From problem-solving to sensemaking: A comparative meta-analysis of preparatory approaches for future learning

Abstract

Against the backdrop of a growing body of research showing the effectiveness of problem-solving activities followed by instruction (PS-I), we report a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of three broad categories of preparatory activities on future learning from instruction: (a) problem-solving followed by instruction (PS-I), (b) scaffolded problem-solving followed by instruction (+PS-I), or (c) an alternative sensemaking activity followed by instruction (!PS-I)? We examined 118 experimental comparisons spanning 33 articles that compared PS-I with +PS-I and !PS-I designs. Although scaffolding was descriptively associated with a small effect size, there was no significant difference relative to PS-I (Hedge’s g -0.08 [95% CI -0.20, 0.04]). Additionally, PS-I exhibited a non-significant moderate effect (Hedge’s g 0.22 [95% CI -0.06, 0.51]) compared to !PS-I. Bayesian analyses strongly favored the null hypothesis for the comparison of PS-I with +PS-I (suggesting a 99% probability of the difference in effect between these designs being less than 0.2), while it suggested a 40.37% probability of at least a moderate effect favoring PS-I relative to !PS-I. Further, the estimation of true effect sizes after accounting for the publication bias suggested moderate effect sizes in favor of PS-I, when considering both comparison conditions +PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.55) and !PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.64).