Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 45 no. 10 (2025)

Psycholinguistic Analysis of a Private School Signage Materials in Midsayap: Cognitive Load and Schema Activation

Sajed Mansag Mamalampay

Discipline: others in psychology

 

Abstract:

This study explores the psycholinguistic dimensions of school signage within a private academic institution in Midsayap, North Cotabato, focusing on how multimodal signs influence cognitive processing among students. Grounded in the concepts of Cognitive Load Theory and Schema Theory, the study investigates how signage materials' textual and visual elements impact understanding, retention, and interpretation, especially among second language (L2) learners in a multilingual environment. Employing a descriptive-qualitative design, the study uses a documentbased analysis of 15 school signages selected based on ecolinguistic relevance, including themes on environmental awareness, health promotion, and social behavior. The Linguistic Landscape framework was used to classify the signage into top-down, bottom-up, and mixed-source categories. The levels of element interactivity and necessary schema activation were then examined. The results showed that most signs had a top-down layout and varied in their level of cognitive complexity. While high interactivity indications presented a risk of cognitive overload in the absence of helpful design cues, low interactivity signs were easily understood. The study emphasizes the significance of creating educational signage that aligns with students' cognitive abilities and past knowledge. Thematic categorization revealed three dominant schema domains: Environmental and Civic Responsibility, Behavioral and Social Norms, and Health and Hygiene Literacy. It recommends that to improve sign comprehension, especially in linguistically and culturally diverse environments, school administrators and designers consider both cognitive load and schema accessibility. This aims not only to produce visually pleasing signage materials but also to create less cognitive load, facilitating faster understanding and, ideally, immediate compliance and necessary actions upon reading the materials.



References:

  1. Addoboah-Bersah, V., & Diaba, K. D. (2024). Analysis of linguistic landscape: Holy Child College of Education campus. European Modern Studies Journal, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.8(4).2024.17
  2. Andriyanti, E. (2021). Social meanings in school linguistic landscape: A geosemiotic approach. Kemanusiaan: The Asian Journal of Humanities, 28(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.21315/kajh2021.28.2.5
  3. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Bernardo-Hinesley, S. (2020). Linguistic landscape in educational spaces. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2020.10
  5. Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2009). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014
  6. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load and second language learning. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818778685
  7. Chen, S., & Yang, Y. (2021). Enhancing ESL learners’ comprehension through contextualized signage. TESOL Journal, 12(1), e00514. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.514
  8. Clorion, F. D. D., Bulado, A. J., Encarnacion, B. A., Dumagay, A. H., Ellomer, G. A., Albani, S. E., Pil, A. O., Devanadera, A. C., Rillo, R. M., Alrefaee, Y., & Alieto, E. O. (2024). Exploring linguistic signage in higher education: An empirical study of a linguistically diverse context. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i1.2049
  9. Doolittle, P. E., McNeill, A., & Simons, A. (2021). Multimedia learning and cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between content complexity and learner characteristics. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 30(1), 43–60.
  10. Dressler, R. (2015). Signgeist: Promoting bilingualism through the linguistic landscape of school signage. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.912282
  11. Escudero, P., & Chan, J. K. (2021). Cross-language transfer of phonological processing in second language learners: Implications for visual-verbal schema activation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(3), 723–745. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000067
  12. Fishman, J. (1964). Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32–70.
  13. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2019). The guidance-fading effect and cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9450-9
  14. Kim, S. J., & Papageorgiou, S. (2020). Investigating the effects of multimodal input on L2 learners’ vocabulary acquisition. Language Awareness, 29(2), 112–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1743709
  15. Kim, Y. H., Nwagbala, D. C., Kim, Y. B., & Park, J. Y. (2024). The cognitive load limits of multiple safety signs. Buildings, 14(8), 2391. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082391
  16. Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002
  17. Li, B. (2024). Schema theory in personal growth, culture, and social media: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 2024 10th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2024) (pp. 208–214).
  18. Mayer, R. E. (2019). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  19. Nguyen, H., & Balasubramanian, A. (2022). Schema-based learning strategies for low-literacy multilingual learners: A case study of signage in public spaces. International Journal of Educational Development, 91, 102570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102570
  20. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.006
  21. Reintegrado-Celino, J. (2023). From signage to language ideologies: Exploring the schoolscape of a comprehensive university. Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 11, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.59960/11.a4
  22. Robielos, R. A. C., & Lin, C. J. (2022). Traffic sign comprehension among Filipino drivers and nondrivers in Metro Manila. Applied Sciences, 12(16), 8337. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168337
  23. Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial signaling in multimedia learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9435-9
  24. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
  25. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 369–381). Routledge.
  26. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Cognitive load theory (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23495-9
  27. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
  28. Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: The use of worked examples and productive failure to facilitate learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 755–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9313-5
  29. Van Kempen, A., & Feldpausch-Parker, A. M. (2024). Communicating science addressing contentious environmental issues: Utilizing Luhmann’s social systems theory. Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1348078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1348078
  30. Wu, H.-K., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Cognitive processing of pictorial and verbal explanations in science learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 68, 102060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102060
  31. Zhang, W., Liu, Y., Dong, Y., He, W., Yao, S., Xu, Z., & Mu, Y. (2023). How we learn social norms: A three-stage model for social norm learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1153809. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1153809.
  32. Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., & Graesser, A. C. (2020). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension and memory. Educational Psychology Review, 32(4), 1215–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09487-7

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic