Bibliometric Insights into Metacognitive Scaffolding: A Review of Research in Educational Psychology
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research on metacognitive scaffolding within the domain of educational psychology, aiming to uncover the intellectual structure, thematic patterns, and emerging trends in the field. Drawing data from the Scopus database covering publications from 2000 to 2025, the study analyzed 453 documents using VOSviewer software to perform co-citation, co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and temporal trend analyses. The results highlight the dominance of foundational theorists such as Flavell, Vygotsky, and Zimmerman, alongside contemporary scholars like Azevedo who have advanced the integration of metacognitive scaffolding into digital learning environments. Keyword analysis reveals core themes related to metacognition, scaffolding, and computer-aided instruction, as well as emerging areas such as inquiry learning, cognitive load, game-based learning, and learning analytics. The United States emerged as the most influential country in collaborative research networks, while regions like Indonesia remain underrepresented. These findings indicate a mature yet dynamically evolving research field that is increasingly shaped by technological innovation and interdisciplinary approaches. The study offers valuable insights for scholars, educators, and policymakers aiming to design effective, context-sensitive, and ethically grounded metacognitive scaffolding interventions in both traditional and digital learning settings.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
J. H. Flavell, “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry.,” Am. Psychol., vol. 34, no. 10, p. 906, 1979.
I. Molenaar, C. A. M. van Boxtel, and P. J. C. Sleegers, “Metacognitive scaffolding in an innovative learning arrangement,” Instr. Sci., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 785–803, 2011.
C. Dabarera, W. A. Renandya, and L. J. Zhang, “The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension,” System, vol. 42, pp. 462–473, 2014.
I. Molenaar, P. Sleegers, and C. van Boxtel, “Metacognitive scaffolding during collaborative learning: A promising combination,” Metacognition Learn., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 309–332, 2014.
B. J. Zimmerman, “Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 3–17, 1990.
L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, vol. 86. Harvard university press, 1978.
D. L. Butler and P. H. Winne, “Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 245–281, 1995.
N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021.
M.-B. Ibáñez and C. Delgado-Kloos, “Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 123, pp. 109–123, 2018.
M. Dunleavy and C. Dede, “Augmented reality teaching and learning,” Handb. Res. Educ. Commun. Technol., pp. 735–745, 2013.
C. Chin and D. E. Brown, “Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 109–138, 2000.
R. Azevedo, J. G. Cromley, and D. Seibert, “Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students’ ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 344–370, 2004.
X. Ge and S. M. Land, “Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 21–38, 2003.
F. Ke, “A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay?,” Comput. Educ., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1609–1620, 2008.
G. E. Xun and S. M. Land, “A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 5–22, 2004.
E. Lee and M. J. Hannafin, “A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 707–734, 2016.
R. Azevedo and D. Gašević, “Analyzing multimodal multichannel data about self-regulated learning with advanced learning technologies: Issues and challenges,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 96. Elsevier, pp. 207–210, 2019.
C. Quintana, M. Zhang, and J. Krajcik, “A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software-based scaffolding,” in Computers as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning, Routledge, 2018, pp. 235–244.
N. Valencia-Vallejo, O. López-Vargas, and L. Sanabria-Rodríguez, “Effect of a Metacognitive Scaffolding on Self-Efficacy, Metacognition, and Achievement in E-Learning Environments.,” Knowl. Manag. E-Learning, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2019.
Y.-J. An and L. Cao, “Examining the effects of metacognitive scaffolding on students’ design problem solving and metacognitive skills in an online environment,” J. Online Learn. Teach., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 552–568, 2014.