Impact of Artificial Intelligent-Tutor Individualized Learning on Students’ Cognitive Load Management in Integrated Science Education in Northeast Nigeria

Emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have been proved to influence learning experience and engagement significantly. However, its complete potential in enhancing science education in the Northeast, Nigeria, remains largely unexplored. This study addresses this gap by investigating AI-tutor-based individualised learning and its impact on students’ cognitive management. The study adopted mix method research approach design. A quasi experimental-control group design with intact class involving pretest, post-test with one experimental group and one control group and qualitative-interpretive research approach design. 55 undergraduate 300 level students that registered for the biology course titled 'General Biology for Integrated Science II in the integrated science education programme were purposely selected for the study from the two federal universities that run integrated science education programmes in the Northeast, Nigeria. Ten integrated education course lecturers also participated in the study, 5 from each of the two universities, and they serve as research assistants. The Students’ Cognitive Load Management Questionnaire (SCLMQ) was developed by the researchers and was validated by peer experts to collect information on students’ cognitive load. The instrument was subjected to a reliability test using the Cronbach alpha statistical tool, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.894. Descriptive statistics such as mean rank, range, sum of ranks and median were used to test research questions. While the Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was employed to evaluate significant differences in gender-based cognitive load among students in selected concepts and the Mann-Whitney test to measure significant differences between AI-tutor individualised learning and the control groups. The findings indicated a significant difference in students’ cognitive load between the control and experimental groups. Additionally, students’ cognitive load management was significantly impacted by gender. Consequently, the study recommended integrating AI-tutor-based individualised learning into integrated science education courses, among other suggestions.

Students’ cognitive load management, AI-tutor individualized learning

1. Alam, A. & Mohanty, A. (2023). Educational technology: Exploring the convergence of technology and pedagogy through mobility, interactivity, AI, and learning tools. Cogent Engineering. 10, 2283282. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alneyadi, S., & Wardat, Y. J. C. E. T. (2023). ChatGPT: Revolutionizing student achievement in the elec tronic magnetism unit for eleventh-grade students in Emirates schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep448. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13417. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Al-Obaydi, L. H., Shakki, F., Tawafak, R. M., Pikhart, M., & Ugla, R. L. (2023). What I know, what I want to know, what I learned: Activating EFL college students’ cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement through structured feedback in an online environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1083673. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1083673 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. AlShaikh, R.; Al-Malki, N. & Almasre, M. (2024). The implementation of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning in the design and evaluation of an AI educational video assistant utilizing large language models. Heliyon 10, e25361. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bai, L.; Liu, X. & Su, J. (2023). ChatGPT: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1, e30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Barshay, J. (2024). Kids Who Use ChatGPT as a Study Assistant do Worse on Tests. The Hechinger Report. http://hechingerreport.org/kids-chatgpt worse-on-tests/. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Benabou, A.; Touhami, F. & Demraoui, L. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Human Resource Management. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV), Fez, Morocco, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J.Y., Saligrama, V., Kalai, A.T. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Brachten, F.; Brünker, F.; Frick, N.R.; Ross, B. (2020). Stieglitz, S. On the ability of virtual agents to decrease cognitive load: An experimental study. Information System E-Business Management, 18, 187–207. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Campos, D.G., & Scherer, R. (2024). Digital gender gaps in students’ knowledge, attitudes and skills: An integrative data analysis across 32 Countries. Education Information Technology, 29, 655–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12272-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Chen,O.; Paas, F. & Sweller, J. (2021). Spacing and interleaving effects require distinct theoretical bases: A systematic review testing the cognitive load and discriminative-contrast hypotheses. Educational Psychology Review., 33, 1499–1522. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chiu. T. K. F. (2021). Computers in Human Behavior.Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on Self-determination Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Derry, J. A. (2020). Problem for Cognitive Load Theory-the Distinctively Human Life-form. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dong, Y.; Hou, J.; Zhang, N. & Zhang, M. (2020). Research on how human intelligence, consciousness, and cognitive computing affect the development of artificial intelligence. Complexity, 2020, 1680845. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Dou, L. (2019). A cold thinking on the development of STEM education. In 2019 International Joint Conference on Information, Media and Engineering (IJCIME) (pp. 88–92). https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCIME49369.2019.00027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Du,X.; Dai, M.; Tang, H.; Hung, J.