Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 39–68 | Cite as

The value of fixed versus faded self-regulatory scaffolds on fourth graders’ mathematical problem solving

  • Stella GidalevichEmail author
  • Bracha Kramarski
Original Research

Abstract

Research has indicated that students can be taught self-regulated learning (SRL) in scaffolding programs focusing on a fixed continuous practice (e.g., metacognitive question prompts). However, the fading role of scaffolding to prepare autonomous learning is often an overlooked component. A unique approach for fading is suggested that offers a graduated reduction model of scaffolding prompts according to the SRL phases involved in the solution, which allows assimilation of processes to prepare learners for autonomous activity. This quasi-experimental study of fourth-graders (n = 134) examines the effectiveness of metacognitive self-question prompts in a Fixed (continuous) versus Faded (graduated reduction) scaffolds model during planning, monitoring and reflection phases, on the facilitation of students’ SRL (metacognition, calibration of confidence judgment, motivation), and sense making of mathematical problem solving at the end of the program (short-term effect) and 3 months later (long-term/lasting effect). Findings indicated that the Faded Group performed best in the metacognition knowledge aspect, motivation in the performance goal approach increased and, in the avoidance, goal decreased. No differences were found between the groups on the regulation aspect and calibration of confidence judgment in the solution success. Additionally, the Faded Group outperformed the Fixed Group on sense making of problem solving. These findings were manifested particularly in the long-term effect. The study supports theoretical claims relating the role of fading scaffolds to increase students’ autonomous SRL (metacognition, motivation) and improvements in sense making, particularly on the long-term retention effect.

