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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Al-Harthy, I., & Was, C. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation: A path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1–2.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
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.
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.
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.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 199–231.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–272.
Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL Model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goldberg, E. (2010). Het sturende brein: Onze hersenen in een complexe wereld [The new executive brain: Frontal lobes in a complex world]. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek.
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.
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.
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.
Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Determining the effectiveness of prompts for self-regulated earning in problem-solving scenarios. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 38–52.
Israeli Ministry of Education. (2005). School efficiency and growth measures test for 4PthP graders—Version A. Jerusalem: Department of Assessment and Measurement. in Education.
Jaakkola, T., & Veermans, K. (2018). Exploring the effects of concreteness fading across grades in elementary school science education. Instructional Science, 46(2), 185–207.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.
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.
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.
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.
Kramarski, B., & Revach, T. (2009). The challenge of self-regulated learning in mathematics teachers’ professional training. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 379–399.
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.
Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.
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.
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.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Narciss, S., Proske, A., & Koerndle, H. (2007). Promoting self-regulated learning in webbased learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1126–1144.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2009). Focus on HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition?. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientation and strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 113–125.
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.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–232.
Seo, D., & Kim, J. (2001). Expanding a goal mediational model: The Korean elementary school math class. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5, 177–183.
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.
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.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognition and Science, 12, 257–285.
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.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 160–166.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study—TIMSS. (2011). Mathematics Frameworks, 2011. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/index.html. Accessed 28 Nov 2018.
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.
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.
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.
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition & Learning, 30, 123–146.
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.
Weinstein, C. E., Acee, T. W., & Jung, J. (2011). Self-regulation and learning strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 45–53.
Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327–353.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zusho, A., & Edwards, K. (2011). Self-regulation and achievement goals in the college classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 126, 117–124.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
-
1.
Confidence Judgments—CJ: Assessing the correctness of one’s performance after the solution.
-
2.
Sense making of problem solving task
Expected answer | Grading |
106 students Path of the solution: 12 × 6 + 8 × 4 + 2 = 106 Or according to the phases: 12 X 6 = 72 8 X 4 = 32 72 + 32 + 2 = 106 | 100 pts—correct answer and correct presentation of the solution path 50 pts—correct presentation of the solution path but wrong answer, or correct final answer without presentation of the solution path or a wrong presentation of the solution path 0 pts—wrong answer without presenting the solution path or with presenting a wrong solution path |
Appendix C: Pearson correlation coefficients between the three aspects of the SRL (N = 134)
See Appendix Tables 5, 6 and 7.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gidalevich, S., Kramarski, B. The value of fixed versus faded self-regulatory scaffolds on fourth graders’ mathematical problem solving. Instr Sci 47, 39–68 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9475-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9475-z