Proceedings of International Conference on Applied Innovation in IT  ·  2026/06/12  ·  Vol. 14  ·  Issue 3  ·  pp. 607–621
The Impact of Large Language Model Integration on Cognitive Load and Metacognitive Strategies
Muxarram Rasulova, Shoira Fayz, Shoira Utanova, Mashrab Anorov, Tamara Aitieva, Rano Yusubova, Shohida Shahabitdinova, Odil Begimov, Markhabo Rakhmatova and Lobarkhon Artikova
📄 Download PDF DOI: Under indexing
Abstract
The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into educational and professional cognitive processes is transforming the ways in which individuals process information, make decisions, and regulate cognitive activity. Despite the rapid proliferation of LLM-based tools, their impact on cognitive load and metacognitive strategies remains insufficiently explored from an empirical perspective. The present quasi-experimental study aims to examine how the integration of LLMs influences intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load, as well as the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of one's own cognitive activity. The study involved 124 participants, divided into an experimental group (LLM integration) and a control group. The research instruments included the NASA-TLX cognitive workload scale, the Paas Cognitive Load Scale, and the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). Statistical analysis incorporated ANCOVA, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and mediation analysis. The results demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in extraneous cognitive load when using LLMs (p < 0.01), accompanied by a redistribution of cognitive resources toward germane cognitive load. At the same time, structural changes in metacognitive monitoring were observed, including the strengthening of planning strategies and external regulation mechanisms. A mediation effect of cognitive load was identified in relation to the influence of LLM use on task performance. The present study contributes to the development of distributed cognition theory and Human-AI Interaction research by proposing an empirically grounded model of cognitive integration of LLMs in professional activity. Thus, the results of structural modeling confirm the hypothesis that the impact of LLMs on performance is primarily mediated through the redistribution of cognitive load and the activation of metacognitive regulatory mechanisms.
Keywords
Large Language Models Cognitive Load Metacognition Human-AI Interaction Distributed Cognition Quasi-Experiment.
References
  1. J. Sweller, “Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning,” Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257-285, 1988, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15516709COG1202_4.
  2. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and F. Paas, “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 251-296, 1998, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.
  3. F. Paas, “Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 429-434, 1992.
  4. S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” in P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (eds.), Human Mental Workload, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1988, pp. 139-183.
  5. G. Schraw and R. S. Dennison, “Assessing metacognitive awareness,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 460-475, 1994, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033.
  6. J. H. Flavell, “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry,” American Psychologist, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 906-911, 1979.
  7. B. J. Zimmerman, “Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective,” in M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2000, pp. 13-39.
  8. P. H. Winne and A. F. Hadwin, “Studying as self-regulated learning,” in D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, New York: Routledge, 1998, pp. 277-304.
  9. E. Hutchins, Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
  10. A. Clark and D. Chalmers, “The extended mind,” Analysis, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 7-19, 1998, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7.
  11. R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173-1182, 1986, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
  12. K. J. Preacher and A. F. Hayes, “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 879-891, 2008, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
  13. L. T. Hu and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-55, 1999.
  14. G. W. Cheung and R. B. Rensvold, “Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance,” Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 233-255, 2002.
  15. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed., New York: Guilford Press, 2016.
  16. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
  17. R. M. O’Brien, “A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors,” Quality & Quantity, vol. 41, pp. 673-690, 2007, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.
  18. B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani, An Introduction to the Bootstrap, New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1993.
  19. P. E. Shrout and J. L. Fleiss, “Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 420-428, 1979.
  20. B. G. Tabachnick and L. S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed., Boston, MA: Pearson, 2013.
  21. A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed., London: SAGE, 2018.
  22. J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed., Andover, UK: Cengage, 2019.
  23. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, and et al., “Attention is all you need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017, pp. 5998-6008.
  24. J. Devlin, M. W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2019, ACL, 2019, pp. 4171-4186.
  25. T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, and et al., “Language models are few-shot learners,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020.
  26. OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, and et al., “GPT-4 technical report,” arXiv, 2023.
  27. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, and et al., “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” arXiv, 2022.
  28. E. Kasneci, K. Sessler, S. Küchemann, and et al., “ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 103, Art. no. 102274, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
  29. A. Tlili, B. Shehata, M. A. Adarkwah, and et al., “What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education,” Smart Learning Environments, vol. 10, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x.
  30. C. K. Lo and et al., “Mapping the global evidence around the use of ChatGPT in higher education: A systematic review,” Education and Information Technologies, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12223-4.
  31. Y. K. Dwivedi, N. Kshetri, L. Hughes, and et al., “So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 71, Art. no. 102642, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.
  32. Z. Li and Y. Fan, “How GenAI affects metacognition in self-regulated learning: Between enhancement and inhibition,” in Learning with Generative Artificial Intelligence, Routledge, 2025, pp. 148-177, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003632146-6.
  33. J. W. Hutson, A. E. Franklin, B. Rogers, and D. Walker, “Psychometric testing of NASA-TLX to measure learners’ cognitive load in simulation,” Clinical Simulation in Nursing, vol. 95, Art. no. 101607, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2024.101607.
  34. M. Baceviciene and et al., “Cognitive load in AI-assisted programming environments: An empirical study,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, Art. no. 100214, 2024.
  35. D. A. Norman, “Cognitive artifacts,” in J. M. Carroll (ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 17-38.
  36. D. A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, Rev. ed., New York: Basic Books, 2013.
  37. P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75-86, 2006.

Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Innovations in IT by Anhalt University of Applied Sciences is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
 ·  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

ICAIIT 2026
International Conference on Applied Innovation in IT
Navigation
Publisher
ISSN2199-8876
Publisher Edition Hochschule Anhalt
Location Anhalt University of Applied Sciences
Email leiterin.hsb@hs-anhalt.de
Phone +49 (0) 3496 67 5611
Address Building 01, Room 425
Bernburger Str. 55
D-06366 Köthen, Germany
Open Access License
CC BY-SA 4.0

All works are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), unless otherwise noted.

Published by ICAIIT in cooperation with Anhalt University of Applied Sciences.

© 2026 ICAIIT — International Conference on Applied Innovations in IT. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Köthen, Germany.
Visitors: site traffic counter