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),

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 ill- structured 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).