Reported cognitive load was lowest in the mirroring condition (5.4), compared with no dashboard (5.6) and guiding (6.2)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Post-activity questionnaire ratings on a 1–20 scale showed the lowest average perceived cognitive load in the mirroring condition, contrary to the expectation that guiding would yield lower load. → Ishari Amarasinghe; Davinia Hernández-Leo; H. Ulrich Hoppe 2021
Evidence¶
Ishari Amarasinghe; Davinia Hernández-Leo; H. Ulrich Hoppe 2021¶
Ishari Amarasinghe; Davinia Hernández-Leo; H. Ulrich Hoppe (2021). Deconstructing orchestration load: comparing teacher support through mirroring and guiding. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09351-9
q2 · i? · causal · r1
Cognitive-load questionnaire (1 low, 20 high) administered after each session of the six-teacher within-subject study; means and SDs are descriptive, no inferential test is reported. The measure reflected overall effort rather than differentiating load types.
"On average, in the guiding condition teachers reported a cognitive load of 6.2 (SD = 3.27). In the no dashboard condition, teachers reported a cognitive load of 5.6 (SD = 5.54), and the lowest value was reported for the mirroring condition, which was 5.4 (SD = 2.7)."
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 — reports the opposite
- The alerting & guiding dashboard reduced teachers' overall workload more than the mirroring dashboard in authentic settings (H2 supported) — reports the opposite
- Mirroring dashboards improved teacher situational awareness while alerting-and-guiding dashboards reduced teacher workload and frustration — reports the opposite
- Mirroring-condition teachers consulted the dashboard more often than guiding-condition teachers (137 vs 95 consultations) but missed aspects needing reaction — related
- Guiding support stimulated targeted interactions: teachers posted more messages to groups (14 vs 4) and performed more dashboard interventions than under mirroring — 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
- 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
mirroring-lowest-reported-cognitive-load |
title |
Reported cognitive load was lowest in the mirroring condition (5.4), compared with no dashboard (5.6) and guiding (6.2) |
description |
Reported cognitive load was lowest in the mirroring condition (5.4), compared with no dashboard (5.6) and guiding (6.2) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ishari-amarasinghe-davinia-hernández-leo-h-ulrich-hoppe-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.