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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 The performance subscale (feeling accomplished) showed a large drop in the alerting & guiding vs no dashboard condition (Cohen's d = 1.2, p = 0.003). → Reet Kasepalu 2023 q2 i3 The frustration subscale showed a large drop in the alerting & guiding vs no dashboard condition (Cohen's d = 1, p = 0.005). → Reet Kasepalu 2023 q2 i2 Teachers felt more accomplished in the alerting & guiding than the mirroring-only condition (Cohen's d = 0.8, p = 0.04), a medium effect. → Reet Kasepalu 2023 q2 i? Differences in cognitive load, temporal demand and effort subscales were non-significant though means showed a similar pattern. → Reet Kasepalu 2023

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

In the same quasi-experiment, RTLX subscale analyses showed "performance (how accomplished and successful the teacher was feeling during the CL activity, Cohen's d = 1.2, p = 0.003)" and frustration (Cohen's d = 1, p = 0.005) had the sharpest drops; mirroring-vs-guiding performance contrast showed a medium effect 0.8, p = 0.04; other subscales were non-significant.

"These two subscales were performance (how accomplished and successful the teacher was feeling during the CL activity, Cohen's d = 1.2, p = 0.003) and level of frustration (how discouraged, stressed and annoyed the teacher was feeling during the CL activity, Cohen's d = 1, p = 0.005)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The alerting & guiding dashboard reduced teachers' overall workload more than the mirroring dashboard in authentic settings (H2 supported) — 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
• Teacher perceived workload did not differ significantly across conditions on any NASA-TLX subscale, though the experimental condition was descriptively lower on most subscales — reports the opposite
• Using the AIED-U system yielded a positive indirect effect on learning gains through a reduction in the effort teachers reported — 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