Examining the Impact of Teachers’ Cognitive Load on Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes in Saudi Classrooms

2.1. Theoretical Foundations of Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) was coined by John Sweller in the late 1980s and is founded on the premise that the capacity of working memory significantly influences learning [4]. In its simplest form, CLT posits that if learning is to be effective, instructional materials must be designed so that learning is consistent with human cognitive architecture. CLT has identified three types of cognitive load--intrinsic, extraneous, and germane--each impacting the processing and retention of information differently [5]. Intrinsic cognitive load relates to the complexity of the learning material, which is influenced by the intrinsic structure of the content and the knowledge possessed by the learner. It is considered to be a constant throughout the learning process, as learning focuses on presenting the information without introducing or increasing extraneous or unnecessary elements that may overload working memory; however, the goal is to simplify the presentation of the content without unnecessarily reducing the essential complexity required for the content to make sense [6].

On the other hand, extraneous cognitive load results from instructional design and how information is presented to learners. This load is not inherent to the material being learned; it comes from how it is taught [7]. Instructional materials that are poorly designed and fail to align with the cognitive structures of the human mind can load unnecessary information onto the learner’s working memory, creating a problem with learning. It has been established that a well-formed instructional design is essential for reducing extraneous cognitive load to enhance learning efficiency [8]. Germane cognitive load is the intellectual effort required to process, understand and integrate new information within long-term memory. In other words, germane cognitive load reflects the cognitive resources devoted to managing the learning process. The instructional strategies that facilitate schema construction and automatization result in a higher germane load and more profound learning outcomes [9].

At the heart of CLT is the construct of working memory and its limitations in terms of being able to learn effectively. Techniques for reducing extraneous cognitive load serve to conserve cognitive resources so that learners can process new information in ways that enhance schema construction [10]. Schemas help people make sense of information, organize it, and create associations that facilitate better and more efficient recall. One of the most critical insights from CLT is that instructional designs should reduce extraneous load by design, manage intrinsic load through careful scaffolding and differentiation, and optimize germane load through strategies designed to promote more significant activity on the part of the learner and create opportunities for the construction and refinement of schemas [7-11]. Put into practice — and there is every reason to believe these principles will lead to much more engaging and effective learning, allowing students to process, understand, and remember new information more efficiently.

2.2. Impact of Cognitive Load on Teaching Effectiveness

In educational psychology, a fundamental question concerns the relationship between cognitive load and teaching effectiveness. A direct link resides between teachers’ cognitive load and their ability to facilitate effective learning [12]. This is because cognitive load plays an equally critical role in shaping teachers’ instructional capacities and outcomes despite its common association with student learning. This comprises an intricate relationship where teachers must modulate their cognitive resources for optimal instructional delivery, student engagement, and classroom management [13].

Educators operating in educational contexts face an intrinsic cognitive load when dealing with the complex curriculum content they must teach [10]. The depth of the subject matter shapes this cognitive load and the pedagogical skill level required to depict it effectively. Teachers struggle to simplify complex ideas into broken-down pieces for their students, ensuring this does not compromise the material’s depth or rigour. This forces educators to match their information structuring to their students’ cognitive architecture to preserve and effectively depict core concepts within their academic discipline [14].

Extraneous cognitive load for teachers arises from non-instructional sources, such as how educational material is organized and presented [15]. Much of this is beyond the control of schools and teachers. This includes the continuing barrage of administrative tasks and clunky tech integration that has either nothing to do with teaching or is the direct result of not allowing teachers the appropriate space required to learn how to deploy educational technology in a way that is beneficial for teaching and learning, and the always-overlapping, often ambiguous, and too frequently changing assortment of standards to which teachers are told to teach [16]. It is also an issue because, ideally, this is mental bandwidth that can help enrich teacher practices and student engagement [17].

