The Influence of Interactive Slide Design on Cognitive Load in Biology Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/jese.v6i1.40488Keywords:
Interactive slides, cognitive load , biology learning , bibliometric analysis , instructional mediaAbstract
Biology learning often involves complex and abstract information that can increase students’ cognitive load and affect learning effectiveness. Therefore, cognitive load has become an important topic in science education research. This study aims to analyze the development and research trends related to cognitive load in biology learning using a bibliometric approach. Data were collected from the Scopus database, focusing on journal articles and review papers published between 2014 and 2024. A total of 200 documents were analyzed using Biblioshiny. The analysis included co-occurrence, co-authorship, citation, and thematic mapping techniques. The results show an increasing trend in publications, indicating growing attention to cognitive load in biology learning. The findings also reveal that research in this field is interdisciplinary and has shifted from basic cognitive studies toward more applied approaches, particularly in instructional design and learning media. Key authors, journals, and highly cited documents play an important role in shaping research development. Overall, this study provides an overview of research trends and highlights opportunities for future studies in developing effective learning strategies based on cognitive load principles.
References
Andersen, M. S., & Makransky, G. (2021). The validation and further development of a multidimensional cognitive load scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 642084. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642084
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Beege, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2025). Learning from interactive video: the influence of self-explanations, navigation, and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 53(1), 99-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09641-0
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines. Pfeiffer.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Fan, E., Bower, M., & Siemon, J. (2024). Video tutorials in the traditional classroom: The effects on different types of cognitive load. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(4), 2017-2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09659-5
Kalyuga, S. (2015). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9275-5
Kim, M., Duncan, C., Yip, S., & Sankey, D. (2025). Beyond the theoretical and pedagogical constraints of cognitive load theory, and towards a new cognitive philosophy in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 57(7), 662-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2023.2241234
Koć-Januchta, M. M., Schönborn, K. J., Roehrig, C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2022). Connecting concepts helps put main ideas together: Cognitive load and usability in learning biology with an AI-enriched textbook. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00315-2
Leppink, J., & van den Heuvel, A. (2015). The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 4(3), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0192-x
Ljubojević, M., Savić, M., Mijić, D., & Vico, G. (2025). Improving the Efficiency of Multimedia Learning and the Quality of Experience by Reducing Cognitive Load. Applied Sciences, 15(3), 1054. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031054
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2019). Immersive virtual reality and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09487-z
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 141, 103618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103618
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/s10648-021-09613-8
Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 29–47).
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (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
Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C. Y. (2014). Multiple representations in biological education. Springer.
