The effect of scaffolding students’
context-generating cognitive activity in
technology-enhanced case-based learning
Presenter: Zong-Lin Tsai
Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen
Date: December 1, 2008
Stavros N. 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(2), 939-954.
Introduction
• This study provides additional evidence on the role of
question prompts as students’ cognitive scaffolds when
learning in ill-structured domains. The focus is on case-based
learning (CBL) in technology-enhanced environments and on
scaffolding the problem representation task.
• An additional issue explored is whether students’
epistemological beliefs affect their learning in the above
condition. It has been argued that students’ cognitive
engagement in instructional situations may be affected by
their epistemological beliefs (DeBacker & Crowson, 2006).
Literature Review
• In reviewing the literature Ge (2001) concludes that
scaffolding strategies such as coaching through prompts and
guiding students to self-generate questions may promote
comprehension, monitor cognitive thinking, and facilitate
general problem-solving and reflective thinking.
• Available studies confirm these expectations, showing that
scaffolding students may significantly improve their skills in illstructured problem-solving as well (e.g. Davis & Linn, 2000;
Ge & Land, 2003; Lin & Lehman, 1999).
• A previous study (Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1996)
has illustrated that students who conceptualize knowledge as
a complex structure that requires personal involvement and
increased effort, are in better position to benefit from
learning in a complex and demanding learning situation.
Overview of the study (1/2)
• Goal of the study
The main goal of the study is to provide evidence on the
efficiency of a questioning strategy for activating students’
context-generating cognitive processes, implemented in a
TELE for supporting case-based instruction. Furthermore, the
study explores the influence of students’ EB profile on the
learning outcomes.
• Domain of instuction
The domain of instruction was software project management,
a domain of considerable complexity and need for knowledge
transfer in job-related situations. Software project
management was chosen because it is hard to teach and
learning relies largely on past experiences and project
successes and failures.
Overview of the study (2/2)
• Research questions focused on whether the systematic use of
the question prompts can affect
(a) the acquisition of conceptual domain knowledge and
(b) the ability of knowledge transfer in novel problem
situations. The issue is not trivial since it is not clear to what
extend students in the non-scaffolded group are also
activating those processes without being triggered by an
external representation (prompts).
(c) whether students’ EB profile was related to their post-test
performance.
The three null hypotheses tested in this study were:
H01 (conceptual): ‘‘Students in both experimental and control group perform the
same in a test on acquisition of ill-structured domain conceptual knowledge’’.
H02 (transfer): ‘‘Students in both experimental and control group perform the
same when dealing with a novel problem situation’’.
H03 (EB effect): ‘‘Learning outcomes are not affected by students’ EB profile’’.
Method (1/4)
• Participants
Thirty-two Computer Science students (17 females) in their
3rd (out of 4) year of studies volunteered to participate in the
study. Students were domain novices and they had never
before been engaged in case-based learning.
• Design
Method (2/4)
• Procedure
Students proceeded through the study in four distinct phases:
pre-test, familiarization phase, study phase and post-test.
1. pre-test:
demographic questionnaire, a prior domain knowledge instrument
and an instrument for recording students’ epistemological beliefs
(EB instrument).
2. familiarization phase:
students of both groups were instructed to login to the eCASE
environment (whenever and from wherever they wanted) and work
on a relatively simple scenario prepared for them.
3. study phase
4. post-test
Method (3/4)
• Study phase
Study conditions in control group
Control group was given three new scenarios accompanied by
five paths (totally) to study. The scenarios were text-based
presentations of problem cases relevant to the development
of software projects and the scenario questions focused on
managerial decisions that students should take in order to
deal with the problem situations.
Study conditions in experimental group
Students in experimental group studied exactly the same
material in the same way that control group did, except from
one difference. Each time they navigated to a new case-frame
in a path the ‘‘observe–recall–conclude’’ scaffolding questions
appeared and students had to submit answers to these
questions.
Title
Method (4/4)
• Post-test
Post-tests included two instruments: an attitude and a
learning effectiveness instrument.
Attitude - for assessing the design of various user-interface
features and the learning experience as a whole. It also
focused on recording students’ opinions and likes/dislikes
regarding the learning experience.
Learning effectiveness - It comprised two sections focusing on
(a) acquired domain-specific conceptual knowledge, and (b)
students’ potential for knowledge transfer in novel problem
situation.
Result
• Pre-test
Pre-test results indicated that students were domain novices
scoring very low.
• Post-test
Attitude instrument:
Students’ responses in the attitude instrument affirmed that
they could easily accomplish all routine tasks in the eCASE
system.
Learning effectiveness instrument:
Applying two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect
for the scaffolding treatment regarding both dependent
measures (conceptual: F(1, 28) = 4.55; p = .042, ES = .78;
transfer F(1, 28) = 5.93; p = .021, ES = .89). Cohen’s d formula
was used for calculating effect sizes.
• 0
• Learning effectiveness instrument:
Post hoc t-tests revealed the following: (a) scaffolded
complex-EB students performed better than non-scaffolded
complex-EB, and the difference was significant for both
dependent measures (conceptual: t(14) = 2.24, p = .042;
transfer: t(14) = 2.74, p = .016). (b) scaffolded complex-EB
performed better than scaffolded simple-EB in the conceptual
measure (t(14) = 2.95, p = .011).
Discussion (1/2)
• We argue that students in the experimental group processed
information and integrated it in their cognitive schemata
more efficiently while articulating their understanding in the
form of answers to the question prompts. This allowed them
to recall relevant information more easily, when facing the
post-test questions on conceptual and transfer tests.
Discussion (2/2)
• The impact of the scaffold appears to be more significant for
the complex-EB students. Scaffolded complex-EB students
perform better than non-scaffolded students of the same EB
profile (in both dependent measures) and they also perform
better than scaffolded simple-EB students (but only in the
conceptual measure).