Propositional Integration and Strategy Building While Performing Complex Language Tasks: An Eye-Tracking Study

This study introduces an integrated model of educational directives (instructions) synthesized from Cognitive Load Theory and Discourse Theory. The proposed model aligns the directive’s cognitive-propositional structure with the learning task and learner proficiency. Specifically, the model distinguishes three levels: the micropropositional structure (text base), which must be concise to minimize extraneous cognitive load; the macropropositional structure, which ensures comprehension of criteria and facilitates intrinsic and germane loads; and the superpropositional structure, which forms cognitive scripts crucial for recurring tasks. The research aimed to identify differences in the perception of single versus repetitive directives and primary versus secondary directives, while also assessing how propositional completeness influences task execution strategies. An eye-tracking experiment was conducted involving university students performing interconnected language tasks, including reading texts, analyzing images, and ordering words. Data were analyzed using fixation counts and duration metrics across specific areas of interest. Results confirmed the research hypotheses with statistically significant effects. First, repetitive directives undergo a full propositional cycle, eventually simplifying cognitive processing to the level of automatic recognition. Second, primary directives command sustained attention, whereas secondary directives are scanned minimally for their semantic core. Third, unambiguous directives successfully trigger intended activity scripts. Conversely, incomplete or unclear directives cause strategy variability and “pragmatic searching” in early cycles, followed by an attentional shift to more comprehensible sub-tasks in later cycles. Finally, when task sequence is unregulated, learners adopt varying execution orders specifically to minimize cognitive load. The study’s novelty lies in operationalizing instructions as systems of controlling propositions and validating this framework through objective oculographic data. The findings offer significant implications for optimizing professional educational communication and designing materials that effectively manage learner attention.

1. Akgün, H., & Ünaldı, A. (2022). Investigating cognitive processes in different item formats in reading tests through eye-tracking and verbal protocols. Studies in Language Assessment, 11(2), 98–129. https://doi.org/10.58379/UIXK2220

2. Anmarkrud, Ø., Andresen, A., & Bråten, I. (2019). Cognitive load and working memory in multimedia learning: Conceptual and measurement issues. Educational Psychologist, 54(2), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1554484

3. Antal, C., & de Almeida, R.G. (2021). Indeterminate and enriched propositions in context linger: Evidence from an eye-tracking false memory paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 741685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.741685

4. Best, R.M., Floyd, R.G., & Mcnamara, D.S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951

5. Bless, H., & Greifeneder, R. (2018). General framework of social cognitive processing. In R. Greifeneder, H. Bless, & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Social Cognition: How individuals construct social re­ ality (pp. 16-36). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315648156

6. Coskun, A., & Cagiltay, K. (2022). A systematic review of eye-tracking-based research on animated multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(2), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12629

7. De Bruin, A.B.H., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2017). Bridging cognitive load and self-regu­ lated learning research: a complementary approach to contemporary issues in educational research. Learning and Instruction, 51, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.06.001

8. Debue, N., & van de Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical con­ tribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in psychology, 5, Article 1099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01099

9. Frank, S.L. (2013). Uncertainty Reduction as a Measure of Cognitive Load in Sentence Com­ prehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12025

10. Hochpöchler, U., Schnotz, W., Rasch, T., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., McElvany, N., & Baumert, J. (2013). Dynamics of mental model construction from text and graphics. European Journal of Psychol­ ogy of Education, 28(4), 1105–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0156-z

11. Jian, Y.-C. (2018). Reading instructions influence cognitive processes of illustrated text read­ ing not subject perception: an eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2263. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02263

12. Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehen­ sion. Psychological review, 87(4), 329-354.

13. Karasik, I.V., & Beylinson, L.S. (2010). Rechevoy zhanr i rechevoe deystvie [Speech Genre and Speech Act]. Uchenye zapiski Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial’nogo universiteta [Scientific Notes of the Russian State Social University], 1, 123–126 (in Russian).

