Noortje Janssen

Avoiding split attention in computer-based testing: Is neglecting additional information facilitative?

This study investigated whether design guidelines for computer-based learning can be applied to computer-based testing (CBT). Twenty-two students completed a CBT exam with half of the questions presented in a split-screen format that was analogous to the original paper-and-pencil version and half in an integrated format. Results show that students attended to all information in the integrated format while ignoring information in the split format. Interestingly, and contrary to expectations, they worked more efficiently in the split format. A content analysis of the ignored information revealed that it was mostly not relevant to answering the questions, unnecessarily taxed students’ cognitive capacity and inefficiently increased the mental effort they expended. Further comparisons of different mental effort measures indicate that mental effort had an explicit (ie, self-reports, explicit utterances) and an implicit component (ie, silent pauses in thinking-aloud, eye tracking parameters). Consequently, when designing CBT environments, not only the design of the tasks but also the content of the given information and their effect on the different aspects of mental effort must be considered.

Supporting pre-service teachers in designing technology-infused lesson plans

The present study compared the effectiveness of two types of just-in-time support for lesson planning. Both types contained the same technological information but differed regarding pedagogical and content information. The first type presented this information separately i.e., separate support; the second type presented this information in an integrated way i.e., integrated support. In an experimental design pre-service biology teachers received either the integrated support n=26 or separate support n=27. They were instructed to create a technology-infused lesson plan and justify their design decisions. Results showed that pre-service teachers who used the integrated support had more integrated pedagogical and content-related justifications and higher quality lesson plans than the group who received separate support. Both groups had few technology-related justifications, and technology integration was of low quality. These findings confirm the alleged superiority of integrated support over separate support, and suggest that additional guidance is needed for pre-service teachers to fully integrate technological, pedagogical and content information during lesson planning.