 ). The unit of random assignment in the randomized studies included in this review is at the student level, but that in the prior meta-analyses is usually at the school level.…”