The alerting & guiding dashboard reduced teachers' overall workload more than the mirroring dashboard in authentic settings (H2 supported)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Overall RTLX workload dropped from 35.6 (no dashboard) to 24.4 (alerting & guiding), a significant difference with Cohen's d = 1.6 (p = 0.000003). → Reet Kasepalu 2023 q2 i3 Compared to the mirroring-only dashboard, the alerting & guiding condition showed lower overall workload with Cohen's d = 1.1 (p = 0.002). → Reet Kasepalu 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Reet Kasepalu 2023¶

Reet Kasepalu, Pankaj Chejara, Luis P. Prieto, Tobias Ley. (2023). Studying teacher withitness in the wild: comparing a mirroring and an alerting & guiding dashboard for collaborative learning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2023) 18:575–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09414-z

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Unpaired T-Tests (not all teachers completed all three conditions) compared RTLX workload in the quasi-experiment's three dashboard conditions; the no dashboard vs alerting & guiding comparison was statistically significant "with a big effect (Cohen's d = 1.6)". Mean workload fell from 35.6 to 24.4 in Table 9.

"Having compared the no dashboard and an alerting & guiding dashboard condition, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000003) with a big effect (Cohen's d = 1.6)"

Reet Kasepalu 2023 (2)¶

Reet Kasepalu, Pankaj Chejara, Luis P. Prieto, Tobias Ley. (2023). Studying teacher withitness in the wild: comparing a mirroring and an alerting & guiding dashboard for collaborative learning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2023) 18:575–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09414-z

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Unpaired T-Test comparing the mirroring-only and alerting & guiding conditions found workload "decreased in the alerting & guiding dashboard condition, having a big effect (1.1) and being statistically significant (p = 0.002)", i.e. Cohen's d = 1.1.

"when comparing the mirroring only and alerting & guiding dashboard conditions, the overall workload of the teachers decreased in the alerting & guiding dashboard condition, having a big effect (1.1) and being statistically significant (p = 0.002)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• With the alerting & guiding dashboard, teachers' workload dropped most on the performance and frustration subscales, while cognitive load, temporal demand and effort differences were non-significant — related
• Mirroring dashboards improved teacher situational awareness while alerting-and-guiding dashboards reduced teacher workload and frustration — related
• Reported cognitive load was lowest in the mirroring condition (5.4), compared with no dashboard (5.6) and guiding (6.2) — reports the opposite
• Guiding dashboard support enabled teachers to perform more orchestration actions, more targeted interactions, and more class announcements than mirroring support — related
• Teacher-facing dashboards that mirror or guide increase teacher awareness and targeted interventions during classroom orchestration — related
• The alerting & guiding dashboard did not increase teacher coregulation more than the mirroring dashboard (H3 not supported); mirroring increased intervention rates (non-significant) while guiding-condition interventions were rare and mostly coregulation strategies — related