Keywords

SRL scaffolds Fixed versus Faded prompts Mathematical sense making Fourth grade 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We confirm that we have reported all measures, conditions, data exclusions, and how we determined our sample sizes. This research was supported by Oranim Academic College of Education.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdullah, N., Halim, L., & Zakaria, E. (2014). VStops: A thinking strategy and visual representation approach in mathematical word problem solving toward enhancing STEM literacy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(3), 165–174.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, I., Schwartz, L., Madjar, N., & Zion, M. (2016). Reading between the lines: The effect of contextual factors on student motivation throughout an open inquiry process. Science Education, 102(4), 820–855.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Harthy, I., & Was, C. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation: A path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  4. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.Google Scholar
  5. Ariës, R. J., Ghysels, J., Groot, W., & Van den Brink, H. M. (2015). Is working memory training effective in enhancing school based reasoning achievements? A systematic review. TIER working paper series.Google Scholar
  6. Ariës, R. J., Groot, W., & Van den Brink, H. M. (2014). Improving reasoning skills in secondary history education by working memory training. British Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 210–228.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3142.Google Scholar
  7. Azevedo, R. (2014). Issues in dealing with sequential and temporal characteristics of elf- and socially-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 9(2), 217–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9123-1.Google Scholar
  8. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.Google Scholar
  9. Bannert, M., & Mengelkamp, C. (2013). Scaffolding hypermedia learning through metacognitive prompts. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 171–186). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_12.Google Scholar
  10. Bannert, M., & Reimann, P. (2012). Supporting self-regulated hypermedia learning through prompts. Instructional Science, 40(1), 193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9167-4.Google Scholar
  11. Bannert, M., Sonnenberg, C., Mengelkamp, C., & Pieger, E. (2015). Short- and long-term effects of students’ self-directed metacognitive prompts on navigation behavior and learning performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 293–306.Google Scholar
  12. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., 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.Google Scholar
  13. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Bulu, S., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia-learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 507–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9.Google Scholar
  16. Cabello, V. M., & Sommer Lohrmann, M. E. (2018). In T. Andre (Ed.), Advances in human factors in training, education, and learning sciences, advances in intelligent systems and computing 596 (pp. 350–360).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60018-5_34.Google Scholar
  17. Chatzistamatiou, M., Dermitzaki, I., Efklides, A., & Angeliki, L. (2015). Motivational and affective determinants of self-regulatory strategy use in elementary school mathematics. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 835–850.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.822960.Google Scholar
  18. Cleary, T. J., Velardi, B., & Schnaidman, B. (2017). Effects of the self-regulation empowerment program (SREP) on middle school students’ strategic skills, self-efficacy, and mathematics achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 28–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.004.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.Google Scholar
  20. Devoldr, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573.Google Scholar
  21. Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. P. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? : A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 101–129.Google Scholar
  22. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.Google Scholar
  23. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–272.Google Scholar
  24. Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25.Google Scholar
  25. Elliot, A. (1997). Integrating the ‘‘classic’’ and ‘‘contemporary’’ approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.Google Scholar
  27. Ge, X., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2012). Diagnosis, supporting, and fading: A scaffolding design framework for adaptive e-learning systems. In H. Wang (Ed.), Interactivity in E-learning: case studies and frameworks (pp. 116–142). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  28. Gidalevich, S., & Kramarski, B. (2017). Metacognitive guidance for self-regulation judgements in various phases: A thinking aloud analysis in mathematics. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 14, 88–113.Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, E. (2010). Het sturende brein: Onze hersenen in een complexe wereld [The new executive brain: Frontal lobes in a complex world]. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek.Google Scholar
  30. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 203–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515935.Google Scholar
  31. Hoffman, B., & Spatariu, A. (2008). The influence of self-efficacy and metacognitive prompting on math problem-solving efficiency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 875–893.Google Scholar
  32. Huff, J. D., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition Learning, 4(2), 161–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9042-8.Google Scholar
  33. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated earning in problem-solving scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52.Google Scholar
  34. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2005). School efficiency and growth measures test for 4PthP graders—Version A. Jerusalem: Department of Assessment and Measurement. in Education.Google Scholar
  35. Jaakkola, T., & Veermans, K. (2018). Exploring the effects of concreteness fading across grades in elementary school science education. Instructional Science, 46(2), 185–207.Google Scholar
  36. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, L. M. (2002). Adolescents’ achievement goals: situating motivation in socio-cultural contexts. In T. Urdan & F. Pajaers (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents. Adolescence and education (Vol. 2, pp. 125–167). Greenwich, CT: Iinformation Age.Google Scholar
  37. Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Effects of fading support on hypertext navigation and performance in student-centered e-learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 165–179.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802054992.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, C., & Pekrun, R. (2014). Emotions and motivation in learning and performance. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 65–75). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating fre-quency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157–171.Google Scholar
  40. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.Google Scholar
  41. Kramarski, B. (2017). Teachers as agents in promoting students' SRL and performance: Applications for teachers' dual-role training program. In D. H. Schunk & J.A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 223–239). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Kramarski, B., & Fridman, S. (2014). Solicited versus unsolicited metacognitive prompts for fostering mathematical problem-solving using multimedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(3), 285–314.Google Scholar
  43. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 281–310.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040001281.Google Scholar
