Language simplification in online learning and cognitive load
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64268/jllm.v1i02.8Keywords:
Online Learning, Language Simplification, Cognitive Load, Quantitative StudyAbstract
Background:Online learning places students in learning environments that require independent processing of academic information through digital media. In this context, the linguistic complexity of learning materials may increase cognitive load, particularly when sentence structures, vocabulary, and information delivery are not aligned with learners’ processing capacities. Excessive cognitive load can hinder comprehension and reduce the effectiveness of online learning. However, empirical evidence regarding the role of language simplification in reducing students’ cognitive load remains limited and inconclusive.
Aim:This study aims to examine the effect of language simplification in online learning on university students’ cognitive load.
Method:A quantitative approach with a descriptive correlational design was employed. Data were collected from undergraduate students using a questionnaire measuring the level of language simplification in online learning materials and students’ perceived cognitive load. The instruments used a five-point Likert scale and had undergone validity and reliability testing. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and simple linear regression with SPSS version 26.
Result:Descriptive analysis indicated that the level of language simplification in online learning was moderate, while students’ cognitive load ranged from moderate to high. Regression analysis revealed that language simplification had a negative effect on students’ cognitive load, although the magnitude of the effect was relatively moderate. These findings suggest that simplified language tends to reduce cognitive load, while other cognitive and contextual factors also contribute to students’ learning experiences.
Conclusion:This study demonstrates that language simplification in online learning contributes to reducing students’ cognitive load, although its effect is not dominant. The findings highlight the importance of linguistic considerations in the design of online learning materials. This study provides important implications for the development of cognitively supportive online learning materials that enhance the efficiency of academic information processing.
References
Abeysekera, I., Sunga, E., Gonzales, A., & David, R. (2024). The Effect of Cognitive Load on Learning Memory of Online Learning Accounting Students in the Philippines. Sustainability, 16(4), 1686. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041686
Ayres, P. (2013). Can the cognitive load of multimedia learning be reduced? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2922
Bao, W. (2020). COVID ‐19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
Chen, O., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2023). A Cognitive Load Theory Approach to Defining and Measuring Task Complexity Through Element Interactivity. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09782-w
Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text Readability and Intuitive Simplification A Comparison of Readability Formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23, 84-101. - References—Scientific Research Publishing. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/66657
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
Cutts, M. (2020). Oxford guide to plain English (Fifth edition). Oxford University Press.
De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Evans, P., Vansteenkiste, M., Parker, P., Kingsford-Smith, A., & Zhou, S. (2024). Cognitive Load Theory and Its Relationships with Motivation: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09841-2
Feldon, D. F., Callan, G., Juth, S., & Jeong, S. (2019). Cognitive Load as Motivational Cost. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09464-6
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707085
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
Hodges, C., Moore, S., B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review. - References—Scientific Research Publishing.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load do we need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
Kalyuga, S., & Plass, J. L. (2018). Cognitive load as a local characteristic of cognitive processes: Implications for measurement approaches. Dalam Cognitive load measurement and application: A theoretical framework for meaningful research and practice (hlm. 59–74). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315296258-5
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition (hlm. xvi, 461). Cambridge University Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009
Mayer, R. (2020). Multimedia Learning (3 ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic Features of Writing Quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547
McNAMARA, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehension research to educational practice.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Chapter 9 Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension. Dalam Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 51, hlm. 297–384). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2
Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning Online: What Research Tells Us About Whether, When and How (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095959
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments: Special Issue on Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
Oppenheimer, D. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. Dalam The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed (hlm. 27–42). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.004
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The Acquisition of Reading Comprehension Skill. Dalam M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Ed.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook (hlm. 227–247). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13
Perfetti, C. A., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension: Scientific Studies of Reading: Vol 18, No 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Ed.). (2010a). Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744
Redish, J. (Ginny). (2007). Letting Go of the Words: Writing Web Content that Works. Elsevier Science & Technology.
Sayfi, S., Charide, R., Elliott, S. A., Hartling, L., Munan, M., Stallwood, L., Butcher, N. J., Richards, D. P., Mathew, J. L., Suvada, J., Akl, E. A., Kredo, T., Mbuagbaw, L., Motilall, A., Baba, A., Scott, S. D., Falavigna, M., Klugar, M., Friessová, T., … Pottie, K. (2024). A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 165, 111219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.11.009
Schriver, K. A. (2017). Plain Language in the US Gains Momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 343–383. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2765118
Shardlow, M. (2014). A Survey of Automated Text Simplification. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.14569/SpecialIssue.2014.040109
Siddharthan, A. (2014). A survey of research on text simplification. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165(2), 259–298. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.165.2.06sid
Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: A New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
Spencer, M., Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Specific Reading Comprehension Disability: Major Problem, Myth, or Misnomer? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice: A Publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, 29(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12024
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Dalam Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, hlm. 37–76). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer, New York. - References—Scientific Research Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429283895-1
Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Medical Teacher, 36(5), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2026-02-04 (2)
- 2025-12-08 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dedi Satriawan, Anisa'u Fitriyatus Sholihah, Kunti Zahrotun Alfi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