In contrast, germane cognitive load refers to the deliberate cognitive effort teachers invest in activities that directly support the refinement of their instructional techniques and learning environment [8]. This includes creating innovative lesson plans, adopting reflective teaching practices, and participating in professional development activities that expand their pedagogical toolkit. Unlike instructional strategies that target intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, those that heighten germane cognitive load should figure critically in the quest to cultivate teaching effectiveness, as they support the deep processing of instructional strategies and the development of teaching methods [18, 19].

The sweet spot wherein each type of cognitive load is balanced is central to the quest for maximal teaching effectiveness [20]; perpetually managing intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load is a recipe for teacher burnout [21], which can leave little cognitive capacity available to teachers who might otherwise be preparing to mount engaging and dynamic learning opportunities [8]. As a result, purposive and systematic efforts to support teachers in their efforts to offload extraneous load and elevate germane load need to be foregrounded in educational systems and policies [22] direct measures might include simplifying administrative processes, the evidence-informed infusion of technology into instruction, and the cultivation of professional learning cultures that celebrate innovation and eschew a culture of critique by ensuring that reflective practice is a norm and not an ideal to which one merely pays lip service [16]. Ultimately, the story of how cognitive load shapes teaching effectiveness reflects the need for educational design to attend to teachers’ cognitive constraints and the directed supports that can be extended to optimize their instructional capacity.

2.3. Teacher’s Cognitive Load and Student Engagement

Several interconnected themes emerge from previous literature that will help explore the relationship between teachers’ cognitive load and how this influences student engagement and learning. The cognitive demands teachers’ experience, whether in delivering curriculum, managing classrooms, or integrating new pedagogical technologies, are integral in shaping their instructional practices and, in turn, students’ learning experiences [7, 9, 23]. A heavy cognitive load can severely limit teachers’ ability to implement various teaching methods, including innovative forms of instruction. Indeed, feeling overwhelmed by the complex demands of the profession has been noted as a potential reason teachers may choose more traditional, lecture-based styles of instruction [24]. This shift, in turn, reduces the variety of student’s learning experiences and may lead to disengagement as active, participatory learning experiences become rare. These issues are particularly pronounced within the swiftly changing Saudi education system, where new reforms and technology integration have become increasingly common [13, 25, 26],

The Saudi educational sphere is characterized by its ambitious reforms and commitment to integrating digital technologies in the classroom [27]. These create unique challenges for teachers, which may augment teachers’ cognitive load [27]. Navigating new pedagogical approaches, mastering educational technologies, and aligning their teaching with ever-evolving national standards are complex and cognitively effortful tasks. They emphasize the need for research within the Saudi context that identifies the unique factors related to teachers’ cognitive load and the subsequent impacts of this on student engagement and learning outcomes [13, 25]. Skulmowski and Xu [7] argue that a more holistic approach is required to mitigate the adverse effects of high cognitive load for teachers. This would involve combining professional development, expert support in curriculum planning, and external technological assistance. In so doing, enabling teachers with these resources and knowledge can help them overcome and mitigate their overall cognitive load [9]. This is particularly germane considering the ongoing reform in Saudi Arabia to transform their classrooms by encouraging innovation, creativity and the elevation of overall education quality. Resilient support will assist teachers in managing their cognitive load, amplify their capacity to engage students productively and facilitate quality educational experiences [13]. There is substantial cause to inspect further the nexus between teachers’ cognitive load and student engagement and learning in the Saudi environment. Disentangling how the cognitive pressures on teachers cascade through teaching practices and into the broader educational outcomes that ensue holds significant promise for developing the constraints and affordances of the Saudi educational milieu. At its essence, this is about the requirement to help educators manage their cognitive load in ways that will enhance student engagement and learning achievement.

