MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376137521 · doi:10.1111/jcal.12824

Computer‐based scaffoldings influence students' metacognitive monitoring and problem‐solving efficiency in an intelligent tutoring system

2023· article· en· W4376137521 on OpenAlexafffund
Tingting Wang, Juan Zheng, Chengyi Tan, Susanne P. Lajoie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsMetacognitionTask (project management)Mathematics educationComputer scienceCognitionPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Computer‐based scaffolding has been intensively used to facilitate students' self‐regulated learning (SRL). However, most previous studies investigated how computer‐based scaffoldings affected the cognitive aspect of SRL, such as knowledge gains and understanding levels. In contrast, more evidence is needed to examine the effects of scaffolding on the metacognitive dimension and efficiency outcome of SRL. Objectives This study aims to examine the role of computer‐based scaffolding in students' metacognitive monitoring and problem‐solving efficiency. Methods Seventy‐two medical students completed two clinical reasoning tasks in BioWorld, an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) designed for promoting medical students' diagnostic expertise. During solving the tasks, students were asked to report their confidence judgements about proposed diagnoses. Computer trace data were used to identify task completion time (CT) and students' use of three scaffolding types, that is, conceptual, strategic, and metacognitive. Then we calculated students' metacognitive monitoring accuracy (i.e., calibration) and problem‐solving efficiency. Results and Conclusions One‐sample t ‐test demonstrated that students inaccurately monitored their learning processes and were overconfident in both tasks. Linear mixed‐effects models (LMMs) indicated that the intensive use of metacognitive scaffolding positively predicted students' metacognitive monitoring accuracy. Moreover, strategic scaffolding was negatively related to problem‐solving efficiency, whereas metacognitive scaffolding positively influenced problem‐solving efficiency. Takeaways This study shows the importance of metacognitive scaffolding in improving the accuracy of metacognitive monitoring and problem‐solving efficiency. Findings from this study provide new insights for instructors and ITS developers to optimise the design of scaffoldings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted LearningSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207