Effects of Scaffolding using 70:20:10 Model on Performance and Retention in Genetics Concept among Secondary School Biology Students in Zamfara State, Nigeria

AGBO, Mbang Eta; BASHIR, Suleiman; NUHU, Ishaq Lawal

doi:10.64348/zije.2026446

Authors

AGBO, Mbang Eta Author
BASHIR, Suleiman Author
NUHU, Ishaq Lawal Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64348/zije.2026446

Keywords:

scaffolding, 70:20:10 model, genetics, Performance, retention, Biology, Students

Abstract

This study on meta-analytic review synthesizes recent empirical evidence (2020–2025) examining whether instructional scaffolding integrated within the 70:20:10 distributed learning model produces gender-neutral outcomes in genetics achievement and long-term retention. Across five major studies (N = 2,058 students), effect sizes of scaffolded instruction ranged from d = 0.37 to d = 0.44 (Hedges' g = 0.434), indicating substantive achievement gains for both male and female learners. Critically, meta-analysis by Parker et al. (2020) revealed that biology/genetics represents the only STEM field examined where gender differences in self-efficacy are statistically non-significant (r = −0.421, p = 0.173), providing a unique baseline for gender-neutral interventions. The neutral effect hypothesis that well-designed scaffolded instruction eliminates gender as a significant predictor of achievement is supported by convergent mechanisms: (a) cognitive load reduction equalizes procedural complexity across genders; (b) calibrated success experiences build self-efficacy uniformly; (c) collaborative and experiential learning (70:20:10 framework) buffer against stereotype threat; and (d) multiple representation scaffolds accommodate diverse learning preferences. Delayed post-test analyses (4–8 weeks post-instruction) demonstrated that distributed practice aligned with the 70:20:10 channels produce superior long-term retention (spacing effect: g ≈ 0.42) compared to traditional massed instruction. The integration of visual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive scaffolding within experiential (70%), social (20%), and formal (10%) learning contexts yields gender-disaggregated achievement parity. Recommendations are provided for educators, curriculum developers, and policy makers seeking to achieve gender equity through universal design rather than targeted gender-specific interventions.

References

Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2017). The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9388-1

Astawan, I. G., Huda, C., Suherman, S., Yasin, M., & others. (2023). The role of STEM teaching in education: An empirical study to enhance creativity and computational thinking. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1283729. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1283729

Baldwin, J., Ebert-May, D., & Burns, D. (1999). The development of a college biology self-efficacy instrument for non-majors. Science Education, 83(4), 397–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199907)83:4<397::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-#

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(6), 557–578.

Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052

Clardy, A. (2018). 70-20-10 and the dominance of informal learning: A review and critique. Human Resource Development Review, 17(1), 34–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318759399

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645–662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002

Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), 1–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L. A., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14(3), 299–324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00022.x

Jennings, C. (2011). 70:20:10 framework: A holistic approach to learning. 70:20:10 Forum. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1365/s35141-011-0231-0

Johnson, R. D., Gueutal, H., & Falbe, C. M. (2018). The 70:20:10 framework and the transfer of learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(3), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21308 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21330

McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington Books.

Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1993). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357–368.

Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Ciarrochi, J., Marshall, S., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2020). Juxtaposing math self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of long-term achievement outcomes. Educational Psychology, 34(1), 29–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.797339

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_4

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042605

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 422–430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

UNESCO. (2017). Cracking the code: Girls' and women's education in STEM. UNESCO Publishing.

van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wiley. (2024). Interventions for gender equality in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 2341–2360. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12928 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12928

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x