2.4. Factors Affecting Cognitive Load in Saudi Education

The up-to-date scene of Saudi Arabia’s educational system fluctuates with noteworthy reforms such as Vision 2030. However, teachers face many challenges affecting their cognitive load, educational effectiveness, and student engagement [12]. The push for educational modernization means an entirely new curriculum, requiring teachers to immediately reconcile a pedagogical tradition that does not emphasize critical thinking or problem-solving to one based entirely upon them [28]. This requires a complete reimagining of their tried-and-true tactics, which constitutes a sizeable cognitive burden as they not only retool their practice but embark upon new educational models that are complicated and polysemantic [13]. At the same time, the inclusion of digital technologies in the classroom, another primary driver behind Saudi educational reform, adds yet another cognitive layer [29]. Not only do teachers now need to be facile with several e-learning platforms, but a myriad of digital tools have been fast-tracked in a move towards online education that has been necessitated by a global pandemic [30], requiring both proficiency and engagement strategies in a new virtual modality [31].

Linguistic complexity also complicates the delivery of STEM content. English, which is typically a non-native language for both Saudi teachers and students [32], carries a substantial cognitive load, requiring educators to translate complex concepts into a language that they and their students may not fully command, further escalating cognitive demands for teachers as they shepherd students’ understanding of and engagement with these content areas [33]. Although some regions in the nation have experienced robust professional development oppor- tunities to support their educators in this transition, others have not, leaving teachers in these jurisdictions with the increased burden of cognitive demands in their roles [25]. Additionally, administrative and policy demands stretch teachers’ cognitive resources further. In this climate of high-stakes testing, accountability metrics, and adminis- trative minutiae, teachers have less mental bandwidth for planning instruction and building connections with students. Moreover, the time and mental energy required to document and participate in school-wide initiatives further depletes teachers’ cognitive capacity [34, 35]. The trials ahead demand a clear understanding of existing demands on teachers and targeted intervention strategies to reduce cognitive loads.

2.5. Research Gap

Research has examined the CLT through several pedagogical lenses [36], in real-world problem-solving scenarios [37], as regards motivation and engagement [17-22], to critique existing theories [19], in the introduction to new learning paradigms [38], and a great deal more.

Ginns et al. [22], for instance, investigate the benefits of practice-related activities in learning and improving problem-solving skills without the adverse effects of increasing cognitive load. The effect of reducing the cognitive load in virtual and real models is examined by Khalil et al. [38], who suggested it resulted in an increased understanding and augmented memory of the anatomy model, which remains critical for understanding physiological and medical science. According to Berssanette and de Francisco [36], in their recently published review of cognitive load theory on cyber learning and learning technology integration, the demand for learning to program highlights the critical role of cognitive load theory in digital learning environments. Leppink’s [34] recent work suggested that the cognitive theory of cognitive information processing or schema acquisition, automation, and transfer as procedures for optimizing cognitive load is a challenge for educators seeking to apply cognitive load theory in practice, which she argues is regarded as the most practical tool for analyzing pedagogical materials or learning materials, in the future. Further, among these applications is the report that critically revised the germane cognitive load theory when Greenberg and Zheng [19] reinvestigated germane cognitive load, where they suggested it was time to reevaluate the multiple dimensions of cognitive load deemed germane within cognitive psychology. Blackley et al. [37] critique the nuances of educators' cognitive processing and decision-making in their pedagogy. The relationship between cognitive load and its effect on decision-making and behavior in educational practice has remained within, primarily, the realms of theory and critique more than empirical data. Most recently, the process of cognitive load theory application in actual practice or its theoretical limitations was found to be most challenging within the pedagogy of medicine [34].

Although these contributions significantly advance our understanding of cognitive load across various educational settings, the specific exploration of how it impacts teachers in Saudi Arabia – amid the country’s extensive educational reform – and its subsequent impact on student engagement and achievement remains largely uncharted. This study seeks to explore the effects of cognitive load on teaching approaches and student achievement, intending to create specific strategies to reduce cognitive load for teachers, thereby improving educational settings in accordance with Saudi Arabia’s significant educational reforms.

