Problem solving in chemistry supported by metacognitive scaffolding: teaching associates’ perspectives and practices

Abstract

Problem solving is a fundamental skill that chemistry graduates should possess, yet many students have difficulties solving problems in chemistry. These difficulties may be either student- or instructor-driven. Instructor-related difficulties could stem from some teaching practices, such as expecting students to apply procedures without requiring them to show their reasoning or solely focusing on worked examples. Such practices could inhibit the development of problem-solving skills. To address these challenges, our group developed a metacognitive scaffold (Goldilocks Help) to support both students and instructors through structured problem solving. This scaffold breaks down the problem-solving process into phases and places emphasis on reasoning required throughout that process. This study explored how teaching associates (TAs) used the problem-solving scaffold and how this practice affected their teaching and perceptions of student learning. Seven TAs based at a large research-intensive Australian university were interviewed, and the data were analysed using the framework approach. Teaching with the problem-solving scaffold was found to be beneficial, albeit with initial student resistance. The scaffold provided a common thinking structure between the TAs and students, enabling TAs to easily identify mistakes and address specific areas of concern. However, TAs also experienced students’ attention shift from content to the scaffold. Initially, many students unproductively viewed the process as requiring two separate actions of solving the problem and being explicit about the problem-solving process they used, as opposed to an integrated activity. Through constant reinforcement and prompting by TAs during and prior to solving the problem, students continued to grasp how to effectively internalise the scaffold to assist their problem solving. Understanding how TAs use problem-solving scaffolds with students will add to the field of education research to inform innovations in supporting the development of students’ problem-solving skills.

---

Introduction

A problem could be defined as “a gap between where you are now and where you want to be, and you don't know how to find a way to cross that gap” (Hayes, 1989). Based on that definition, we can recognise that the same task may present as a routine exercise to experienced problem solvers (experts), yet be a novel problem to those encountering it for the first time (novices) (Bodner, 1987; Randles and Overton, 2015). Algorithmic approaches to chemistry tasks decrease the overload of the working memory (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974) and allow to automate individual steps in more complex sequences (Johnstone and Al-Naeme, 1991). However, solving chemistry problems requires more than just applying algorithms. Strategic approaches provide a general direction, i.e. an overall sequence (not necessarily linear) of stages/phases of a systematic, or structured, solution process (De Corte et al., 2012). They are useful for problem solving in the context of its definition by Wheatley: “what you do when you don’t know what to do” (Wheatley, 1984). They are also highlighted in Bodner's definition of a successful chemistry problem solver as one who is able to extract relevant information from the problem statement, often uses drawing to represent a problem, is willing to “try something” when stuck, keeps track of the problem-solving process, and checks the answer to see if it makes sense (Bodner, 2015).

Solving chemical problems requires content knowledge and mastery of problem-solving processes (Popejoy and Asala, 2013; Yuriev et al., 2017). However, students often struggle to use cognitive processes to break down chemical problems (Bodner, 2003). For some students, understanding content is an already demanding task (Hernández et al., 2014). In an attempt to alleviate conceptual overload, students may rely on heuristics that are unproductive to learning, for example, memorised algorithms or surface similarity (Overton and Potter, 2008; Gulacar et al., 2014; Talanquer, 2014). Such approaches may prevent students from grasping the full conceptual depth of a chemical problem to effectively explain their thought processes. Other student-related challenges are, for example, lacking the ability to extract relevant information from a problem (Bodner and McMillen, 1986) and to recognise additional information that may be required to solve the problem (Van Ausdal, 1988).

A continued reliance on unproductive cognitive processes can lead to untapped and under-developed problem-solving potential. In order to assist chemistry students in problem solving, educators need to expose students to problems in a manner that allows students to develop productive problem-solving skills. Structuring problem-solving process during instruction exposes students to effective problem solving, places emphasis on the development of such skills as problem restructuring (Bodner and McMillen, 1986), reasoning, and reflection on the solution outcome (Yuriev et al., 2017), and helps students navigate novel problem-solving scenarios (Bodner and Herron, 2002). Such instructional support can be achieved through scaffolding (Graulich et al., 2021).

Problem-solving scaffolds

Problem-solving scaffolds are instructional tools that support students’ use of cognitive processes by helping them explore challenging concepts and/or problems that cannot be learned or solved unassisted. Scaffolds break down problems and convert the required problem-solving steps into prompts. These prompts incorporate processes, such as resource activation and metacognition (Graulich et al., 2021). Scaffolding aims to provide temporary support for learners to be able to independently solve problems in the future. Through continued scaffold-supported problem solving, students internalise the scaffold. Such internalisation empowers them to solve problems successfully once the scaffold is phased out (“scaffold fading”) (Belland, 2011).

Types of problem-solving scaffolds differ based on the learning processes prompted or activated in the scaffold. In general, some scaffolds aim to make a problem solver aware of metacognitive strategies required to solve a problem (Yuriev et al., 2017), while others use content-dependent prompts to structure the generation of an answer (Caspari and Graulich, 2019; Crandell et al., 2019).

Developing student metacognition involves prompting students to plan, control, and critique one's understanding and actions while solving problems (Flavell, 1979). Tools that prompt students to reflect on their understanding and choices provide a means to fixing common student unproductive problem-solving approaches. Metacognitive scaffolds prompt students to consciously evaluate their process of solving a problem instead of memorising algorithms and mindlessly applying formulas. Placing metacognitive and reflective skills at the forefront of solving chemical problems exposes students to expert problem-solving processes, such as comparing alternative routes to reach a solution (Selvaratnam and Canagaratna, 2008).

An example of a metacognitive scaffold is Goldilocks Help (Fig. 1) (Yuriev et al., 2017; Yuriev et al., 2019a; Graulich et al., 2021). Goldilocks Help structures problem solving for general and physical chemistry problems and includes metacognitive prompts that assist students to solve a problem, particularly when they do not know where to start and/or how to proceed in the right direction. These prompts direct students to assess the problem statement for explicit and implicit information (‘understand’) and to establish relationships between known and unknown variables (‘analyse’). These prompts are followed by mathematical operations to determine the unknown (‘plan’), execution of the planned solution, numerically and dimensionally (‘implement’), and re-assessing whether the answer makes sense and was expected (‘evaluate’). The scaffold provides constant feedback loops, enables students to become aware of their problem-solving approaches, and encourages explicit reasoning, a skill that is not often deliberately developed through the practice of solving problems alone (Isaksen and Treffinger, 2004). Yuriev et al. found that experienced and successful problem solvers tend to exhibit all elements to a great degree (Yuriev et al., 2018a; Yuriev et al., 2018b; Yuriev et al., 2019b). Conversely, inexperienced or unsuccessful problem solvers are not able to consistently demonstrate UAPIE in their solutions (Yuriev et al., 2019a). Scaffolding a systematic problem-solving process aided in the development of problem-solving skills through improving students’ belief in their capabilities to implement effective strategies in solving problems (Yuriev et al., 2017).

Fig. 1 Goldilocks Help, a problem-solving workflow with metacognitive prompts. Reproduced from Yuriev et al. (2017) with permission from The Royal Society of Chemistry.

Selvaratnam and Canagaratna (2008) developed a similar problem-solving scaffold. This scaffold prompted students to explicitly demonstrate and reflect on their cognitive problem-solving processes by creating problem-solving maps. However, Selvaratnam and Canagaratna prompted students to critique their solution after the problem was solved as opposed to reflecting during problem solving as done with the Goldilocks Help.

Challenges of teaching problem solving

Aside from student-related challenges, problem-solving difficulties can stem from teaching and assessment practices. Oftentimes, there is a disconnect between an instructor's desire to focus on problem solving and their teaching practices, for example, assessing primarily algorithmic problems (Overton and Potter, 2008) or focusing on the implementation of procedures/equations instead of reasoning (Bodner and McMillen, 1986). These practices shift students’ attention away from their thought processes to focusing on a ‘correct’ answer or on collecting the most marks (Petcovic et al., 2013). These issues could be due to poor pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) or a lack of training in metacognitive strategies (Connor and Shultz, 2018). PCK is knowledge of a subject through the lens of an educator (Shulman, 1987). It is knowledge of subject content coupled with the understanding of student conceptions and learning difficulties associated with the subject.

