Exploring the Interaction Between Cognitive Load,Learning Strategies,and Academic Performance: A Quantitative Approach Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Abstract

Despite growing interest in improving academic performance, the interaction between cognitive load and the learning strategies students use underexplored. This study examines how cognitive load and critical thinking skills affect academic performance in adaptive learning settings. We utilized a cross-sectional survey design with a sample of 500 undergraduate students to test a mediation model. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to examine the relationship between cognitive load, critical thinking and academic performance. Data were collected using validated self-report instruments administered online via the Qualtrics platform. The direct effect of cognitive load on academic performance was significant (β = –.45, p .05). The model tested showed good fit indices (CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.06; SRMR = 0.05) which confirm its theoretical validity. Additionally, correlational analyses demonstrated significant positive relationships between germane cognitive load and metacognition and academic performance, as well as negative relationships with intrinsic and extraneous load (all p < .01). The predictive value of germane load was also confirmed by regression analysis (β = .52, p < .001) followed by strategic learning approaches. The results of this study highlight the significance of limiting cognitive load and promoting successful strategy use in higher education.

Keywords

cognitive load learning strategies academic performance structural equation modeling (SEM)quantitative research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beauchamp

M. R.

Bray

S. R.

Eys

M. A.

Carron

A. V.

(2003). The effect of role ambiguity on competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25(1), 77–92.

Dinsmore

D. L.

Alexander

P. A.

Loughlin

S. M.

(2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Ifenthaler

Yau

J. Y. K.

(2020). Utilising learning analytics for study success: Reflections on current empirical findings. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00129-5

Kalyuga

(2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19.

Mayer

R. E.

(2011). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603

Paas

Renkl

Sweller

(2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1

Paulhus

D. L.

Vazire

(2007). The self-report method. In Robins

R. W.

Fraley

R. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–239). Guilford Press.

Pintrich

P. R.

De Groot

E. V.

(1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Education & Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33

10.

Pintrich

P. R.

Smith

D. A. F.

Garcia

McKeachie

W. J.

(1991). Manual for the use of the motivated strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

11.

Qualtrics. (2024). Qualtrics XM platform: Online survey and data collection tool. Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com/

12.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Causal inference in experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Houghton Mifflin.

13.

Sweller

(1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

14.

Sweller

(2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In Plass

J. L.

Moreno

Brunken

(Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). Cambridge University Press.

15.

Sweller

(2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

16.

Sweller

van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

Paas

F. G. W. C

. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

17.

Sweller

van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

Paas

(2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

18.

Weinstein

C. E.

Mayer

R. E.

(1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). Macmillan.

19.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.