3.1. Research Design

This study used a qualitative research design for its suitability in exploring teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and challenges regarding the impact of teachers’ cognitive load on students’ engagement and academic performance. Such a design aims to yield comprehensive insights that quantitative approaches miss [39].

3.2. Participant

This study included 35 participants of different ages from different educational disciplines within the Saudi context. In qualitative research, it is well-known that depth and richness of data are more essential than a larger sample size. Therefore, the selection of 35 participants falls well within the ideal range required to achieve data saturation [40]. The participants were selected using a stratified sampling method to ensure a balanced representation of teaching majors. Stratification was based on teaching levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary), teaching experience (novice: 1–5 years, mid-career: 6–15 years, experienced: 16⁺ years), and geographical location (urban and rural). A stratified sampling method allowed for a well-adjusted selection process, where teachers were drawn randomly from each stratum to minimize selection bias and increase the generalizability of the study across different educational levels. Participants were randomly selected within each stratum to ensure unbiased representation and diverse perspectives. Inclusion criteria required participants to have at least one year of teaching experience and current employment as educators in Saudi classrooms. Such inclusivity frames the comprehensive understanding of the nuances of cognitive load that can guide the development of targeted strategies for supporting teachers in the Saudi educational renaissance. The diversity of the sample is designated in Fig. (1), which outlines the sample characteristics that emerged in terms of the different subjects that the participants taught and staged aspects of their educational provision.

Fig. (1) delineates the demographic and professional attributes of the 35 teachers participating in the study to understand the impact of cognitive load in the Saudi educational context. The age distribution showcases a skew towards younger educators, with 42.9% falling in the 25-34 age bracket and 31.4% in the 35-44 range, suggesting the sample predominantly consists of early to mid-career teachers. This is complemented by including more experienced teachers, with 22.9% aged between 45-54 and a minimal 2.9% over 54, providing a broad perspective across generations. Teaching experience mirrors this diversity; nearly half of the participants (48.6%) possess 1-10 years of experience, blending the

insights of relatively newer teachers with those of veterans in the field, as evidenced by 28.6% having 11-20 years and 22.9% boasting over 20 years of teaching experience.

The educational qualifications of the participants primarily include Bachelor’s degrees (74.3%), with a smaller fraction holding Master’s (17.1%) and Doctorate degrees (8.6%), indicating a wide range of academic backgrounds. The study also reveals a significant urban bias in school locations (77.1%), with a more miniature representation from rural settings (22.9%), reflecting the general distribution of educational institutions in Saudi Arabia. A vast majority teach in public schools (85%), with private schools representing 15% of the sample. The instances of professional development participation were varied, suggesting that teachers engage in ongoing learning and training to different degrees. The frequency of the instances of professional development participation varied, with the instances of professional development participation ranging from frequent (17.3%) and regular (25.7%) to occasional (34.2%) and rare (22.8%), suggesting that the teachers varied in the opportunity and motivation for professional growth in the sample.

3.3. Instrument

The study employed primarily an open-ended questionnaire where the data was generated in order to determine how cognitive load influences teachers’ instructional decisions and student engagement across time of the different reforms that have been implemented this year in Saudi Arabia. The open-ended nature of the questions is the key to reflecting educators’ multi-dimensional and endowed experiences where they can qualify their experiences in great detail. This was pivotal for capturing in rich, qualitative detail how the cognitive load manifests and necessitated a nuanced approach that would likely be missed in a structured survey [41]. The questionnaire sections were divided by demographic information at the beginning and the in-depth, qualitative responses toward the end that closely followed the research questions. This procedure allowed the researcher to fully grasp the participant’s context and draw out the research findings with rich contextual detail.

The first section gathered demographic data. Participants were asked to report their age, years of teaching experience, highest educational qualification, the geographical location of their school (rural/urban), the type of school (private/public), and their participation in professional development activity. This information was indispensable because it placed the ensuing findings in context and assisted the researcher’s comprehension of how cognitive load and its educational stipulations can interact with teachers’ diverse backgrounds and experiences. After the demographic section, the questionnaire probed the crux of the research established by the carefully crafted open-ended questions. These sought to extract the participants’ descriptive narratives, permitting the elaboration of the nexus between cognitive load and a teacher’s pedagogical strategies, levels of student engagement, and the educational outcomes s/he achieved in the milieu of the Saudi educational setup. The objective was to obtain first-hand accounts of dealing with cognitive load and delineating the participants’ views about the broader systemic and extraneous influences that act to exacerbate or ameliorate these difficulties. For a detailed exposition of the demographic parameters covered and the specific open-ended questions posed, please refer to Appendix 1.

3.4. Instrument Validity

The open-ended questionnaire employed in this study underwent content validity scrutiny over an elaborate procedure of expert reviews and pilot testing. It was first scrutinized hierarchically by a panel of three educational and cognitive psychology experts. The panel checked whether the questionnaire adequately embraced the main themes of the study and cross-verified that each point of the questionnaire adequately reflected the targeted research domains. The insights acquired from this panel led to laying down levels of revisiting and iterative modifications required to adapt the more conventional questionnaire that more precisely accorded to the focus of the study. Subsequent to this, a pilot testing round involved a small set of five teachers matched to the demographic distribution characteristics of the primary study population. This was crucial in determining the pragmatic aspects of the questionnaire–clarity of questions, relevance of questions in the teachers’ contexts and the effectiveness of the response elicitation. The values-based valuable feedback from this pilot round was the last stage that readied the questionnaire for soliciting comprehensive and significant insights into the intricate expression of the cognitive load and its impact across educational practices and student engagement in the crucial Saudi Arabian landscape.

3.5. Data Collection

The data collection phase, which spanned a month and a half, took place during the second half of the academic year 2023–2024; after rigorous validation, the re-articulated open-ended questionnaire was deployed via Google Forms to a teacher cohort that had been predetermined, leveraging its user-friendly interface and broad accessibility, contributing to a large number of participants from teachers residing in different geographical areas with various nationalities and serving in diverse institutional settings across Saudi Arabia. They were briefed on the research’s aim and pledged confidentiality to ensure complete transparency and genuine introspective answers. Furthermore, participants were provided with a concise and standardized definition of cognitive load, including its three dimensions - intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Practical examples relevant to teaching contexts were also included to ensure a consistent understanding of the concept among all participants, facilitating meaningful and focused responses to the questionnaire. The schedule and the online mode were deliberately planned to fit a promptly and dedicatedly designed instructional program to fit the academic calendar to maximize participation rates and minimize their interference with the subjects’ ongoing commitments.

3.6. Data Analysis

The data collected from the open-ended questionnaires for this study were subjected to a detailed thematic analysis. This methodological approach was explicitly chosen given its robustness for identifying and interpreting patterns within qualitative data [42]. The analysis process began with an immersive reading of all responses, manifest and latent alike, to form a deep and exhaustive understanding of the data collected. This was a critical step, as it facilitated the preliminary coding process, during which key translated insights relevant to cognitive load, teaching practices, and student experiences and learning were systematically elicited. Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework: (1) familiarization with the data by repeatedly reading the responses, (2) generating initial codes by systematically coding significant features of the data, (3) identifying themes by collating codes into broader patterns, (4) reviewing themes to ensure alignment with the dataset, (5) defining and naming themes to capture the essence of each, and (6) producing the final report. This laborious coding process allowed for the data set to be broken down into an array of potential emergent themes that reflected the core research inquiry in the context of the Saudi educational system. To enhance rigour, themes were validated through peer debriefing and iterative review to ensure credibility and consistency in interpretation. These emergent themes were scrutinized for appropriateness to the coded data and the strategic aims of the broader research. The emergent themes solidified through rigorous review and refinement into more clearly defined and named themes. This final thematic structure provided a deep, organized vantage point for the teachers’ experiences and perspectives to uncover the interplay between cognitive load and its impact on educational practices and outcomes.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

This study adhered to ethical standards, and its objectives were clearly outlined on the first page of the survey to ensure that participants were fully informed about its focus. Their continuation to the questionnaire was taken as proof of informed consent, as a consequence implying their voluntary participation, indicating that they understood the purpose of the research and their participation in it.

