Enhancing Learning Outcomes in Architecture Project Management: A Cognitive Load Theory Approach

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of cognitive load on learning outcomes within architectural project management education, using Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) as the guiding framework. The research was conducted with 150 final-year master's students at Constantine 3 University across five academic years (2020–2025). A structured questionnaire measured three types of cognitive load—intrinsic (task complexity), extraneous (instructional inefficiencies), and germane (schema development effort)—alongside self-reported learning outcomes, including comprehension, academic performance, and perceived workload. Statistical analysis, including correlation and regression, revealed that germane cognitive load had the strongest positive association with improved learning outcomes, while extraneous load negatively impacted student performance and satisfaction. Intrinsic load, although moderate in its effect, was not a statistically significant predictor. The findings highlight the importance of reducing extraneous demands and promoting germane engagement through effective instructional design tailored to the cognitive needs of architecture students. By aligning pedagogical strategies with CLT principles, this study offers practical insights for curriculum development and teaching in architecture programmes. The results contribute to educational psychology and design pedagogy by emphasising the cognitive dimensions of learning in complex, interdisciplinary environments like architectural project management.

Keywords

• Cognitive Load Theory
• architecture education
• project management
• instructional design
• learning outcomes
• curriculum development.

Mimarlık Proje Yönetiminde Öğrenme Çıktılarının Geliştirilmesi: Bir Bilişsel Yük Kuramı Yaklaşımı

Abstract

Bu çalışma, mimarlık proje yönetimi eğitiminde öğrenme çıktıları üzerindeki bilişsel yükün etkisini Bilişsel Yük Kuramı (CLT) çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Araştırma, Constantine 3 Üniversitesi’nde beş akademik yıl (2020–2025) boyunca eğitim gören 150 son sınıf yüksek lisans öğrencisiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılandırılmış bir anket aracılığıyla üç tür bilişsel yük ölçülmüştür: içsel (görev karmaşıklığı), dışsal (öğretimsel verimsizlikler) ve yapısal (şema geliştirme çabası). Bu yük türleri, katılımcıların kendi bildirimine dayalı öğrenme çıktılarıyla—anlama, akademik başarı ve algılanan iş yükü—birlikte değerlendirilmiştir. Korelasyon ve regresyon gibi istatistiksel analizler, yapısal bilişsel yükün öğrenme çıktılarındaki gelişmeyle en güçlü pozitif ilişkiye sahip olduğunu, dışsal yükün ise öğrenci performansı ve memnuniyeti üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymuştur. İçsel yük ise etkisi orta düzeyde olmasına rağmen istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir yordayıcı değildir. Bulgular, mimarlık öğrencilerinin bilişsel ihtiyaçlarına uygun etkili öğretim tasarımı yoluyla dışsal yükün azaltılmasının ve yapısal yükün desteklenmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır. Pedagojik stratejilerin CLT ilkeleriyle uyumlu hâle getirilmesi, müfredat geliştirme ve mimarlık programlarında öğretim uygulamaları için pratik öneriler sunmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, mimarlık proje yönetimi gibi karmaşık ve disiplinlerarası ortamlarda öğrenmenin bilişsel boyutlarını vurgulayarak eğitim psikolojisi ve tasarım pedagojisine katkı sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Bilişsel Yük Kuramı
• mimarlık eğitimi
• proje yönetimi
• öğretim tasarımı
• öğrenme çıktıları
• müfredat geliştirme.

References

1. A. Bać, K. Sadowski, M. Strauchmann, L. Kazanecka-Olejnik, and K. Cebrat, "Architectural education for sustainability—case study of a higher education institution from Poland," Buildings, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 1282, 2025, doi: 10.3390/buildings15081282.
2. Y. Li, S. Lu, W. Xu, and Y. Gao, "Logic-driven and technology-supported creativity development model in open-ended design tasks," Buildings, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 871, 2025, doi: 10.3390/buildings15060871.
3. J. Pengelley, P. R. Whipp, and A. Malpique, "A testing load: a review of cognitive load in computer and paper-based learning and assessment," Technol. Pedagog. Educ., pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2024.2367517.
4. J. Sweller, "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning," Cogn. Sci., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257–285, 1988, doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
5. C. A. Barbieri and J. Rodrigues, "Leveraging cognitive load theory to support students with mathematics difficulty," Educ. Psychol., pp. 1–25, 2025, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2025.2486138.
6. J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, Cognitive Load Theory. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4.
7. K. J. Aladayleh and M. J. Aladaileh, "Applying analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to BIM-based risk management for optimal performance in construction projects," Buildings, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 3632, 2024, doi: 10.3390/buildings14113632.
8. O. Chen, F. Paas, and J. Sweller, "A cognitive load theory approach to defining and measuring task complexity through element interactivity," Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 35, no. 2, Art. no. 63, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09782-w.

9. L. P. Patac and A. V. Patac, "Using ChatGPT for academic support: Managing cognitive load and enhancing learning efficiency – A phenomenological approach," Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 11, p. 101301, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101301.
10. S. Avsec and M. Jagiełło-Kowalczyk, "Investigating possibilities of developing self-directed learning in architecture students using design thinking," Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 4369, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13084369.
11. V. Pavlou, "Bringing the studio home: Fostering socially engaged arts education and sustainability in online learning," Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 23, p. 10406, 2024, doi: 10.3390/su162310406.
12. G. Sozio, S. Agostinho, S. Tindall-Ford, and F. Paas, "Enhancing teaching strategies through cognitive load theory: Process vs. product worked examples," Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 8, p. 813, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14080813.
13. R. Oxman, "Theory and design in the first digital age," Des. Stud., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 229–265, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2005.11.002.
14. H. Demirkan and Ö. O. Demirbaş, "The effects of learning styles and gender on the academic performance of interior architecture students," Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1390–1394, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.205.
15. U. Ojiako, M. Ashleigh, M. Chipulu, and S. Maguire, "Learning and teaching challenges in project management," Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 268–278, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.008.
16. D. A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 1984.
17. H. Do, B. Ngoc, and M. H. Nguyen, "How do constructivism learning environments generate better motivation and learning strategies? The design science approach," Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 12, p. e22862, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22862.
18. D. R. Krathwohl, "A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview," Theory Into Pract., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 212–218, 2002, doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
19. R. Porat and C. Ceobanu, "The role of spatial ability in academic success: The impact of the integrated hybrid training program in architecture and engineering higher education," Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 11, p. 1237, 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14111237.
20. N. Partarakis and X. Zabulis, "Applying cognitive load theory to eLearning of crafts," Multimodal Technol. Interact., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 2, 2023, doi: 10.3390/mti8010002.
21. L. W. Anderson and D. R. Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY, USA: Longman, 2001.
22. J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2014.
23. J. Leppink, F. Paas, C. P. M. Van Der Vleuten, T. Van Gog, and J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, "Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load," Behav. Res. Methods, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 1058–1072, 2013, doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1.
24. F. Paas, J. E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. W. M. Van Gerven, "Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory," Educ. Psychol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 63–71, 2003, doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
25. T. de Jong, "Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought," Instr. Sci., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 105–134, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.