ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Generative AI and cognitive load in education: a systematic review of WoS/SSCI-indexed studies through the lens of cognitive load theory.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), together with closely related educational AI systems retrieved by the executed search, has been rapidly adopted across education, prompting empirical work on its consequences for learners' cognitive load. This systematic review of English-language, SSCI-indexed journal articles in the Web of Science Core Collection examined 39 empirical studies through the tripartite architecture of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT): intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Studies were dual-coded across 14 dimensions. The corpus was strongly experimental (28 of 39 studies) and dominated by undergraduate samples. Sixteen studies measured extraneous load as a distinct subtype: seven reported lower extraneous load, three reported no difference, one reported higher extraneous load, and one reported a curvilinear pattern under the reported AI/GenAI contrast; four did not provide a directional comparison. A separate 22 studies reported an overall or undifferentiated index, for which 11 reported lower load, five reported no difference, and two reported higher load, with four non-directional cases. These groups must not be pooled as evidence that AI or GenAI specifically reduces extraneous load. Eleven studies included a germane-load subscale, but only five yielded a directional comparison (four higher and one curvilinear). The modal overall verdict was conditional rather than uniformly beneficial (21 conditional, 16 beneficial, two mixed): benefits depended on scaffolding, dosage, learner prior knowledge, and task design. Only 13 studies framed AI/GenAI through cognitive offloading. We therefore argue that future research should measure the CLT components separately, report the AI/GenAI contrast transparently, and use an offloading lens to distinguish support for learning from substitution for learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.