4.1. Theme one: Cognitive Load in Educational Strategies and Learner Engagement

Teachers agree that adapting instructional practices to manage cognitive load is critical. How teachers adapt their practices affects what they choose for engagement and pedagogy. The shift comes from realizing that they must ensure the content is covered methodically and keep the environment and learning accessible and engaging. One teacher shared: “Given the difficulty of topics, I have found breaking down information into more minor, more digestible parts essential, especially when my cognitive load is high. This helps manage my workload and ensures students continue to be involved and can follow along without feeling overawed.”

Clearly, educators see the cognitive load/engagement relationship, realizing that student engagement is supported, in large part, by how nimbly teachers dance around their cognitive hurdles. As one experienced instructor acknowledges about a particularly tough class, “When my cognitive load is high, so is the quality of my engagement in the classroom; what this means is that I can be less present with lighter loads, and this results in lower student engagement and a less dynamic classroom atmosphere.” Another instructor, who often partakes in professional development, adds — in an observation that shows a kind of mastery many aspire to, “Balancing my cognitive load is essential to creating an environment that ignites students’ passion for learning.” Sharing insights at the level of a master, they are also pointing to a critical relationship: the cognitive load underpinning an educational engagement that demands the careful lifting of teacher impact and student effort.

The responses further make clear an additional strategy of adopting active [v. passive] instructional practices [e.g., problem-solving and discussion vs. rote exercise and learning of discrete bits] to avoid disengagement and cognitive overload. As it turns out, teachers opt for interactive, student-centered strategies that lower the cognitive load as they support learning the basics. One of the teachers, with a doctoral degree, describes this: “Utilizing group work and interactive discussion has been a game changer. I can disperse the cognitive load while ensuring students are engaged and are processing the material versus passively receiving it.” One more said: “Getting creative with the use of technology has also given me the ability to decrease my cognitive load, making lessons more engaging and interactive for students.” These statements and others reflect a sense of engagement in instruction that delivers more student activity and engagement in some way. They speak to the capacity of adaptive teaching strategies—and teachers.

Teachers also noted the importance of recognizing and responding to students’ cognitive loads, which may vary among individuals. They recognized the variety of cognitive loads that are “out there” and that “teaching that is wise requires sensitivity to the variety of student cognitive loads and ways they handle information.” One teacher observed that “where students are concerned, it is possible to be too rich or too thin in cognitive loads.” A reflective observation highlighted the need to be flexible with teaching: “Recognizing the signs of cognitive overload in my students prompts me to adjust my teaching on the fly. Sometimes, it means pausing the planned curriculum to revisit concepts or introduce alternative explanations until I see signs of comprehension and renewed engagement.”

Consequently, this theme qualitative analysis reveals how teachers are actively shaping their cognitive load through adaptive teaching strategies to construct an environment that is both engaging and important for learning. It is with the intention that teachers are revealing that carefully balancing the cognitive load on not only themselves but, equally importantly, on their students is a strategic teaching orchestration. A recollection of this is, “Adapting my teaching strategies to manage my cognitive load not only aids my well-being but significantly enhances the learning experience for my students.” Encompassing the decisions and actions where, the cognitive load is not a barrier to learning but rather a vehicle that results in, and is tantamount to, a well-orchestrated dance.

