Cognitive Load Theory in the Context of Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: A Systematic Literature Review

Exploring relationships among students' computational thinking skills, emotions, and cognitive load using simulation games in primary education

“…Another significant finding is the negative correlation between happiness and learning gain in Scratch, which means that maybe CG felt bored and depressed during the teaching intervention. This means that even though higher level of element interactivity is produced, there is no higher the cognitive load imposed by the learning process (Berssanette & de Francisco, 2021).…”

“…Previous studies tend to investigate the causes of cognitive load, focusing strictly on the use of programming knowledge types (syntactic, semantic, and strategic) and use of fundamental constructs, providing evidence regarding: (a) the exploration of how to eliminate intrinsic cognitive load and the effects of element interactivity to understand difficult programming tasks (Çakiroğlu et al, 2018), (b) the measurement of interactive videos and digital game teaching aids to impact students' achievements, intrinsic motivation, and cognitive load, as indicate the variety of behaviour patterns integration in game elements (Liao et al, 2019), (c) the impact of a virtual environment on students' learning effectiveness, cognitive load in collaborative contexts to share solutions, and manipulate their virtual avatars to provide peer guidance and achievements in game‐based contexts (Cho et al, 2022), (d) the determination of what causes cognitive load in programming using interactive environments and its impact on students' problem‐solving plans to propose different solutions in various programming tasks (Çakiroğlu & Bilgi, 2022), and (e) the association between students' previous knowledge and substantial cognitive load (Ma et al, 2023). Understanding the impact of game elements and interaction for younger individuals on learning how to think and practice “computationally” for solving problems can become useful to computers science instructors and educators in terms of identifying the perceived cognitive load gathered from their behaviours and emotions (Berssanette & de Francisco, 2021; Ma et al, 2023; Xu et al, 2022).…”

“…Notwithstanding the widespread use of interactive environments in supporting CT and programming development, universal access to open‐ended learning content and digital tools remains a challenge. For instance, students tend to develop CT skills through coding, whereas writing sequences and nested programming constructs embedded with instructions to control or (re‐) produce computing innovations alone are still being considered as another point of criticism (Berssanette & de Francisco, 2021; Zhao et al, 2022). Relevant literature reviews (Kafai & Proctor, 2022; Lye & Koh, 2014) concluded that SGs created by using interactive environments can become appropriate in several tasks, connecting theory and practice in visual coding for better knowledge acquisition.…”

“…It may also impact negatively students' cognition (knowledge acquisition and beliefs), as well as their academic performance and learning gain for programming courses (Boom et al, 2022;Witherspoon et al, 2017). As previous literature reviews (Berssanette & de Francisco, 2021;Lye & Koh, 2014) have also mentioned, learning to think and practice "computationally" is difficult. In particular, younger individuals strive to cultivate CT skills, as it is a cognitive process that depends on mastering multiple competencies, such as emotions and cognitive load in association with working memory emerged by studying any possible relationships with a variant of the elements' interactivity impact using different learning environments.…”

“…Aside from cognitive load to measure the perceived students' mental effort taken to process information related to reasoning and decision‐making that is mitigated with multimedia materials, for CT and programming skills development, it is noteworthy to reduce it (Lai & Wong, 2022; Ma et al, 2023). Interactive environments can support students of different socio‐cognitive background since there exist from novices who may inhibit learning persistence to more advanced people who interfere with the retrieval and application of their available knowledge structures (Berssanette & de Francisco, 2021). Therefore, a study has not been identified to investigate if there is a significant difference in using 2D/3D game user interface and elements (e.g., special effects, scenes, animations, feedback, challenges, goal clarity, and scripted interaction) by playing SGs to identify their effects on students' learning performance in association with their cognitive (mental load and mental effort) and emotional components (happiness, anger, anxiety, sadness).…”