STEM-based teaching associates (TAs) typically instruct undergraduate students in tutorials and workshops and supervise laboratory-based experiments. Thus, they play a key role in undergraduate education in general and in teaching problem solving in particular (Flaherty and Overton, 2018). However, with most TAs being graduate students, their primary focus is on their research rather than teaching, and being TAs is often the first time they undertake formal teaching (Brownell, 2012). With little experience, TAs heavily rely on content knowledge (CK) to teach students (Zotos et al., 2020). However, content knowledge alone is not sufficient for teaching chemistry (Connor and Shultz, 2018). Teaching chemistry requires both CK and PCK (Shulman, 1986; Shulman, 1987; Connor and Shultz, 2018). Schultz and co-workers found that chemistry TAs with a range of teaching experiences had extensive CK but lacked PCK due to a greater reliance on their exposure to instructing as students than on their teaching experience (Hale et al., 2016; Lutter et al., 2019). Furthermore, it was shown that when TAs relied solely on their past experience as chemistry students, their teaching capabilities were negatively affected (Roehrig et al., 2003). Specifically, due to a lack of instructional skills, they could not implement inquiry-based teaching techniques. When helping students with their problem solving, these TAs gave direct answers to students, instead of prompting them to explain their reasoning, or repeated the same explanation, instead of using a different explanation approach. On the positive side, Roehrig et al. (2003) found that most TAs were motivated to learn how to teach.

It is not common for TAs to have or receive formal teaching training (Zotos et al., 2020). TA teaching support and training can range from no training to weekly staff meetings or one-day or week-long staff induction courses, depending on the university (Marbach-Ad et al., 2012; Zotos et al., 2020). With little formal pedagogical training, TAs often learn on the job, draw on their past experience as students, and/or focus on content alone (Bodner and Herron, 2002). In order to improve TA training, Roehrig et al. (2003) placed great emphasis on the need for training to focus not only on what to teach but also how to teach. Specifically, they recommended that training programs need to be tailored for new instructors and should model and provide examples of ways to implement teaching practices and problem-solving strategies that can be clearly and plainly presented to students.

Theoretical framework

In this study, data analysis and subsequent results were framed and informed by three educational concepts: metacognition, scaffolding, and instructor moves (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 A summary of how each of the educational concepts used in this study are related.

Metacognition (“knowing about knowing”) entails monitoring and evaluating the progression of one's learning or problem-solving processes (Flavell, 1979; Garner and Alexander, 1989). Metacognition awareness is divided into cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation (Schraw and Dennison, 1994). Cognitive knowledge refers to an individual's understanding of their own knowledge abilities and includes intellectual resources and problem-solving strategies. Cognitive regulation involves monitoring and controlling individual's thought processes, which entails planning, management strategies, and evaluation.

Scaffolding is an instructive tool that enables learners to complete a task that could not be completed without assistance (Belland, 2011). Scaffolds place the learning responsibility on the student by prompting goal setting, ongoing reflection, and assessment of their progress. In relation to problem solving, scaffolding structures and prompts metacognitive processes to enable students to solve problems on their own (Reiser, 2004). Through prompts, scaffolding directs students' attention to important information to facilitate the awareness of potential knowledge gaps, to organise thought processes, and to encourage them to check the validity of their solution (Ge and Land, 2003).

Brush and Saye (2002) conceptualised soft and hard types of scaffolding support, which can be used separately or combined to optimise meaningful student learning. Hard scaffolds were defined as static supports that can be anticipated based on known student difficulties, planned in advance, and embedded within the curriculum. Hard scaffolds can take a form of written teaching materials, elements within multimedia and hypermedia software. Soft scaffolds were defined as dynamic, situation-specific aids provided by experienced others, e.g. instructors, during the learning process. Such scaffolding necessitates instructors to constantly monitor the classroom discourse and facilitate it in a timely “on-the-fly” manner based on feedback from students. In the science classroom context, such monitoring, guidance, and facilitation has been described in a series of discursive instructor moves.

Instructor discursive moves are strategies instructors use to help facilitate instructor–student and student–student interactions in a classroom setting (Lidar et al., 2006). Through strategies and specific questioning methods, instructors can direct student attention towards certain concepts, areas of confusion and misconceptions. These facilitation strategies give students opportunities to change or develop their ability to learn and solve problems. Rasmussen et al. (2008) outlined four facilitation strategies used in classroom discussion in their Inquiry Oriented Discursive Moves framework; question, revoice, tell, and manage. Questioning moves prompt student to verbalise their reasoning, evaluate their answer, or refocus attention to a specific aspect of a problem. Revoicing moves encompasses the acts of repeating, rephrasing, and/or elaborating on a student's response to affirm comments or prioritise important facts during discourse. Telling moves help to initiate, summarise, or respond to student questions or suggest information students have overlooked or need to consider. Finally, managing moves are used to keep students on the right track by directing, checking, and motivating them. Instructor moves are often used in combination to facilitate meaningful classroom discussion. For example, Becker et al. (2015) found a common pattern of moves employed by instructors was to question a student's claim/prediction to a problem, to repeat by rephrasing the student response, and finally to expand on key productive concepts. They found that this discursive pattern helps orchestrate explicit discussion and greater understanding of physical chemistry phenomena. It should be noted that employing instructor strategies does not guarantee a productive shift in student actions. In order for the moves to be successful, instructors should hold an understanding that students vary in their aptitudes and attitudes and therefore should use their facilitation in a situation-dependent manner (Lidar et al., 2006). The moves need to be specific enough for students to shift their actions and leave the exchange able to continue with their work in the right direction. Overall, instructor moves are examples of teaching activities that incorporate how and what students learn (Stanford et al., 2016). A focus on instructor moves enables better understanding of teaching and learning as it considers the social aspect of learning.

Rationale for study

There is extensive research in the field of problem solving in chemistry and student engagement with problem solving (Bodner and McMillen, 1986; Van Ausdal, 1988; Bodner and Herron, 2002; Overton and Potter, 2008; Christian and Talanquer, 2012; Petcovic et al., 2013; Gulacar et al., 2014; Sevian and Talanquer, 2014; Yuriev et al., 2017). However, little research has been conducted in the area of TA use of problem-solving scaffolds with students, in particular instructional methods used to improve engagement with metacognitive scaffolds and TA perspectives on lack of engagement, referred to as student resistance (Ellis, 2015).

Continued development and refinement of instructional guidance approaches should lead to enhanced problem-solving skills and improve learning outcomes for students. Through the use of problem-solving scaffolds, such as Goldilocks Help, students can be assisted in developing problem-solving skills (Yuriev et al., 2017). The ultimate aim of scaffold-supported instruction is to shift teaching practices and student attention from a sole focus on worked solutions and ‘correct’ answers to the use of explicit reasoning and high-order cognitive and metacognitive processes to understand challenging chemical concepts and be able to solve complex chemical problems.

By capturing TAs’ perspectives on teaching with the Goldilocks Help scaffold, we aimed to gain insight into how they support students’ cognitive and metacognitive processes during solving chemical problems. The challenges and benefits that arise as a result of using the scaffold for teaching should help to inform future professional development and effective TA training. In this study, the research questions we address through the experience of the TAs are:

(1) What are the TA experiences of engaging students with structured problem solving?

(2) What are the TAs’ approaches to metacognitive scaffolding for problem solving?

(3) What are the TAs’ views on the barriers to students’ engagement with structured problem solving?

Methods

This study represents a first part of a two-part investigation of student engagement with metacognitive scaffolding. The data presented in this paper reflects the teaching associates’ perceptions and practices on teaching with metacognitive scaffolding. The data collected from students include their written problem-solving work and associated reflective writing (manuscript in preparation).