-L.; Li, H. & Zheng, J. (2022). A multimodal analysis of college students’ collaborative problem solving in virtual experimentation activities: A perspective of cognitive load. J. Comput. High. Educ., 35, 272–295. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Duruji, M., Azuh, D., Segun, J., Olanrewaju, I. P., & Okorie, U. (2014). Teaching method and assimilation of students in tertiary institutions: A study of Covenant University, Nigeria. Proceedings of EDULEARN14 Conference 7th-9th July 2014 (Barcelona, Spain). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Fombona, J.; Pascual, M.A. & Ferra, M.P. (2020). Analysis of the educational impact of M-Learning and related scientific research. Journal of New Approaches Education Research. 9, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ghafouri, M. (2023). ChatGPT: The catalyst for teacher-student rapport and grit development in L2 class. System, 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103209 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Gkintoni, E.; Dimakos, I.; Halkiopoulos, C. & Antonopoulou, H. (2023). Contributions of Neuroscience to Educational Praxis: A Systematic Review. Emerging Science Journal, 7, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Grassini, S. (2023). Shaping the future of education: Exploring the potential and consequences of AI and ChatGPT in educational settings. Educ. Sci., 13, 692. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Halkiopoulos, C. & Gkintoni, E. (2024). Leveraging AI in e-learning: Personalized learning and adaptive assessment through cognitive neuropsychology—A systematic analysis. Electronics, 13, 3762. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hall, P., & Ellis, D. (2023). A systematic review of socio-technical gender bias in ai algorithms. Online Information Review, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Haryana, M.R.A.; Warsono, S.; Achjari, D. & Nahartyo, E. (2022). Virtual reality learning media with innovative learning materials to enhance individual learning outcomes based on cognitive load theory. International Journal of Management in Education, 20, 100657. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Idris, A. & Rajuddin, M. R. (2012). The influence of teaching approaches among technical and vocational education teachers towards the acquisition of technical skills in Kano State Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 3(16), 160-166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Inayat, A. & Ali, A. Z. (2020). Influence of teaching style on students’ engagement, curiosity and exploration in the classroom. Journal of Education and Educational Development, (1), 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.2736 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Jeon, J., Lee, S., & Choe, H. (2023). Beyond ChatGPT: A conceptual framework and systematic review of speech-recognition chatbots for Language learning. Computers & Education, 206, 21, 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Jiang, D.; Chen, Z.; Liu, T.; Zhu, H.; Wang, S. & Chen, Q. (2022). Individual creativity in digital transformation enterprises: Knowledge and ability, which is more important? Frontier Psychology., 12, 734941. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Johnson, O.W.; Han JY, C.; Knight, A.L.; Mortensen, S.; Aung, M.T.; Boyland, M. & Resurrección, B.P. (2020). Intersectionality and energy transitions: A review of gender, social equity and low-carbon energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci., 70, 101774. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., & Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: Trends, gaps and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Kennedy, M.J. & Romig, J.E. (2021). Cognitive load theory: An applied reintroduction for special and general educators. Teach. Except. Child., 56, 440–451. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ko´c-Januchta, M.M.; Schönborn, K.J.; Roehrig, C.; Chaudhri, V.K.; Tibell, L.A. & 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 and Higher Education, 19, (11). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Leo, J. (2022). Early-Warning dropout visualization tool for secondary schools: Using machine learning, QR code, GIS and mobile application techniques. International Journal of Advanced Computer Sci ence and Applications, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2022.0131176 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Lovell, O. & Sherrington, T. (2020). Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory in Action; John Catt: Woodbridge, UK. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Luo, G.; Yuan, Q.; Li, J.; Wang, S. & Yang, F. (2022). Artificial intelligence powered mobile networks: From cognition to decision. IEEE Netw., 36, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Määttä K. & Uusiautti S. (2020). Nine contradictory observations about girls’ and boys’ upbringing and education – The strength-based approach as the way to eliminate the gender gap. Frontiers of Education, 5, 134. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00134 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging Language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Mitchell, L. (2019). Policy Frameworks and Democratic Participation (pp. 125–143). https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1793-_7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Murtaza, M.; Ahmed, Y.; Shamsi, J.A.; Sherwani, F. & Usman, M. (2022). AI-based personalized e-learning systems: Issues, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Access, 10, 81323–81342. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. National Universities Commission (2017). Benchmark Minimum Academic Standards for Undergraduate Programmes in Nigerian Universities. Abuja, Nigeria. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Nazareno, L. & Schiff, D.S. (2021). The impact of automation and artificial intelligence on worker well-being. Technol. Soc., 67, 101679. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Niiranen, S. (2017). Gender and technology education. In de Vries, M. (Ed.), Handbook of technology education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_61-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Osarenren-Osaghae, R. I. Imhangbe1 O. S., & Irabo Q. O. (2019). Relationship between social challenges and the education of the girl-child as perceived by female academics in the tertiary institutions of Edo State, Nigeria. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(17), 625 638. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Paas, F. & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., 29, 394–398. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61,101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210.htps://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Santilli, T., Ceccacci, S., Mengoni, M & Giaconi, C. (2025). Virtual vs. traditional learning in higher education: A systematic review of comparative studies. Computers & Education, 227(2025) 1-31. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105214 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Santoro, E. & Monin, B. (2023). The AI Effect: People rate distinctively human attributes as more essential to being human after learning about artificial intelligence advances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 107, 104464. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Schöbel, S.; Saqr, M. & Janson, A. (2021). Two decades of game concepts in digital learning environments-A bibliometric study and research agenda. Computer Education., 173, 104296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Schueller, S. M., Tomasino, K. N. & Mohr, D. C. (2017). Integrating Human Support into Behavioral Intervention Technologies: The Efficiency Model of Support. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(1), 27-45. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12173 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Shanmugasundaram, M. & Tamilarasu, A. (2023). The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: A review. Frontier in Cognitive., 2, 1203077. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relation ship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908x304398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Suryani, M.; Sensuse, D.I.; Santoso, H.B.; Aji, R.F.; Hadi, S.; Suryono, R.R. & Kautsarina. (2024). An initial user model design for adaptive interface development in learning management system based on cognitive load. Cogn. Technol. Work. 26, 653–672. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Sweller, J. (2019). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2022). The impact of intelligent personal assistants on adolescent EFL learn ers’ listening comprehension. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(3), 433–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2040536 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Tao, Y., Meng, Y., Gao, Z. Y., & Yang, X. D. (2022). Perceived teacher support, student engagement, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology, 42(4), 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2033168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Tedre, M.; Toivonen, T.; Kahila, J.; Vartiainen, H.; Valtonen, T.; Jormanainen, I.; Pears, A. (2021). Teaching machine learning in K-12 classroom: Pedagogical and technological trajectories for artificial intelligence education. IEEE Access, 9, 110558–110572. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. UNPD (2014). Gender and poverty reduction. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/povertyreduction/focus_areas/focus_ gender_and_poverty/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Wahono, B., Lin, P.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Wang, Y., & Xue, L. (2024). Using AI-driven chatbots to foster Chinese EFL students’ academic engage ment: An intervention study. Computers in Human Behavior, 159, 108353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108353 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Wang, Y., & Xue, L. (2024). Using AI-driven chatbots to foster Chinese EFL students’ academic engage ment: An intervention study. Computers in Human Behavior, 159, 108353. ht tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108353 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Wang,J.; Antonenko, P.; Keil, A. & Dawson, K. (2020). Converging subjective and psychophysiological measures of cognitive load to study the effects of instructor-present video. Mind Brain Education, 14, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Wirth, J.; Stebner, F.; Trypke, M.; Schuster, C. & Leutner, D. (2020). An interactive layers model of self-regulated learning and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1127–1149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Wu,C.-H.; Liu, C.-H. & Huang, Y.-M. (2022). The exploration of continuous learning intention in STEAM education through attitude, motivation, and cognitive load. International Journal of Stem Education, 9 (35). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K. F., Chai, C. S., & Xie, K. (2023). The mediating effects of needs satisfaction on the relationships between prior knowledge and self-regulated learning through artificial intelligence chat bot. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 967–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13305 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Yang, F. Y., & Xu, J. Z. (2019). A psychometric evaluation of teacher homework involvement scale in online learning environments. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1713–1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9734–1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Exploring the Moderating Role of Demographic Variables in the Relationship Between Scientific Curiosity and Creativity Among Secondary School Students
• Development of a CODE-Based Teaching Guide on the Central Dogma in Biochemistry: A Study in the Philippines
• Scaffolding Genetics Learning in Resource-Constrained Classrooms: Effects of Inquiry-Based Worksheets on Student Achievement
• Chronological Versus Biological Age: The Role of Diet and Healthy Lifestyle in Modulating Epigenetic Aging
• Exploring Relationship Between Reaction Time and Academic Achievement in Science Subjects of Middle Stage Students