IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v41y2022i6p1199-1229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating instructional designs with mental workload assessments in university classrooms

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Longo
  • Giuliano Orrú

Abstract

Cognitive cognitive load theory (CLT) has been conceived for improving instructional design practices. Although researched for many years, one open problem is a clear definition of its cognitive load types and their aggregation towards an index of overall cognitive load. In Ergonomics, the situation is different with plenty of research devoted to the development of robust constructs of mental workload (MWL). By drawing a parallel between CLT and MWL, as well as by integrating relevant theories and measurement techniques from these two fields, this paper is aimed at investigating the reliability, validity and sensitivity of three existing self-reporting mental workload measures when applied to long learning sessions, namely, the NASA Task Load index, the Workload Profile and the Rating Scale Mental Effort, in a typical university classroom. These measures were aimed at serving for the evaluation of two instructional conditions. Evidence suggests these selected measures are reliable and their moderate validity is in line with results obtained within Ergonomics. Additionally, an analysis of their sensitivity by employing the descriptive Harrell-Davis estimator suggests that the Workload Profile is more sensitive than the Nasa Task Load Index and the Rating Scale Mental Effort for long learning sessions.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Longo & Giuliano Orrú, 2022. "Evaluating instructional designs with mental workload assessments in university classrooms," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 1199-1229, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:41:y:2022:i:6:p:1199-1229
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2020.1864019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1864019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1864019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:41:y:2022:i:6:p:1199-1229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.