In this study we used a phenomenological approach (Casey, 2007) to analyse and interpret the data collected via semi-structured TA interviews. We have chosen this approach because the focus of phenomenology is a lived human experience (the phenomenon) of the participants as the object of research. In this study, the phenomenon is the TA's perceptions of teaching problem solving with metacognitive scaffold. Furthermore, the central role of the researchers’ own experiences in phenomenological studies was an important characteristic due to the combined research team's extensive teaching experience. Finally, one of the most common methods of data collection in phenomenology is conducting semi-structured or unstructured interviews.

To analyse TA's views and approaches, we used semi-structured interviews to capture TA's reflections on teaching with the problem-solving scaffold Goldilocks Help.

Participants

Purposeful and convenience sampling approaches were implemented to ensure that the representation of relevant and available qualities, traits, and experiences were included in the sample of participants (Koerber and McMichael, 2008). In order to study the TA perspective on teaching with the scaffold as well as their perceptions of student engagement with the scaffold, we recruited teaching associates from our institution, a large research-intensive Australian university (Table 1). The term “teaching associate” is used in the university in which the study took place to refer to sessional teachers, who are usually, but not exclusively, graduate students at the university. Therefore, the term is equivalent to “teaching assistants”.

Table 1 Participants

Research name	Highest academic qualification	Years of teaching experience
Angela	Bachelor (with Honours)	1.5
Pam	Bachelor (with Honours)	2
Stanley	Bachelor (with Honours)	2
Kevin	Bachelor (with Honours)	2
Michael	PhD	8
Oscar	Bachelor (with Honours)	3
Toby	PhD	8

---

This study was approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 23346). The objectives of the study were explained to participants and their participation was voluntary. Responses were de-identified, with names changed to research names for anonymity.

Setting

Scaffold implementation. The problem-solving scaffold, Goldilocks Help, was introduced to students through a combination of lectures and workshops. An induction workshop introduced students to structured problem solving to emphasise metacognition and self-regulation. In lectures, the scaffold was used to guide students through worked-example questions using structured problem solving. This modelling instruction constantly reinforced and demonstrated how to implement the scaffold for solving chemistry problems.

TA training. TAs received general pedagogical and content-specific training. The general training took place at the start of academic year and involved both face-to-face and online activities (Exintaris et al., 2021). The ongoing training involved briefing sessions prior to each workshop, where both content-related and pedagogical issues, such as classroom facilitation and differentiated instruction (Laistner, 2016), were discussed. TAs were provided with model solutions for workshop problems with explicit workflow prompts for all problem-solving elements.

Workshops. In semester 1, students participated in weekly 1-hour long workshops. In semester 2, workshops were 2-hour long and took place fortnightly. In the workshops, first-year students worked in groups on general (semester 1) and pharmaceutical (semester 2) chemistry problems, both conceptual and numeric. Goldilocks Help scaffold was used to guide their work on numeric problems and to emphasise the conceptual underpinnings of such problems (through the “Understand” and “Analyse” prompts) as well as metacognitive and process skills (through the “Plan” and Evaluate” prompts). The examples of relevant problems are described in previous publications (Yuriev et al., 2017; Yuriev et al., 2019a; Graulich et al., 2021). Each TA facilitated the work of 2–3 student groups with a total ratio of 15–18 students per TA. To assist students in monitoring their problem-solving processes, TAs encouraged students to make their thinking visible by prompting students to write out, verbalise, and/or identify problem-solving processes used. TAs were advised that different students would take different amount of problem-solving practice in order to internalise the scaffold. TAs were required to exercise their judgement, based on individual students’ problem-solving proficiency, for when to stop prompting students and thus fading out the scaffold. Five of the seven participants have previously facilitated workshops in this course, when they took place in the face-to-face mode. All TAs participating in the study experienced teaching the workshops online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assessment. Students were assessed for effective teamwork in workshops and the quality of their problem-solving processes, using validated ELIPSS rubrics (Czajka et al., 2021). The problem-solving processes were evaluated through in-semester assignments (in semester 1) and exams (both semesters). The ongoing assessment of the alignment between the problem solutions and the scaffold in the second semester was removed in the anticipation of scaffold fading.

Data collection

The focus of phenomenological interviewing is to accurately describe and thematically and systematically represent the phenomenon (Bevan, 2014). It aims to contextualise the experience of those being interviewed and to capture and clarify the phenomenon. Therefore, phenomenological interviewing requires the use of descriptive and structural questions. We conducted semi-structured interviews to allow for follow-up questioning and deeper discussion to provide an in-depth understanding of the participants’ views, perspectives, and motivations (Newing, 2010). Specifically, we aimed to capture TAs’ perceptions on the use of the problem-solving scaffold, Goldilocks Help, to support students’ problem solving. The interview protocols are present in Appendices 1–3.

For ease and convenience of the participants, they were given the option of responding verbally or in writing. Two rounds of interviews were conducted, one semester apart, for the purpose of capturing a longitudinal perspective of teaching with the scaffold and to follow up on findings from the first round of interviews.

The first round of interviews was conducted at the end of semester 1 (Appendix 1). The participants were asked questions about the scaffold itself, students’ use of the scaffold and their mindset about it, students’ stance on being assessed on the use of the scaffold, and TAs’ own views on their preparedness to teach with the scaffold. A total of seven interviews were collected. The interviewer, a graduate research student in the same university was known to participants. The participants could speak freely and honestly as there was no power relationship at play. All verbal responses were transcribed verbatim using the transcribe function in Word, followed by manual checking and editing for errors generated by the transcription software. Verbal responses provided by four participants ranged from 7017 to 11 557 words and from 52 to 79 minutes in duration. Written responses provided by three participants ranged from 980 to 2258 words.

The first round of interviews was entirely exploratory and allowed to identify the initial themes. Furthermore, the initial round of inductive analysis established the initial topology model/student types. Based on the findings from the first round of interviews, the interview protocol was re-designed specifically to address the first-round themes (Appendices 2 and 3). Questions related to student types probed TAs’ perceptions of student scaffold use: student approaches, their engagement with and disengagement from the scaffold and reasons why, and their confidence in their problem-solving abilities (Appendix 2, Question blocks 2 and 3). In addition, questions were added addressing participants’ previous exposure to Goldilocks Help, their own application of structured problem solving, and their ideas on possible changes to the teaching with the scaffold (Appendix 2, Questions blocks 1, 4, and 5).

The second round of interviews was conducted at the end of semester 2. A total of six interviews were conducted. One of the TAs only taught during semester 1 and could not be interviewed in the second round. All verbal responses from round 2 were transcribed verbatim using the autofunction in the TranscribeWreally online tool (Wreally Studios), followed by manual checking and editing. Verbal responses provided by five participants ranged from 4000 to 13 895 words and from 29 to 98 minutes in duration. A written response was provided by one participant with a word count of 788 words.

Data analysis

We conducted a reflexivity exercise before analysing the data to account for the research team's prior experience, beliefs, and attitudes (Barry et al., 1999). Our research team is made up of multiple fields, such as health science, pharmaceutical science, and education. In their respective fields, the research team members hold various years of experience as researchers and instructors. By undertaking this exercise, we were able to account for factors that influence data analysis, such as the academic team members’ dual roles as researchers and instructors. The research team's diverse background, role, and experience aided in rigorous data interpretation.

The interviews with TAs were analysed using the 5-stage framework analysis approach (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994) using NVivo software (QSR International). The initial analysis involved the primary author (KV) becoming immersed in the data and creating preliminary interpretations of the interviews (stage 1: familiarisation). The following stages 2–4 were performed in collaboration with a second coder (MS), using the negotiated agreement process to establish the reliability of data analysis (Watts and Finkenstaedt-Quinn, 2021). Coding by negotiated agreement involved researchers coding the data independently and then regularly meeting to compare, contrast, and come to an agreement about their interpretations. This process was iterative until the final coding scheme was agreed on and then applied to the entire dataset. Specifically, a codebook was developed that captured the TAs reflections of the scaffold (stage 2: identifying thematic framework). Then, the dataset was coded to the codebook (stage 3: indexing). Once the all the transcripts were coded, sub-themes were grouped into themes and connections/patterns were made between themes (stage 4: charting). The final stage of the analysis involved linking themes to existing literature and theory to map and reconstruct interpretations into meaning (stage 5: mapping and interpreting). This stage was done in collaboration with the third researcher (EY).