4.2. Theme Two: Experiential Insights on Cognitive Load and Educational Achievement

It is apparent that mastering the art of managing cognitive load is a skill that comes with experience, and this is couched in numerous strategies designed to help teachers balance the workload of teaching with the many moving parts of engagement. Findings included the observation that “With experience comes the ability to manage my cognitive load better. Older teachers generally shared more strategies for managing workload and classroom engagement.” One teacher noted, “With years under my belt, I have learned the importance of pacing and prioritization to manage my cognitive load, directly impacting my students' learning positively.”

The degree to which a teacher is educated in the field also impacts their approach to cognitive load, with most secondary teachers who hold higher degrees referencing more proven strategies to mitigate its negative toll. For example, a teacher with a Master’s degree shared, “My advanced studies introduced me to various pedagogical theories that I apply to minimize cognitive overload for both myself and my students, enhancing our classroom's overall academic achievement.”

The context of the school’s location and the type of school in which a teacher works also play a significant role in shaping their experiences of cognitive load. In such scenarios, teachers from urban and public schools were more likely to equate the sheer size of classes and the diversity of student needs with higher cognitive load. Flexibility to pitch a lesson one way or another to maintain effective teaching and engagement was likelier to be front-and-center in their recollections. Another teacher from an urban public school discussed these challenges: “The multiplicity and size of my class challenge me to find advanced ways to manage my cognitive load while ensuring each student remains engaged and performs academically.”

Simply doing what comes naturally or is comfortable will often result in cognitive overload. Regular participation in professional development became a common factor that enabled teachers to manage cognitive load more effectively, and able teachers were much more likely to articulate sophisticated strategies for doing so. One said, “Attending workshops on mindfulness and pedagogical strategies has been crucial in managing my cognitive load, allowing me to foster a more engaged and successful learning environment for my students.”

4.3. Theme Three: Systemic and Environmental Determinants Affecting Cognitive Load in the Saudi Educational Sphere

Teachers described that systemic changes impacted their cognitive loads differently at the various career stages. The younger professionals, who tended to be more facile with digital tools, were nonetheless taxed by the pace at which new curricula were mandated. A young teacher in his early thirties described, “Despite my comfort with technology, the rapid curriculum changes demand continuous adaptation, significantly increasing my cognitive load and making it challenging to maintain the same level of student engagement.” While this theme was consistent across the different age groups, the coping strategies were more varied and linked to experience.

Teachers with higher qualifications frequently mention their ability to harness their research and analytical talents to satisfy the ever-evolving teaching requirements. For instance, a Doctorate-level educator discussed, “Drawing from the in-depth academic background associated with a PhD…Despite all this, the extent of changes still raises my cognitive workload appreciatively.” Similarly, a teacher with a Master’s degree explained, “If anything, the ability to research enables me to make my way through updates in the curriculum and technology systematically…However, navigating those elements without overloading overall cognitive load is a significant challenge.” These quotes illustrate the Herculean feat necessary just to adjust to one new technology or shift in the curriculum; they emphasize that these cognitive load limitations are ever-present, even for the most educated instructors.

Rural and public school teachers also saw school location and type implications for cognitive load challenges. A rural public school teacher noted, “A lack of resources and many students contribute heavily to my cognitive load and make it more difficult to incorporate new teaching strategies, as required by educational reforms.” Similarly, a rural school teacher noticed, “Some rurality and nearly nonexistent professional development opportunities add to the cognitive loads that I bear as I try to keep up with pedagogical innovations.” These comments highlight teachers’ unique challenges in less privileged schools and the urgent need to develop support infrastructures for reducing cognitive load and advancing equitable educational practices.

The importance of professional development in ameliorating cognitive load emerged as a critical consideration, as more active participants felt capable of managing systemic changes. “Engaging in continuous professional development has been critical for managing my cognitive load. Learning new pedagogical techniques helps me navigate educational reforms more effectively, enhancing my teaching practice,” noted a teacher who frequently attended workshops.