{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02851182197496523, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002086230876216968, 'mean_word_length': 5.755868544600939, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 4, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The effects of scaffolded computerized science problem-solving on achievement outcomes: a comparative study of support programs

Abstract  This study examined the effect of scaffolding learning components in a computerized environment, for students solving qualitative science problems in a simulation of laboratory experiments. Four scaffolding components were identified (structural, reflective, subject-matter and enrichment) and used in different configurations to construct four unique cognitive and meta-cognitive support programs based on human teaching. These ranged from low (Enrichment) to full support (Integrated). We compared the scaffolded groups with one another and with a non-scaffolded control group. A ‘mathematics and reading comprehension’ questionnaire was used to divide the participants (n = 473) into ability levels. At different points of time, achievement outcomes were measured by three open-ended subject-matter questionnaires, tapping knowledge and understanding. The findings indicate differential effects of the support programs mostly in the following order: Integrated > Strategic > Operative >  Enrichment > Control. The structural component seems to be a sine qua non for success and has a consistent and powerful influence. The combination of reflection and structural components, however, are needed for superior achievement. Both reflection and subject-matter components work cumulatively over time.