The second round of interviews were analysed abductively with negotiated agreement as the measure of reliability. Deductively, the interviews were coded to the codebook developed from the first round of interviews. Inductively, additional codes were added and adjusted in the codebook when new themes were identified in the second lot of interviews.

Results and discussion

The TA interviews provided insights into teaching with the scaffold as well as TAs’ perspectives on student use of the scaffold, their motivations as well as resistance to adopting structured problem-solving approaches. All themes and sub-themes are denoted in bold and italics, respectively, in the passages below and are listed in Appendix 4.

TA experiences of teaching with the scaffold

In this section, the themes that relate to the Research Question 1, ‘What are the TA experiences of engaging students with structured problem solving?’ are addressed.

Benefits of the scaffold for teaching. TAs experienced several benefits of using the scaffold for teaching. Common benefits were enabling TAs to easily identify mistakes, and providing a common thinking structure between the TAs and students for effective communication. The scaffold provided a common language and structured thought processes that enabled TAs to easily understand student confusions and to correct misconceptions.

‘[The scaffold] makes it easier to diagnose problems in the working of a student…I’ve seen some very poorly laid-out answers and it can be very difficult to find errors. Using the problem-solving workflow made it far easier to identify mistakes in students’ working…I think it improved the quality of discussions between students when discussing mistakes in their working.’ – Oscar

Other scaffold-related teaching benefits noted by TAs were aiding them in emphasising problem-solving skills and assisting in prompting students in classroom discussions. Although Goldilocks Help is classified as a hard scaffold, TAs used the tool as a both a soft and hard scaffold for teaching (Brush and Saye, 2002). They referred to the tangible static written teaching material (hard scaffold) and emphasised the problem-solving skills embedded in the scaffold (soft features) to facilitate classroom discourse.

‘I very much enjoy using the system to build the student's skills and abilities with the content taught.’ – Kevin

‘I definitely got better at guiding them through things rather than being like ‘you're wrong, but I don't know how to help you’ without giving them the answer.’ – Pam

The only challenge TAs found in teaching with the scaffold was the shift in student attention from the content to the scaffold. Some students would unproductively focus on the definitions and differences between the problem-solving elements, e.g. analysis vs. planning. This caused them to view problem solving and scaffold use as a two-step process instead of an integrated activity that involved using the scaffold to assist in their problem solving. One TA commented that sometimes the scaffold ‘attracted their attention away’ from the content being taught (Angela).

Student improvements and difficulties using the scaffold. TAs reflected on different student improvements when using the scaffold. Scaffold engagement helped promote structured problem solving, caused fewer mistakes in student solutions, increased self-regulation and metacognition and class engagement and teamwork. Other minor student advantages noted by TAs as being due to the scaffold use were improving class preparation and boosting confidence.

‘[The scaffold] gives them a framework before they start. Before they even put pen to paper… in their minds they know where their problem solving is going to go…’ – Toby

‘They got in a routine so they just made less mistakes’ – Pam

‘… it became clear to students that following the workflow… helped reveal mistakes or shortcomings in their approach to reach correct solutions.’ – Michael

‘I think evaluating the students’ problem-solving techniques led to increased [student] preparation and better performance.’ – Oscar

On the other hand, students found it difficult to differentiate between the problem-solving elements and/or use specific problem-solving elements such as understand and evaluate. TAs used terms such as ‘consternation’ (Toby) and ‘struggle’ to describe student experience (Michael).

‘Some students did struggle with what the “Understanding” process entailed… and often were unsure of how to “Evaluate” their answers’ – Michael

TAs’ approaches to metacognitive scaffolding for problem solving

In this section, the themes that relate to the Research Question 2, ‘What are the TAs’ approaches to metacognitive scaffolding for problem solving?’ are addressed.

Scaffold-engagement strategies. The most common strategies employed by TAs to improve student scaffold use were constant reinforcement and demonstrating the method of use or benefits of the scaffold. Some students would forget to use the scaffold as it was a newly introduced concept they were unfamiliar with. Reminders and modelling instruction helped students become familiar with the scaffold and use it habitually during problem solving (Lidar et al., 2006).

‘I think you… almost need to repeat this information like more than once. I think repeat and reinforce something is always good to help them.’ – Angela

‘I do think demonstrating… [is] one of the best ways to demonstrate the value’ – Michael

Other approaches implemented by TAs were asking students to articulate their working and extrinsic motivation by the use of marks. Asking students to explain their reasoning promoted their use of and reference to the scaffold as it helped them structure and articulate their worked solution (Rasmussen et al., 2008).

‘[Telling students] … “like guide me through it” and doing it in such a way that they communicate … I think that's been my most common strategy to get them to engage with it.’ – Michael

TAs also suggested additional scaffold engagement strategies to apply in future semesters. These suggestions ranged from explicitly making the scaffold mandatory, making the scaffold more flexible to accommodate different student learning preferences, to the use of bonus marks.

‘I wonder if to begin with they think of it as optional so they don't force themselves to learn it. So maybe just making it clear that it's not optional. It's part of the criteria.’ – Pam

‘I think you have to make it malleable.’ – Oscar

‘Award bonus marks to students who effectively use the scaffold’ – Kevin

Scaffold fading. The process, stage, and reason for the scaffold to be phased out were unanimous across all TAs. Based on their teaching experience, TAs found that structured scaffolding became habitual over two semesters.

‘I think pushing it particular in first semester, like being like ‘you've done it right but it's wrong because you haven't done your 4 or 5 steps' is better because then by second semester they're kind of doing it naturally a little bit better’ – Stanley

TAs reflected that the stage at which scaffold fading should occur was not a specific time but a point at which structured problem solving was observed to be habitual. For example, Pam, Michael, and Oscar stated that, once structured problem-solving skills consistently and naturally appeared in the form of student worked solutions and class discussions, the scaffold was ready to be phased out.

‘So give them a few weeks to settle in and then introduce it and yeah that's sort of early enough for them that it will become a habit…’ – Pam

‘I think it really is just getting them to do it enough that it becomes more of a habit. Like a lot of things really is that the more you do it the more you're familiar with it the more they make use of it the more natural it becomes.’ – Michael

‘I think they start demonstrating to you through their conversations where they're solving the problem. They've started to actually take on board the problem solving process’ – Oscar

Over the two semesters, TAs observed students would partially engage with the scaffold. Students who were consistent with scaffold use did not use all the problem-solving elements. Instead they would apply problem-solving elements they deemed relevant to the problem. Interestingly, the TAs agreed that partial use of the scaffold was sufficient engagement.

‘I think they'll use elements of [the scaffold] like definitely if you compare them to like the start of the first semester, you can tell that they're definitely using elements of it. But I wouldn't say that they were necessarily doing the full thing.’ – Stanley

‘Maybe not in its entirety, but they are certainly at least use parts of it as part of their own approach if you were to suddenly like remove it from them.’ – Michael

And finally, TAs believed that, once the scaffold is phased out, students would continue to use it. For example, Michael believed that structured problem-solving skills would be incorporated into student workings when the scaffold is no longer explicitly referenced in teaching.

‘… for enough of the students, enough of the majority of them, having made [the scaffold] a point of focus that yeah… if you were to take it away, take it off them, I do think it would be something that they would still use.’ – Michael

TA perspectives of student problem solving with the scaffold

In this section, the themes that relate to the Research Question 3, ‘What are the TAs’ views on the barriers to students’ engagement with structured problem solving?’ are addressed.

TA perceptions of student receptive and resistant traits. TA reflections indicated student traits of both receptiveness and resistance to the scaffold. Observing both the receptive and resistant student behaviour with respect to the scaffold informed TAs' teaching practices. Through their teaching experience they were able to describe and confidently predict the kinds of students they would encounter in their classes.

‘… different students obviously have different motivations for using the problem-solving process. Some of them got on board right away. Some of them were completely against it. Some… most of them were somewhere in the middle looking for a reason to do it and… because it takes effort.’ – Oscar

TAs talked about greater exposure to the scaffold leading to students becoming receptive of the scaffold. With greater exposure, students developed a sense of familiarity with the scaffold terminology and application process. For example, Oscar reflected that a potential factor for increased engagement with the scaffold was due to students attending additional workshops that utilised the scaffold to explain chemical concepts.