14. Kloktunova, N.A., Solovyova, V.A., Barsukova, M.I., & Kuzmin, A.M. (2019). Izuchenie kog­ nitivnykh protsessov obuchayushchikhsya pri poiske obrazovatelnoy informatsii na ekrane [The study of the cognitive processes of students in the search for educational information on the screen]. Pers­ pektivy nauki i obrazovaniya [Perspectives of Science and Education], 3(39), 326–340 (in Russian). doi:10.32744/pse.2019.3.25

15. Kozhemyakin, E.A. (2011). Lingvisticheskie strategii institutsional’nykh diskursov [Lin­ guistic Strategies of Institutional Discourses]. Sovremennyy diskurs-analiz [Contemporary Discourse Analysis], 3, 62–69 (in Russian).

16. Kozhemyakin, E.A. (2013). Kogherentnost’ diskursa [Coherence of Discourse]. Diskurs-Pi [Discourse-P], 13, 123–124 (in Russian).

17. Kruger, J. L., Hefer, E., & Matthew, G. (2013). Measuring the impact of subtitles on cogni­ tive load: Eye tracking and dynamic audiovisual texts. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Eye Tracking South Africa (pp. 62-66). Cape Town. https://doi.org/10.1145/2509315.2509331

18. Liu, S., & Yu, G. (2022). L2 learners’ engagement with automated feedback: An eye-tracking study. Language Learning & Technology, 26(2), 78–105. https://doi.org/10125/73480

19. Liu, X., & Cui, Y. (2025). Eye tracking technology for examining cognitive processes in edu­ cation: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 229, Article 105263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105263

20. Martin, C.-O., Pontbriand-Drolet, S., Daoust, V., Yamga, E., Amiri, M., Hübner, L.C., & Ska, B. (2018). Narrative Discourse in Young and Older Adults: Behavioral and NIRS Analyses. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00069

21. Mayer, R.E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learn­ ing. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1

22. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Darabi, A.A. (2005). A motivational per­ spective on the relation between mental effort and performance: optimizing learner involvement in in­ struction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504795

23. Pokhodai, M.Yu., Bermudez-Margaretto, B., Shtyrov, Yu.Yu., & Myachykov, A.V. (2022). Metodika aitrekinga v psikholingvistike i parallelnaya registratsiya s EEG [Eye tracking application in psycholinguistics and parallel registration with EEG]. Zhurnal vysshey nervnoy deyatel’nosti [Journal of Higher Nervous Activity], 72(5), 609–622 (in Russian). doi:10.31857/S0044467722050124

24. Robert, J., & Williams, G. (2014). Decision-making under indeterminacy. Philosopher`s Im­ print, 14(4), 1–34.

25. Sáiz-Manzanares, M., Marticorena-Sánchez, R., Martín Antón, L., González-Díez, I., & Car­ bonero Martín, M. (2024). Using eye tracking technology to analyse cognitive load in multichannel activities in university students. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(12), 3263–3281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2188532

26. Skaramagkas, V., Giannakakis, G., Ktistakis, E., Manousos, D., Karatzanis, I., Tachos, N., Tripoliti, E., Marias, K., Fotiadis, D., & Tsiknakis, M. (2023). Review of eye tracking metrics in­ volved in emotional and cognitive processes. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 16, 260–277. doi:10.1109/RBME.2021.3066072

27. Solheim, O.J., & Uppstad, P.H. (2011). Eye-tracking as a tool in process-oriented reading test validation. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 153–168.

28. Solntseva, E.S. (2025). Kontekstual’no obuslovlennaya kogherentnost’ kak osnova tipologii diskursov [Contextually determined coherence as a backbone to discourse typology]. Diskurs pro­ fessional’noy kommunikatsii [Professional Discourse & Communication], 7(1), 9–33 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2025-7-1-9-33

29. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instruc­ tional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

30. Torres, D., Sena, W.R., Carmona, H.A., Moreira, A.A., Makse, H.A., & Andrade, J.S. Jr. (2021). Eye-tracking as a proxy for coherence and complexity of texts, PLOS ONE, 16(12), Article e0260236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260236

31. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press. doi:10.2307/326517

32. Zwaan, R.A., & Brown, C.M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and compre­ hension skill on situation‐model construction. Discourse Processes, 21(3), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544960