Constructivist Scaffolding Versus Direct Instruction Paradigms in Secondary STEM Education: A Differential Efficacy Analysis Across Cognitive Load Profiles and Socioeconomic Strata

Abstract

The persistent debate between constructivist scaffolding frameworks and direct instruction paradigms in secondary STEM education necessitates rigorous comparative empirical analysis. This study evaluated differential learning outcomes across 1,240 students (grades 9–11) in four countries, employing a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design incorporating cognitive load measurement, formative assessment trajectories, and socioeconomic stratification indices. Standardized pre- and post-intervention assessments were supplemented by think-aloud protocol analysis and latent growth curve modelling. Results indicate that constructivist scaffolding yielded significantly superior conceptual transfer and metacognitive self-regulation gains among high-prior-knowledge cohorts, whereas direct instruction demonstrated greater efficacy in foundational procedural fluency acquisition within low-socioeconomic quartiles. These findings challenge monolithic pedagogical prescription and advocate for differentiated instructional ecology calibrated to learner cognitive profiles and contextual equity variables.