‘I found out the ones who went to the PASS sessions [peer-assisted study sessions (Van der Meer and Scott, 2009)] were better at it. But I wonder if that's just because it got drilled into them more than the other students. And maybe it just needs to, even though we already highlight it heaps.’ – Oscar

Another reason TAs suggested for students to be receptive to the scaffold was due to them being skills motivated. TAs observed that students who were driven to develop structured problem-solving skills tended to be motivated, high achieving, and/or experienced the benefits of the scaffold.

‘Those who put the most effort and attention to detail into their workflows typically produce the strongest answers, though I am uncertain if this is due to the workflow itself, or just the morale and work ethic of students who produce such work.’ – Michael

‘Stronger students tend to have no issue using the workflow in class to explain their answers, or to come into a session prepared.’ – Michael

‘… embrace the evaluation of their problem-solving process as it improved their understanding.’ – Oscar

TAs also observed that students would start engaging with the scaffold if other students used the scaffold during class discussions. During workshops, some students would use the scaffold to communicate their solutions using the terminology with their fellow classmates. Those who did not use the scaffold would begin to engage with the scaffold to ensure they could communicate effectively with their peers. In addition to this, when some students did not engage with the scaffold, highly engaged students would remind their peers to use the scaffold when discussing solutions to a problem.

‘Nowadays like they know what each other's are talking about and they consciously remind each other of that scaffold.’ – Angela

‘… they start demonstrating to you through their conversations where they're solving the problem. They've started to actually take on board the problem-solving process’ – Michael

Other scaffold-receptive traits noted by TAs were being marks motivated and engaging out of obligation. Despite the respective students being extrinsically motivated, continued use of the scaffold captured their attention long enough for structured problem solving to be observed as habitual.

‘So they’re like “if I just tick this box I will just get a certain mark”.’ – Angela

‘I found it interesting that students would often include redundant information in some of the steps (like Understanding). To me, this indicates that they were using it out of obligation rather than engaging with it as a useful tool.’ – Oscar

TAs also experienced student resistance to the scaffold. The most common factor that contributed to scaffold resistance was the student perception that the scaffold was time consuming or not valuable. These students viewed the scaffold as an additional step to the problem-solving process as opposed to a tool that aided in solving problems. Students expressed a belief that under exam conditions, where time is viewed as scarce, applying the tool would reduce the time for completing problems and thereby potentially reduce the exam marks. When the tool was introduced, students assessed the effort required to incorporate the scaffold as a part of their problem-solving process. Those that were resistant to the scaffold justified to the TAs that the tool was not beneficial enough to learn.

‘Some students expressed confusion or frustration as to the necessity of the problem-solving process, and why so many marks were allocated to the process itself. My general impressions are a dissatisfaction at not being able to jump to the answer for “things they already know”, or concerns that following the workflow process “takes too much time”, and would thus lose marks in an exam setting for not finishing questions.’ – Michael

‘I think it's mainly either like it's kind of almost too much effort. They sit there 'I know how to do this. I just do the maths or whatever'. And that's when they might make like a simple, relatively simple mistake.’ – Stanley

Students that had or thought they had a pre-established problem-solving approach also did not engage with the scaffold. TAs found that students with an accurate perception of their problem-solving skills did not feel the need to learn a new problem-solving method as these students were confident and/or familiar with their own abilities. While students who over-estimated their problem-solving skills tended to speed through their worked solution as a result of glossing over problem-solving processes. The inaccurate perception of their problem-solving skills caused these students to perceive scaffold use as time consuming.

‘I think that was my main feedback I got from students was, ‘Well, I'm going to get the right answer anyway. Well, I don't need to do it like this.’ – Pam

‘… because of their overconfidence, it was sometimes lead them to not understand the question probably because they were trying to be too quick.’ – Oscar

TAs commented that being unfamiliar with the scaffold contributed to student resistance with the tool. For most students, the introduction of the scaffold caused some cognitive strain in the form of confusion and/or forgetting to use the scaffold. If students did not engage with the scaffold when the tool was first introduced, they were less likely to engage with the scaffold as the semester progressed. Therefore, a lack of engagement with the scaffold had an accumulating effect on the level of resistance.

‘Some students seemed uncomfortable with the idea, particularly as it is quite different to their experience at school’ – Oscar

Other minor resistant traits were viewing the scaffold as optional, being mark motivated, and viewing the scaffold as rigid. When the scaffold was not a mandatory component to solving chemical problems, students were less likely to engage with it.

‘…when they think it's optional, the expectation is less understood on their part.’ – Pam

Being marks motivated was observed to be both a motivating and a deterring force in scaffold use. Specific to resistance, some TAs found there to be a group of students who were ‘laser-focused’ on reaching the ‘correct answer’ in an attempt to collect as many marks as possible. This student belief subsequently led to scaffold resistance as these students viewed scaffold as consuming time that could otherwise be used for answering other questions to collect marks.

‘There were a few times where students seemed disinterested in or unwilling to discuss their problem-solving process, as the answer was all they cared about.’ – Oscar

TAs talked about some students struggling to adapt to a structured process of solving problems. They reasoned that resistance arose due to students viewing the scaffold as specific and therefore too prescriptive.

‘I think students were complaining in semester one. Like it's not fair to use a specific kind of problem-solving skills.’ – Angela

‘This is an approach to teaching problem solving that will work for a subsection of the students but people who don't like that level or like…for other people out there who don't really think that way, I think that could almost be a turn-off in a sense because it seems like too laborious and too constrained.’ – Oscar

The type and difficulty level of the problem influenced the likelihood of scaffold use. Students did not engage with the scaffold when the problems were not challenging. This was to be expected given that the purpose of the scaffold was to assist students in completing a task when they did not know what to do (Yuriev et al., 2017).

‘… they don't apply it as … they think the question is simple enough’ – Angela

The wording of a problem also influenced scaffold use. TAs observed that students were more likely to engage with the scaffold when the problem statement explicitly required students to demonstrate their reasoning.

‘Like if you’re saying the question ‘justify your answer’ or something, then they'll do it. Yeah if it wasn't obvious that you wanted them to think about it, they'll just skip it.’ – Stanley

Similarities between TA and students. The factors influencing TAs’ own use of the scaffold were similar to the student receptive and resistant traits described above. Similar to students, TAs were less likely to use the scaffold if they already had an established problem-solving method.

‘[For] the correlation workshops…I didn't use the UAPIE for that. I just sat down and work through the problems in my traditional manner. – Toby

Additionally, TA scaffold use was dependent on the problem type. Similar to students, TAs would not refer to the scaffold when problems did not require the extensive breakdown for solving or teaching a problem.

‘Some problems seem to be more suited to the workflow than others.’ – Kevin

‘So they will use their own method instead of like using the scaffold. And sometimes I let it go because … it's indeed like simple enough.’ – Angela

‘Particularly for the easier … I probably didn't consciously try and do it.’ – Stanley

For problems that were deemed challenging, TAs used the scaffold to help prompt student discussion and understanding of chemical concepts. This enabled students to take a more active role in solving the problem as opposed to the TA simply giving students the solution.

‘When [students] were struggling … [the scaffold] easier to prompt them and help them.’ – Pam

TAs were less likely to use the scaffold if they felt comfortable with teaching. This trait was the most common reason for not explicitly using the scaffold by TAs. Comfort in teaching grew as a result of having taught the same content and types of problems in previous years.

‘I wonder if it's also because it's the second time we're doing it, so we've gotten comfortable.’ – Pam

TAs who had greater exposure to the scaffold and were familiar with the scaffold readily used the tool more in comparison to TAs who were not as familiar with the scaffold. Familiarity came in the form of exposure throughout the semester as seen in Toby's recount of teaching during the first semester:

‘So at the start of last year, no. But now yes … as I was exposed to the workflow more as we went through the lectures and subsequent applied session and the exam, I kind of got used to it and got to grips with it.’ – Toby

Another reason TAs were familiar with the scaffold was exposure to the scaffold as undergraduate students. Those that were exposed to the scaffold as undergraduates were more familiar with the definitions and language to explain solutions to the problems with references to the scaffold.