  44. Kramarski, B., & Revach, T. (2009). The challenge of self-regulated learning in mathematics teachers’ professional training. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 379–399.Google Scholar
  45. Kramarski, B., Weiss, I., & Sharon, S. (2013). Generic versus context-specific prompts for supporting self-regulation in mathematical problem solving among students with low or high prior knowledge. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 197–214.  https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.2.97.Google Scholar
  46. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.Google Scholar
  47. Labuhn, A. S., Zimmerman, B. J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2010). Enhancing students’ self-regulation and mathematics performance: the influence of feedback and self-evaluative standards. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 173–194.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9056-2.Google Scholar
  48. Lee, H. & Songer, N. B. (2004). Expanding an understanding of scaffolding theory using an inquiry-fostering science program. Understanding scafolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, October.Google Scholar
  49. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.Google Scholar
  51. Meece, J. L. (1994). Individual and classroom differences in students’ achievement goal patterns. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: Definitions and issues (pp. 25–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  52. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0028312034002365.Google Scholar
  53. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Critical maths for innovative societies: The role of meta-cognitive pedagogies. Paris: OECD.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264223561-en.Google Scholar
  54. Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hruda, L., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K., …Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  55. Mihalca, L., Mengelkamp, C., & Schnotz, W. (2017). Accuracy of metacognitive judgments as a moderator of learner control effectiveness in problem-solving tasks. Metacognition and Learning, 12(3), 357–379.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9173-2.Google Scholar
  56. Moos, D. C., & Ringdal, A. (2012). Self-regulated learning in the classroom: A literature review on the teacher’s role. Education Research International.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/423284.Google Scholar
  57. Müller, N. M., & Seufert, T. (2018). Effects of self-regulation prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and self-efficacy. Learning and Instruction, 58, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.011.Google Scholar
  58. Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in webbased learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144.Google Scholar
  59. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2009). Focus on HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  60. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition?. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientation and strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.Google Scholar
  62. Panadero, E., Tapia, J. A., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 806–813.Google Scholar
  63. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.Google Scholar
  64. 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.Google Scholar
  65. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  66. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.Google Scholar
  67. Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.Google Scholar
  68. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1.Google Scholar
  69. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574.Google Scholar
  70. Roderer, T., & Roebers, C. M. (2010). Explicit and implicit confidence judgments and developmental differences in metamemory: An eye-tracking approach. Metacognition and Learning, 5(3), 229–250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9059-z.Google Scholar
  71. Roebers, C. M., Krebs, S. S., & Roderer, T. (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and control in elementary school children: Their interrelations and their role for test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 141–149.Google Scholar
  72. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402_1.Google Scholar
  73. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 165–197). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  74. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.Google Scholar
  75. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition Learning, 4(1), 33–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3.Google Scholar
  76. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.Google Scholar
  77. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–232.Google Scholar
  78. Seo, D., & Kim, J. (2001). Expanding a goal mediational model: The Korean elementary school math class. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5, 177–183.Google Scholar
  79. Shin, H., Bjorklund, D. F., & Beck, E. F. (2007). The adaptive nature of children’s overestimation in a strategic memory task. Cognitive Development, 22, 197–212.Google Scholar
  80. Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(1), 51–79.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1091.Google Scholar
  81. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognition and Science, 12, 257–285.Google Scholar
  82. Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained versus faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035.Google Scholar
  83. Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160–166.Google Scholar
  84. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS. (2011). Mathematics Frameworks, 2011. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/index.html. Accessed 28 Nov 2018.
  85. Tzohar-Rozen, M., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Metacognition, motivation and emotions: Contribution of self-regulated learning to solving mathematical problems. Global Education Review, 1(4), 76–95.Google Scholar
  86. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.Google Scholar
  87. Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2003.10.004.Google Scholar
  88. Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition & Learning, 30, 123–146.Google Scholar
  89. Watts, T. W., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., Spitler, M. E., & Bailey, D. H. (2016). Does early mathematics intervention change the processes underlying children’s learning? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1204640.Google Scholar
  90. Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53.Google Scholar
  91. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.Google Scholar
  92. Winne, P., & Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  93. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal-orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250.Google Scholar
  94. Zheng, L. (2016). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning scaffolds on academic performance in computer-based learning environments: a meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(2), 187–202.Google Scholar
  95. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  96. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909.Google Scholar
  97. Zimmerman, B. J., Moylan, A., Hudesman, J., White, N., & Flugman, B. (2011). Enhancing self-reflection and mathematics achievement of at-risk urban technical college students. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(1), 108–127.Google Scholar
  98. Zusho, A., & Edwards, K. (2011). Self-regulation and achievement goals in the college classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 117–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oranim Academic CollegeKiryat Tiv’onIsrael
  2. 2.Shaanan Academic CollegeHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Bar- Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations