Linguistic Style and Cognitive Load in Distance Learning: A Discourse Analysis of Sociolinguistics Modules

Adrian Rasyki

doi:10.24036/jbs.v14i1.137849

Linguistic Style and Cognitive Load in Distance Learning: A Discourse Analysis of Sociolinguistics Modules

Adrian Rasyki

Abstract

Although Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is widely used to evaluate multimedia learning, its application to textual language styles in printed distance learning modules remains under-explored. To address this gap, this study investigates how specific linguistic choices impact students' cognitive load within Sociolinguistics modules at Universitas Terbuka. Employing a multi-method qualitative design, the research analyzed 40 thematic textual segments and conducted semi-structured interviews with three Indonesian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students whose first language is Indonesian. The findings indicate that within this specific context, extraneous cognitive load is primarily triggered by dense academic registers, syntactic opacity, and culturally distant examples. Conversely, localized contexts and conversational markers functioned as germane load triggers. These results suggest the presence of an "expert blind spot," where markers of academic rigor paradoxically act as cognitive barriers for autonomous learners. Consequently, instructional designs in text-driven distance education should integrate culturally relevant schemas and explicit linguistic scaffolding to optimize comprehension without diluting theoretical depth.

Keywords

language style; distance learning; cognitive load; discourse analysis; sociolinguistics

Full Text:

PDF

References

Baratta, Alexander M. 2010. “Nominalization Development across an Undergraduate Academic Degree Program.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (4): 1017–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.007.

Chen, Jiaxin, Dechao Li, and Kanglong Liu. 2024. “Unraveling Cognitive Constraints in Constrained Languages: A Comparative Study of Syntactic Complexity in Translated, EFL, and Native Varieties.” Language Sciences 102 (March):101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2024.101612.

Chuang, Andrew H C, and Haoran Yang. 2022. “From Translationese to Emergent Irony: A Usage-Based Approach to Chinese Bèi Passive.” In Concepts, Discourses, and Translations, 357–76. Springer.

Clarke, Victoria, and Virginia Braun. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners.

Creswell, John W., and Dana L. Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory Into Practice 39 (3): 124–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.

Creswell, John W, and Cheryl N Poth. 2016. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Sage publications.

Crossley, Scott A., Stephen Skalicky, and Mihai Dascalu. 2019. “Moving beyond Classic Readability Formulas: New Methods and New Models.” Journal of Research in Reading 42 (3–4): 541–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12283.

Désiron, Juliette C, Mireille Bétrancourt, and Erica de Vries. 2021. “Cross-Representational Signaling and Cohesion Support Inferential Comprehension of Text–Picture Documents.” Frontiers in Psychology Volume 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.592509.

El-Sabagh, Hassan A. 2021. “Adaptive E-Learning Environment Based on Learning Styles and Its Impact on Development Students’ Engagement.” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 18(1): 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4.

Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. “How Many Interviews Are Enough?” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.

Harilal, Cymbeline, Cebelihle Sokhela, and Mariana Van Der Walt. 2024. “Optimising Instructional Design Strategies to Mitigate Cognitive Overload.” International Conference on Education Research 1 (1): 75–83. https://doi.org/10.34190/icer.1.1.3095.

Isman, Suci Madiarti, Izzul Fatawi, and Dwi Rezki Hardianto Putra Rustan. 2025. “Designing a Multidimensional Profiling Framework for English Learners.” Indonesian Research Journal in Education| IRJE| 9 (02): 1126–41.

Jiang, Feng. 2016. “Douglas Biber and Bethany Gray: Grammatical Complexity In Academic English: Linguistic Change In Writing.” Applied Linguistics, September, amw035. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw035.

Klaus, Tim, and Chuleeporn Changchit. 2014. “Environmental Factors of Distance Learning.” International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 10 (1): 14–24. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2014010102.

Leppink, Jimmie, Fred Paas, Tamara van Gog, Cees P.M. van der Vleuten, and Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer. 2014. “Effects of Pairs of Problems and Examples on Task Performance and Different Types of Cognitive Load.” Learning and Instruction 30 (April):32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage Publication.

Lu, Jialiang, and Reiko Sato. 2025. “Effects of Domain, Modality, and Linguistic Complexity on Cognitive Load and Self-Efficacy in Learning Academic Content in L2.” IEEE Access 13:162436–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3610786.

Malyuga, Elena N., and Gayane O. Petrosyan. 2022. “Effective Integration of Distance Courses Through Project-Based Learning.” Frontiers in Education 6 (January). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.788829.

Margulieux, Lauren E., and Richard Catrambone. 2021. “Scaffolding Problem Solving with Learners’ Own Self Explanations of Subgoals.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education 33 (2): 499–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09275-1.

Mayer, Richard. 2020. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355.

Przygoda, Agnieszka. 2017. “The Effectiveness of Language Used in E-Learning Courses.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 52 (1): 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2017-0051.

Reichelt, Maria, Frauke Kämmerer, Helmut M. Niegemann, and Steffi Zander. 2014. “Talk to Me Personally: Personalization of Language Style in Computer-Based Learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 35 (June):199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.005.

Sadoski, Mark. 1999. “Theoretical, Empirical, and Practical Considerations in Designing Informational Text.” Document Design 1 (1): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.1.1.04sad.

Silverman, David, and Amir Marvasti. 2008. Doing Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Guide. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036231743.

Sweller, J. 1988. “Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science 12 (2): 257–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.

Sweller, John, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, and Fred Paas. 2019. “Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later.” Educational Psychology Review 31 (2): 261–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.

Vergie, Malvin Patrick. 2015. “Effective Language in Study Guides at a Distance Learning Institution: Bridging the Gap between the Academic and Non-Academic Culture.” Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 45 (January):187. https://doi.org/10.5842/45-0-622.

Yang, Yang, Ngee Thai Yap, and Afida Mohamad Ali. 2022. “A Review of Syntactic Complexity Studies in Context of EFL/ESL Writing.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 12 (10). https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i10/14843.

Zhang, Dongsong. 2005. “Interactive Multimedia-Based E-Learning: A Study of Effectiveness.” American Journal of Distance Education 19 (3): 149–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_3.

Zhao, Yuxin. 2023. “The Impact of Cognitive Load Theory on Online Learning Outcomes for Adolescent Students.” Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences 18 (August):50–55. https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v18i.10946.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24036/jbs.v14i1.137849