‘Having gone through PSC1031 in 2016 and then subsequently running PASS classes in BPS1031 in 2018 and 2019, I’m pretty familiar with the Goldilocks problem-solving process.’ – Oscar

The level of scaffold use for teaching and preparation purposes increased when problems were deemed challenging and/or had not been taught by a particular TA before. For problems that were new to the TAs, the scaffold was used as a checklist to ensure all aspects of the problem were covered before teaching the class.

‘Sets up a clear, logical workflow to tackling new problems, which allows one to develop a good understanding of not what to do, but why…I often found the process quite useful in making sure I had all the necessary information in tackling the problem. The process also helped reveal certain mistakes that better prepared me for similar mistakes the students may make when they attempted the same problems’ – Michael

Aligning with prior research, the TAs’ perspectives showed them to be more closely related to students than to lecturers or other academics (Zotos et al., 2020). The TAs’ propensity towards the scaffold was similar to the students. The main source of experience TAs drew on was their experience as students (Brownell, 2012). Of the seven TAs, five were graduate TAs with 1.5 to 3 years of teaching experience. Perhaps factors such as limited teaching experience and recently completing their undergraduate studies shift the TAs’ views to lie closer to student views more so than to more experienced academics.

Student engagement profiles. All TAs commented that student responses to the scaffold were mixed. In their experience, some students readily took to the scaffold and embraced the tool as part of their problem-solving approach, while others were reluctant to use it to solve problems.

‘…different students obviously have different motivations for using the [scaffold]. Some of them got on board right away. Some of them were completely against it. Some… most of them were somewhere in the middle looking for a reason to do it and… because it takes effort.’ – Oscar

To further explore the Research Question 3, we were able to use the TAs’ perspectives on student engagement with the scaffold to propose a categorisation of students into four distinct profiles, or typologies (Fig. 3). Most of the themes and sub-themes listed above were identified in the first round of interviews through inductive analysis. These themes were then fleshed out in the second round of interviews which led to refinement of student profiles using abductive analysis. During the abductive analysis, a focus was placed on comments where participants were talking about students engaging or not engaging with the scaffold and on comments about how well or poorly students were functioning in terms of problem solving. Using the phenomenological perspective, we used these two concepts within the interview data to reduce the complexity of student actions and attitudes to a two-dimensional representation of a four-quadrant model with each quadrant representing a separate student type, or profile. The description of each profile and the names given to them were based on the above thematic analysis, which revealed unique features for each profile.

Fig. 3 Four student profiles of problem-solving characteristics based on TA perspectives. (Explorer: students oriented to the goal of achieving mastery in problem-solving skills; Settler: students with an existing problem-solving approach; Sprinter: students who see the scaffold as “extra” time and/or effort or students who think they have an existing problem-solving approach; Collector: students oriented to the goal of achieving performance outcomes.)

TAs described a type of students who engaged with the scaffold and demonstrated effective problem solving. From TAs’ perspectives, these students (Explorer type, top-right quadrant) were motivated to develop problem-solving mastery (Bergin, 1995) and placed effort into learning the new tool for the purpose of self-improvement (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996). TAs concluded that the motivation for skill development originated from having experienced the benefits of using the scaffold, being intrinsically motivated and/or high-achieving student.

‘I do believe a good portion of the students take well to using the method to improve their skills and mastery of the material.’ – Michael

‘…either they're already strong students and take use of this, or they've become strong students because they've made use of this.’ – Pam

TAs also commented on the student type that had already established an approach to successful problem solving and did not engage with the scaffold (Settler type, top-left quadrant).

‘Students don’t engage with the scaffold when they’re confident in how to approach a problem and get to the answer.’ – Kevin

We posit that, for an experienced problem solver such as a Settler, engagement with the scaffold could prove to be more challenging than beneficial as it may require slowing down cognitive processes that have already been internalised (Bodner and Herron, 2002; Kalyuga et al., 2003). For such learners, the perceived value in mastering a new tool is lowered when a learner already has a problem-solving method that has worked for them in the past. This phenomenon is known as an expertise-reversal effect in cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1994; Kalyuga et al., 2003).

TAs found that some students struggled with solving problems yet they did not engage with the scaffold. TAs mentioned that such students viewed the scaffold as ‘extra’ time and/or ‘extra’ effort or thought that their existing problem-solving approach was sufficient (Sprinter type, bottom-left quadrant).

‘… it comes back to the 'not really seeing the value' and you know 'it's a waste of time' or 'it will take too long' sort of aspect to it.’ – Michael

Such views of the scaffold could be associated with several cognitive and behavioural factors, for example, insufficient knowledge of chemical concepts, poor problem-solving approaches, lacking self-confidence in problem solving, and negative attitudes to classroom processes (Yuriev et al., 2017). When approaching a new task, students of the Sprinter type are likely to make an assessment of the value of learning a new concept to the effort required to develop new skills (Pekrun, 2006).

TAs observed that there were also students who engaged with the scaffold yet demonstrated poor problem-solving skills. In TAs’ views, these students were motivated by extrinsic factors, such as marks, or used the scaffold out of obligation.

‘So they were doing it as a chore and more because they thought they wouldn't get the mark off they're looking for from me if they didn't use it.’ – Pam

Hence, we categorise such students into the Collector type (bottom-right quadrant). Such students’ motivations could be fueled by the need to demonstrate competence relative to others instead of mastering skills to improve their knowledge and abilities (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996).

Conclusion and implications

Based on the TA interviews, teaching with the problem-solving scaffold was found to be beneficial, albeit with initial student resistance. The beneficial and effective use of the scaffold was associated with three main phenomena. Firstly, students were using it to support and guide their problem solving, particularly in cases where they did not know how to proceed or got stuck (Yuriev et al., 2017). Secondly, the scaffold provided a common thinking structure to support the conversation between students and TAs and the problem-solving discourse between students. This enabled the TAs to easily identify mistakes and address specific areas of concern. Finally, the scaffold use as a teaching practice, described in this study through the lens of TAs’ experience, was useful in supporting the development of students’ metacognitive skills. Development of metacognition is a known challenge in chemistry education and in science education in general (Heidbrink and Weinrich, 2021; Muteti et al., 2021).

TAs also experienced students’ attention shift from content to the scaffold. The students unproductively viewed the process as requiring two separate actions of solving the problem and demonstrating problem-solving skills, as opposed to an integrated activity.

Implications for teaching practice and TA training

Based on findings from TA interviews, we propose that several changes could be made to how the scaffold is used and how the TAs are prepared to teaching with the scaffold. Instructor awareness of student problem-solving approaches and receptiveness to scaffolding should help tailor the instruction effectively.

Metacognitive scaffolds, such as Goldilocks Help, are designed to be external to a specific task (Graulich et al., 2021). The benefit of this scaffold type is its explicitness in bringing metacognitive elements of problem solving to the front of mind, particularly the cognitively- and procedurally-demanding elements of “Understand” and “Evaluate”. Students should be encouraged to chronologically map out their thought processes as it helps them to slow down, reflect, and critique on the choices to solve a problem. Demonstrating to students, via modelling instruction and ongoing practice, that explicit reasoning is an integral part of problem solving should eventually improve students' problem-solving skills.

However, scaffold engagement requires time and mental effort (Selvaratnam and Canagaratna, 2008). As a result, high achieving students often more readily engage with scaffolds compared to low achievers (DeMeo, 2007). This is a concern as it is the latter cohort that requires more assistance. During training, TAs should be made aware of the need for differentiated instruction. They need to be trained how to monitor students’ progress and how to provide feedback and guidance for individual students at key moments during the problem-solving sessions.

Metacognitive scaffolding may be perceived as an interference by both beginning and advanced problem solvers. In this study, TAs identified two groups of problem solvers, categorised as Sprinters and Settlers, who exhibited such perceptions. Student resistance to adopting structured problem solving was mainly due to viewing the scaffold use as time-consuming or not adding value. Meaningful engagement with the scaffold was also undermined where it was described by TAs as performative or goal-motivated instead of mastery-driven, specifically by students classified as Collectors. These cognitive, and to some extent behavioural, constraints stem from students not being accustomed to explicitly demonstrating their reasoning and thought processes in prior problem-solving experiences. TAs should be trained to recognise these constraints and to use constant reinforcement and prompting, prior to and during solving the problem, to support students in effectively internalising the scaffold to assist their problem solving.

Scaffold resistance by advanced students is natural and is not problematic as long as the instruction is flexible. TAs should encourage such students to attempt more challenging tasks, such as consolidated problems or problems drawing on understanding of multiple concepts. Increasing difficulty or complexity of problem-solving tasks for advanced students effectively brings them into the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). In this zone, their problem-solving skills will be tested and stretched, and they will likely see that they cannot do these difficult tasks correctly. As a result, they may need to revert to the explicit use of the scaffolded problem-solving steps, with additional instructional assistance and/or feedback.

An essential part of TA training should be making them aware of the diversity of student population and the need for inclusive teaching practices (Bustos-Works et al., 2022; Piontkivska et al., 2021). In the area of problem solving and metacognitive scaffolding, such awareness translates to recognising a level of student preparedness, their attitudes, and signs of either requiring additional support or progressing towards competence and independence. While student population in any class represents a wide variety of combinations of these characteristics, TAs' ability to recognise certain grouping of characteristics, such as the profiles proposed in this study, would help them address students’ needs both effectively and efficiently.

An important aspect of TA preparedness for teaching with the scaffold is being able to recognise when the implicit scaffolding can be removed, i.e. scaffold fading. TAs should be trained to recognise when individual students demonstrate that they have internalised the scaffold and do not require additional prompting and/or guidance. Such training would invariably involve looking at multiple examples of various problems and associated students’ actions. As such, it could be incorporated into TA teaching practice via shadowing more experienced instructors (TAs and academics) or being mentored by TAs who reported making most effective use of the scaffold with students.

Understanding student engagement with problem-solving scaffolds informs constructive alignment of teaching, practice, and assessment. Problem design for teaching and practice should include more explicit instructions at earlier stages, such as “Justify your answer” or “Demonstrate your reasoning”. Such instructions could be gradually removed, leading to partial scaffold fading. Assessment practices, such as grades allocated to explicitly demonstrating problem-solving processes or awarding of skills badges, would encourage students to engage in deeper reasoning and reflecting on their solution. Alternatively, instead of written submissions, students could be asked to record themselves applying the scaffold to a problem. By employing teaching, assessment, and feedback practices that shift the value away from the correctness of the answer to the demonstration of explicit reasoning, students’ learning priorities will align with the need to develop problem-solving skills. Continued development and refinement of instructional guidance approaches will lead to enhanced problem-solving skills and improve learning outcomes for students.

Limitations and research implications

This study represents only one point of view on student engagement with metacognitive scaffolding, that of the TAs. This is an important perspective, and it informs TA training and practice. However, in and of itself, it is not sufficient in order to form a complete view of metacognitive practice when solving chemistry problems. The second part of this study, involving analysis of student written problem-solving work and comparative reflections, will provide a complementary perspective (manuscript in preparation).

In this study we accounted for four types of student engagement with the scaffold. These profiles were derived through the lens of TAs conceptualising observable student behaviours and actions. Student perspectives were only included insofar as quoted or re-phrased by the TAs. Further research to complement the proposed typology using student-generated data is currently underway.

The issue of fading of the scaffold was brought up by participants in the interviews and was briefly explored through the follow-up questions. Further research is needed into the specifics of assessing sufficient student development to inform the conditions for and the process of phasing out the scaffold. A longitudinal perspective, such as following up on students’ development of problem-solving skills after a semester or a year of study, will help to inform the fading of the scaffold.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

