Scaffolding Reshapes Dialogic Engagement in Collaborative Problem Solving: Comparative Analysis of Two Approaches

TL;DR

The paper investigates how scaffold intensity (minimal vs maximal) affects individual dialogic engagement and CPS behaviours across problem-solving phases in a K-12 math task. It employs two analytical frameworks, Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA) and Sequential Pattern Mining (SPM), to capture both aggregate phase associations and temporal behavioural sequences. Key findings show that maximal scaffolding increases engagement quantity and diversity but promotes overscripting, while minimal scaffolding supports problem-solving activity with more repetition and socialising, with limited cross-phase progression in either condition. The study demonstrates that HINA and SPM offer complementary insights for scaffold design, informing how to balance guidance and learner autonomy in CPS to enhance learning processes.

Abstract

Supporting learners during Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is a necessity. Existing studies have compared scaffolds with maximal and minimal instructional support by studying their effects on learning and behaviour. However, our understanding of how such scaffolds could differently shape the distribution of individual dialogic engagement and behaviours across different CPS phases remains limited. This study applied Heterogeneous Interaction Network Analysis (HINA) and Sequential Pattern Mining (SPM) to uncover the structural effects of scaffolding on different phases of the CPS process among K-12 students in authentic educational settings. Students with a maximal scaffold demonstrated higher dialogic engagement across more phases than those with a minimal scaffold. However, they were extensively demonstrating scripting behaviours across the phases, evidencing the presence of overscripting. Although students with the minimal scaffold demonstrated more problem solving behaviours and fewer scripting behaviours across the phases, they repeated particular behaviours in multiple phases and progressed more to socialising behaviours. In both scaffold conditions, problem solving behaviours rarely progressed to other problem solving behaviours. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for scaffold design and teaching practice of CPS, and highlights the distinct yet complementary value of HINA and SPM approaches to investigate students' learning processes during CPS.

Figures (7)

• Figure 1: Distribution of coded behavioural indicators in the dataset for each scaffold condition.
• Figure 2: Boxplot comparing the normalised quantity (left) and diversity (right) of individual dialogic engagement across CPS phases between maximal and minimal scaffolding.
• Figure 3: Pruned behaviour-phase network with statistically significant edges for the maximal scaffold (left) and minimal (right) condition.
• Figure 4: Frequently occurring sequence of CPS indicators in maximal scaffolding among 29 students (left) compared to that in minimal scaffolding among 28 students (right) in the problem identification phase.
• Figure 5: Frequently occurring sequence of CPS indicators in maximal scaffolding among 26 students (left) compared to that in minimal scaffolding among 21 students (right) in the ideation, planning and decision making phase.