Cognitive Load Architecture and Visual-Representational Competence in Plant Morphology Learning: A Multivariate Study of Pre-Service Biology Teachers

Rikardus Herak; Lukas Seran; Florentina Yasinta Sepe

doi:10.33541/edumatsains.v11i2.8696

Authors

Rikardus Herak Universitas Katolik Widya Mandira
Lukas Seran Universitas Katolik Widya Mandira
Florentina Yasinta Sepe Universitas Katolik Widya Mandira

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33541/edumatsains.v11i2.8696

Keywords:

cognitive load, representational ability, spatial ability, plant morphology, pre-service biology teachers

Abstract

Plant morphology requires students to work simultaneously with visual features, spatial relations, and biological terminology. This study examined whether metacognition and three operational dimensions of cognitive load were associated with representational and spatial abilities among pre-service biology teachers. The analysis involved 280 Biology Education students in the fourth, sixth, and eighth semesters from higher-education sites in Kalimantan, Aceh, Java, and East Nusa Tenggara. Representational ability was assessed with eight morphology tasks, spatial ability with six morphology-based mental-rotation items, metacognition with 12 statements, and cognitive load with 10 statements covering intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Multivariate multiple regression showed a significant joint relationship between the predictors and the two outcomes, Pillai's V = .209, F(8, 550) = 8.03, p < .001. Extraneous load had the strongest multivariate association, V = .098, F(2, 274) = 14.81, p < .001, while germane load was also significant, V = .043, F(2, 274) = 6.07, p = .003. In the follow-up models, extraneous load was negatively associated with both outcomes, whereas germane load was positively associated with both. The results suggest that visual-representational competence in plant morphology is related not simply to how complex the content is, but to whether students' cognitive effort is directed toward relevant structural information or consumed by unnecessary demands.

References

Angell, D. K., Lane-Getaz, S., Okonek, T., & Smith, S. (2024). Metacognitive Exam Preparation Assignments in an Introductory Biology Course Improve Exam Scores for Lower ACT Students Compared with Assignments that Focus on Terms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(1), ar6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212

Aspanani, A., Sadeqhi, H., & Omid, A. (2023). The relationship between visual memory and spatial intelligence with students’ academic achievement in anatomy. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 336. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04327-9

Behrendt, M. G., Clark, C., Elliott, M., & Dauer, J. (2024). Relation of life sciences students’ metacognitive monitoring to neural activity during biology error detection. Npj Science of Learning, 9(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00231-z

Bernacki, M. L., Cogliano, M. C., Kuhlmann, S. L., Utz, J., Strong, C., Hilpert, J. C., & Greene, J. A. (2023). Relations between undergraduates’ self-regulated learning skill mastery during digital training and biology performance. Metacognition and Learning, 18(3), 711–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09356-9

Elsner, S., & Großschedl, J. (2024). Can metacognitive accuracy be altered through prompting in biology text reading? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(2), 1465–1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00747-9

Ermayanti, E., Susanti, R., Santoso, L. M., Huzaifah, S., & Deluciana, C. N. (2023). Student Extraneous Load Analysis in Online-Based Plant Tissue Structure Learning. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(5), 2541–2547. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i5.2400

Ewell, S. N., Driessen, E. P., Grogan, W., Johnston, Q., Ferdous, S., Mehari, Y., Peart, A., Seibenhener, M., & Ballen, C. J. (2023). A Comparison of Study Behaviors and Metacognitive Evaluation Used by Biology Students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(4), ar36. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-11-0225

Gardner, S. M., Angra, A., & Harsh, J. A. (2024). Supporting Student Competencies in Graph Reading, Interpretation, Construction, and Evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(1), fe1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0207

Ho, S., Liu, P., Palombo, D. J., Handy, T. C., & Krebs, C. (2022). The role of spatial ability in mixed reality learning with the HoloLens. Anatomical Sciences Education, 15(6), 1074–1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2146

Juanengsih, N., Rahmat, A., Wulan, A. R., & Rahman, T. (2021). Students’ extraneous cognitive load in cell biology lectures. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(1), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i1.5524

Kastaun, M., Meier, M., Küchemann, S., & Kuhn, J. (2021). Validation of Cognitive Load During Inquiry-Based Learning With Multimedia Scaffolds Using Subjective Measurement and Eye Movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 703857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703857

Knain, E., Fredlund, T., & Furberg, A. (2021). Exploring Student Reasoning and Representation Construction in School Science Through the Lenses of Social Semiotics and Interaction Analysis. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09975-1

Knight, J. K., Weaver, D. C., Peffer, M. E., & Hazlett, Z. S. (2022). Relationships between Prediction Accuracy, Metacognitive Reflection, and Performance in Introductory Genetics Students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(3), ar45. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0341

Koć-Januchta, M. M., Schönborn, K. J., Roehrig, C., Chaudhri, V. K., Tibell, L. A. E., & Heller, H. C. (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), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00317-3

Koh, M. Y., Tan, G. J. S., & Mogali, S. R. (2023). Spatial ability and 3D model colour-coding affect anatomy performance: A cross-sectional and randomized trial. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 7879. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35046-2

Labranche, L., Wilson, T. D., Terrell, M., & Kulesza, R. J. (2022). Learning in Stereo: The Relationship Between Spatial Ability and 3D Digital Anatomy Models. Anatomical Sciences Education, 15(2), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2057

Newman, D. L., Spector, H., Neuenschwander, A., Miller, A. J., Trumpore, L., & Wright, L. K. (2023). Visual Literacy of Molecular Biology Revealed through a Card-Sorting Task. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(1), e00198-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00198-22

Ruth, A. A., & Dzara, K. (2025). Incorporating structured metacognitive training into an undergraduate anatomy classroom. Anatomical Sciences Education, 18(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2537

Sarilita, E., Lita, Y. A., Firman, D. R., Wilkinson, T., Susilawati, S., Saptarini, R., Aripin, D., & Sjamsudin, E. (2022). Spatial ability and anatomy learning performance among dental students. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 34(4), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2022.239

Sripathi, K., & Hoskinson, A. (2024). Developing Student Expertise in Evolution: Cognitive Construals Complement Key Concepts in Student Representations. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(1), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.23-06-0109

Tang, K.-S., Park, J., & Chang, J. (2022). Multimodal Genre of Science Classroom Discourse: Mutual Contextualization Between Genre and Representation Construction. Research in Science Education, 52(3), 755–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09999-1

Wang, C., & McWatt, S. C. (2023). Visuospatial ability and student approach to learning as predictors of academic performance on written versus laboratory‐based assessments in human anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 16(6), 1187–1199. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2317

Wang, T., Li, S., Tan, C., Zhang, J., & Lajoie, S. P. (2023). Cognitive load patterns affect temporal dynamics of self-regulated learning behaviors, metacognitive judgments, and learning achievements. Computers & Education, 207, 104924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104924