References

1. Baddeley A. and Hitch G. J., (1974), Working memory in The psychology of learning and motivation, Bower G. H. (ed.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 47–89.
2. Barry C. A., Britten N., Barber N., Bradley C. and Stevenson F., (1999), Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research, Qual. Health Res., 9, 26–44.
3. Becker N., Stanford C., Towns M. and Cole R., (2015), Translating across macroscopic, submicroscopic, and symbolic levels: The role of instructor facilitation in an inquiry-oriented physical chemistry class, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 769–785.
4. Belland B. R., (2011), Distributed cognition as a lens to understand the effects of scaffolds: The role of transfer of responsibility, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 23, 577–600.
5. Bergin D. A., (1995), Effects of a mastery versus competitive motivation situation on learning, J. Exp. Educ., 63, 303–314.
6. Bevan M. T., (2014), A method of phenomenological interviewing, Qual. Health Res., 24, 136–144.
7. Bodner G. M., (1987), The role of algorithms in teaching problem solving, J. Chem. Educ., 64, 513–514.
8. Bodner G. M., (2003), Problem solving: The difference between what we do and what we tell students to do, Univ. Chem. Educ., 7, 37–45.
9. Bodner G. M., (2015), Research on problem solving in chemistry, in Chemistry education: Best practices, opportunities and trends, Garcia-Martinez J. and Serrano-Torregrosa E. (ed.), Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, pp. 181–201.
10. Bodner G. M. and Herron J. D., (2002), Problem-solving in chemistry, in Chemistry education: towards research-based practice, Gilbert J. K., DeJong O., Justi R. T., Treagust D. and Driel J. (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 235–266.
11. Bodner G. M. and McMillen T. L. B., (1986), Cognitive restructuring as an early stage in problem solving, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 23, 727–737.
12. Brownell S. E., (2012), Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and tensions with professional identity? CBE Life Sci. Educ., 11, 339–346.
13. Brush T. A. and Saye J. W., (2002), A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment, J. Interact. Online Learn., 1, 1–12.
14. Bustos-Works C., Lillig J. W., Clark C., Daubenmire P., Claesgens J., Shusterman A., Antonakos C., Palmer E., Beaulieu E. D., Stacy A. M., Douskey M. and Nguyen H. D., (2022), Moving toward inclusivity in chemistry by developing data-based instructional tasks aimed at increasing students’ self-perception as capable learners who belong in STEM, J. Chem. Educ., 99, 177–184.
15. Casey K., (2007), Phenomenology, in Theoretical frameworks for research in chemistry and science education, Bodner G. and Orgill M. (ed.), Pearson Prentice Hall, ch. 7, pp. 117–126.
16. Caspari I. and Graulich N., (2019), Scaffolding the structure of organic chemistry students’ multivariate comparative mechanistic reasoning, Int. J. Phys. Chem. Educ., 11, 31–43.
17. Christian K. and Talanquer V., (2012), Modes of reasoning in self-initiated study groups in chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 286–295.
18. Connor M. and Shultz G., (2018), Teaching assistants' topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge in ¹H NMR spectroscopy, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 19, 653–669.
19. Crandell O. M., Kouyoumdjian H., Underwood S. M. and Cooper M. M., (2019), Reasoning about reactions in organic chemistry: Starting it in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 96, 213–226.
20. Czajka D., Reynders G., Stanford C., Cole R., Lantz J. and Ruder S., (2021), A novel rubric format for providing feedback on process skills to STEM undergraduate students, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 50, 48–56.
21. De Corte E., Verschaffel L. and Van Dooren W., (2012), Heuristics and problem solving, in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Seel N. M. (ed.), Boston MA: Springer US, pp. 1421–1424.
22. DeMeo S., (2007), Constructing a graphic organizer in the classroom: Introductory students' perception of achievement using a decision map to solve aqueous acid–base equilibria problems, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 540–546.
23. Elliot A. J. and Harackiewicz J. M., (1996), Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 70, 461–475.
24. Ellis D. E., (2015), What discourages students from engaging with innovative instructional methods: Creating a barrier framework, Innov. High. Educ., 40, 111–125.
25. Exintaris B., Karunaratne N., Huth S., Vu T., Walker S., Ord Z., Reynolds L. and Al-Wassiti H., (2021), Upskilling teaching associates: A bespoke virtual teaching associate training program, Paper presented at the ASCEPT Annual Scientific Meeting, Virtual, November 29 – December 2, 2021.
26. Flaherty A. and Overton T., (2018), Transforming laboratory teaching assistants as teaching leaders, High. Educ. Res. Dev., 37, 1380–1394.
27. Flavell J. H., (1979), Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol., 34, 906–911.
28. Garner R. and Alexander P. A., (1989), Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions, Educ. Psychol., 24, 143–158.
29. Ge X. and Land S. M., (2003), Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using questionprompts and peer interactions, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 51, 21–38.
30. Graulich N., Langner A., Vo K. and Yuriev E., (2021), Scaffolding metacognition and resource-activation during problem solving: A continuum perspective, in Problems and problem solving in chemistry education, Tsaparlis G. (ed.), Royal Society of Chemistry, pp. 38–67.
31. Gulacar O., Eilks I. and Bowman C. R., (2014), Differences in general cognitive abilities and domain-specific skills of higher-and lower-achieving students in stoichiometry, J. Chem. Educ., 91, 961–968.
32. Hale L., Lutter J. and Shultz G., (2016), The development of a tool for measuring graduate students' topic specific pedagogical content knowledge of thin layer chromatography, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 700–710.
33. Hayes J. R., (1989), The complete problem solver, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
34. Heidbrink A. and Weinrich M., (2021), Undergraduate chemistry instructors’ perspectives on their students’ metacognitive development, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22, 182–198.
35. Hernández G. E., Criswell B. A., Kirk N. J., Sauder D. G. and Rushton G. T., (2014), Pushing for particulate level models of adiabatic and isothermal processes in upper-level chemistry courses: A qualitative study, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 354–365.
36. Isaksen S. G. and Treffinger D. J., (2004), Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving, J. Creat. Behav., 38, 75–101.
37. Johnstone A. H. and Al-Naeme F. F., (1991), Room for scientific thought? Int. J. Sci. Educ., 13, 187–192.
38. Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P. and Sweller J., (2003), The expertise reversal effect, Educ. Psychol., 38, 23–31.
39. Koerber A. and McMichael L., (2008), Qualitative sampling methods: A primer for technical communicators, J. Bus. Tech. Commun., 22, 454–473.
40. Laistner M. A., (2016), Differentiation in chemistry for students with various levels of cognitive efficiency, Master of Education, SUNY.
41. Lidar M., Lundqvist E. and Östman L., (2006), Teaching and learning in the science classroom: The interplay between teachers' epistemological moves and students' practical epistemology, Sci. Educ., 90, 148–163.
42. Lutter J., Hale L. and Shultz G., (2019), Unpacking graduate students’ knowledge for teaching solution chemistry concepts, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 20, 258–269.
43. Marbach-Ad G., Schaefer K. L., Kumi B. C., Friedman L. A., Thompson K. V. and Doyle M. P., (2012), Development and evaluation of a prep course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a research university, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 865–872.
44. Muteti C., Zarraga C., Jacob B., Mwarumba T., Nkhata D., Mwavita M., Mohanty S. and Mutambuki J. M., (2021), I realized what I was doing was not working: The influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students’ study strategies in a general chemistry I course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22, 122–135.
45. Newing H., (2010), Conducting research in conservation: Social science methods and practice, London: Routledge.
46. Overton T. and Potter N., (2008), Solving open-ended problems, and the influence of cognitive factors on student success, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 65–69.
47. Pekrun R., (2006), The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice, Educ. Psychol. Rev., 18, 315–341.
48. Petcovic H. L., Fynewever H., Henderson C., Mutambuki J. M. and Barney J. A., (2013), Faculty grading of quantitative problems: A mismatch between values and practice, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 43, 437–455.
49. Piontkivska H., Gassensmith J. J. and Gallardo-Williams M. T., (2021), Expanding inclusivity with learner-generated study aids in three different science courses, J. Chem. Educ., 98, 3379–3383.
50. Popejoy K. and Asala K. S., (2013), A team approach to successful learning: Peer learning coaches in chemistry, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 42, 18–23.
51. QSR International, NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 12).
52. Randles C. A. and Overton T. L., (2015), Expert vs. novice: Approaches used by chemists when solving open-ended problems, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 16, 811–823.
53. Rasmussen C., Kwon O. and Marrongelle K., (2008), A framework for interpreting inquiry-oriented teaching, Paper presented at the Eleventh Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, San Diego, CA, 2008.
54. Reiser B. J., (2004), Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work, J. Learn. Sci., 13, 273–304.
55. Ritchie J. and Spencer L., (1994), Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research, in Analyzing qualitative data, Burgess G. R. and Bryman A. (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 173–194.
56. Roehrig G. H., Luft J. A. Kurdziel J. P. and Turner J. A., (2003), Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: Implications for graduate teaching assistant training, J. Chem. Educ., 80, 1206–1210.
57. Schraw G. and Dennison R. S., (1994), Assessing metacognitive awareness, Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 19, 460–475.
58. Selvaratnam M. and Canagaratna S. G., (2008), Using problem-solution maps to improve students' problem-solving skills, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 381–385.
59. Sevian H. and Talanquer V., (2014), Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 10–23.
60. Shulman L., (1986), Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res., 15, 4–14.
61. Shulman L., (1987), Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev., 57, 1–23.
62. Stanford C., Moon A., Towns M. and Cole R., (2016), Analysis of instructor facilitation strategies and their influences on student argumentation: A case study of a process oriented guided inquiry learning physical chemistry classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 93, 1501–1513.
63. Sweller J., (1994), Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design, Learn. Instr., 4, 295–312.
64. Talanquer V., (2014), Chemistry education: Ten heuristics to tame, J. Chem. Educ., 91, 1091–1097.
65. Van Ausdal R. G., (1988), Structured problem solving in kinematics, Phys. Teach., 26, 518–522.
66. Van der Meer J. and Scott C., (2009), Students’ experiences and perceptions of peer assisted study sessions: Towards ongoing improvement, J. Peer. Learn., 2, 3–22.
67. Vygotsky L., (1978), Interaction between learning and development, in Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes, Cole M., John-Steiner V., Scribner S. and Souberman E. (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 79–91.
68. Watts F. M. and Finkenstaedt-Quinn S. A., (2021), The current state of methods for establishing reliability in qualitative chemistry education research articles, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 22, 565–578.
69. Wheatley G. H., (1984), Problem solving in school mathematics, West Lafayette, IN: School Mathematics and Science Center, Purdue University.
70. Wreally Studios, Transcribe. Available at: https://transcribe.wreally.com/, (accessed 01/04/2021, 2021).
71. Yuriev E., Naidu S., Schembri L. and Short J., (2017), Scaffolding the development of problem-solving skills in chemistry: Guiding novice students out of dead ends and false starts, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18, 486–504.
72. Yuriev E., Burton J., Maher S., Thompson C. and Scanlon M., (2018a), Engaging students with multiple pathways for problem solving in authentic tasks, Paper presented at the 25th IUPAC International Conference on Chemistry Education (ICCE 2018), Sydney, Australia, 10-14 July, 2018.
73. Yuriev E., Burton J., Vo K., Maher S., Thompson C. and Scanlon M., (2018b), Engaging students with multiple pathways for problem solving, Paper presented at the The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (ACSME 2018), Melbourne, Australia, 26-27 September, 2018.
74. Yuriev E., Basal S. and Vo K., (2019a), Developing problem-solving skills in physical chemistry, in Teaching chemistry in higher education: A festschrift in honour of Professor Tina Overton, Seery M. K. and McDonnell C. (ed.), Dublin: Creathach Press, pp. 55–76.
75. Yuriev E., Burton J., Devine S., Vo K., Maher S., Thompson C. and Scanlon M., (2019b), Engaging students with multiple problem-solving pathways for complex problems, Paper presented at the ACS National Meeting & Exposition, Orlando, Florida, USA, 31 March – 4 April 4, 2019.
76. Zotos E. K., Moon A. C. and Shultz G. V., (2020), Investigation of chemistry graduate teaching assistants' teacher knowledge and teacher identity, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 57, 943–967.

---

Footnote

† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/d1rp00242b

---