ChapteroneIntroduction1.1ResearchBackgroundInthecontextofglobalization,Englishhasbecomeanindispensabletoolforinternationalcommunication,leadingtoitsgrowingemphasisinglobalprimaryeducationsystems(MinistryofEducation,2022).China's"DoubleReduction"policy,aimedatalleviatingacademicpressurewhileimprovingeducationalquality,furtherunderscorestheneedforinnovativevocabularyteachingstrategiesinprimaryschools.However,traditionalinstructionalmethodsdominatedbyrotememorizationpersist,resultingintwointerrelatedchallenges:cognitiveoverloadandaffectiveinhibition.Cognitiveoverloadarisesfromsuboptimalinstructionaldesign.Currentpracticesoftenrequirestudentstomemorizeextensivewordlistswithinshorttimeframes.Excessiverelianceontextualrepetitionandsurface-levellearningstrategies,combinedwithinadequateuseofmultimodalsupportssuchasvisualaidsorcontextualscenarios,hasprovenincreasinglyinsufficienttomeetbothstudents'developmentalneedsandevolvingsocietaldemandsincontemporaryeducationalcontexts(Fuetal.2025).Thispedagogicalapproachsubstantiallyincreasesextraneouscognitiveloadinthelearningprocess

.Furthermore,theabrupttransitionfrombasicwordrecognitioninlowergradestoadvancedspellingproficiencyinmiddle-uppergradessignificantlyincreasesintrinsiccognitiveload,particularlyinmasteringorthographicrules.Thesecombinedpressuresstrainstudents'workingmemorycapacity,exacerbatinglearninganxietyandhinderingvocabularyretention.Affectiveinhibitionmanifeststhroughdiminishedmotivationandheightenedanxiety.Empiricalstudiesrevealthatconventionalvocabularyinstruction,characterizedbymechanicaldrillsandrepetitivecopying,failstofosterpositiveemotionalengagement(Krashen,1982).Studentfeedbackfrequentlyciteslessonsas"monotonous"or"stressful,"particularlyduringassessmentslikedictation.Critically,anxietyandcognitiveoverloadinteractreciprocally:demandingtasksinducefrustration,whilenegativeemotionsimpaircognitiveresourceallocation.Thisinteractionestablishesadetrimentalcyclewhereinhighcognitiveloadandlowaffectiveengagementmutuallyreinforcesuboptimallearningoutcomes.Recentadvancementsineducationalpsychologyhavesignificantlyadvancedourunderstandingofaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadinlanguageacquisition.Sweller'sCognitiveLoadTheory(1988)positsthatexcessiveinformationprocessingdemands—particularlyfrompoorlydesignedinstructionalmaterials—overwhelmlearners'workingmemory,therebyhinderingvocabularyretention.Concurrently,Krashen'sAffectiveFilterHypothesis(1982)identifiesnegativeemotionssuchasanxietyaspsychologicalbarriersthatimpedelanguageinputprocessing.Empiricalstudiesfurthervalidatethatthesetwodimensionsprofoundlyinfluencelearningoutcomes:highextraneouscognitiveloadfromtextualoverloadingreducesrecallaccuracy,whilepositiveaffectivestateselevatedopaminelevelsinthebrain,andthesubsequentdopaminergicprojectionstotheprefrontalcortexenhanceworkingmemoryefficiency.(Yu,2024).However,currentresearchpredominantlyexaminescognitiveandaffectivefactorsinisolation,neglectingtheirdynamicinterplayinauthenticclassroomcontexts.Thisoversightbecomescriticallyconsequentialinprimaryeducation,wherestudents'developmentalconstraints—limitedworkingmemorycapacityandheightenedemotionalsensitivity—demandpedagogiesthatstrategicallybalancecognitivedemandswithemotionalsupport.Forinstance,abrupttransitionsfromlower-gradewordrecognitiontoupper-gradespellingmasterynotonlyescalateintrinsiccognitiveloadbutalsotriggeranxietycascades,establishingadetrimental"cognitive-affectiveinterference"loop.Thisresearchgapunderscoresthenecessitytoinvestigatehowcognitiveloadandaffectivestatesco-evolveduringvocabularyinstruction,particularlywithinChina's"DoubleReduction"policyframeworkthatprioritizesefficientyetlow-stresslearning.DespiteexistingresearchontherolesofaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadinEnglishteaching,theinterrelationshipbetweenthemhasnotbeenfullyexplored.Affectivefactorsmayinfluencestudents'perceptionandregulationofcognitiveload,whilethelevelofcognitiveloadmay,inturn,affectstudents'emotionalstates.Forexample,whenfacinghighcognitiveload,studentsmayexperienceanxiety,whichcanfurtherexacerbatethecognitiveload,creatingaviciouscycle.Therefore,anin-depthanalysisoftheinterplaybetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadinEnglishteachingisofgreatsignificanceforoptimizingteachingstrategiesandimprovingteachingeffectiveness.ThisstudyaimstoinvestigatetheinteractionmechanismbetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadinEnglishteaching.Throughempiricalresearch,itrevealstheintrinsicrelationshipbetweenthetwoandprovidestheoreticalsupportandpracticalsuggestionsforEnglishteachingpractice.ThisnotonlyenrichesthetheoriesofeducationalpsychologybutalsooffersmoretargetedteachingguidanceforEnglishteachers,helpingstudentsbettercopewithemotionalandcognitivechallengesinlearningandtherebyenhancingEnglishlearningoutcomes.1.2ResearchPurposeandSignificanceThisstudyaimstoexploretheinteractionmechanismbetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadinEnglishteaching,addressingthegapinunderstandingtheirrelationship.Byanalyzinghowaffectivefactors(e.g.,motivation,anxiety,self-confidence)andcognitiveload(intrinsic,extraneous,germane)interactinspecificteachingscenarios,itseekstoofferevidence-basedstrategiesforinstructionaldesign,enhancinglearningefficiencyandmotivationwhilereducinganxietyandcognitiveoverload.Theresearchwilldelveintothecomplexdynamicsofhowemotionalstatesinfluencecognitiveresourceallocationandlearningefficiency.Itwillalsoexaminehowcognitiveloadaffectsstudents'emotionalresponses,potentiallycreatingfeedbackloopsthateitherenhanceorhinderthelearningprocess.Throughacomprehensiveliteraturereviewandcaseanalysis,thisresearchwillprovideinsightsintooptimizingteachingstrategiestoenhancelearningefficiencyandmotivationwhilereducinganxietyandcognitiveoverload.ThisresearchholdssignificanttheoreticalandpracticalimplicationsforthefieldofEnglishlanguageeducation.Theoretically,itenricheseducationalpsychologybyprovidingempiricalinsightsintotheinterplaybetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveload.Thisstudyoffersanewperspectivethatintegratesemotionalandcognitiveelementsinthelearningprocess,potentiallyleadingtothedevelopmentofmoreholisticeducationaltheories.ThestudyalsorefinestheapplicationofCognitiveLoadTheoryinlanguagelearning.Byexamininghowdifferenttypesofcognitiveloadinteractwithaffectivefactors,itcanguidethedesignofinstructionalmaterialsandmethodsthataremorealignedwithstudents'cognitiveandemotionalcapacities.Thiscanresultinmoreeffectiveteachingpracticesthatfosterbothcognitivedevelopmentandemotionalwell-being.Practically,thisresearchhelpsteachersbalanceaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadininstructionaldesign.Byunderstandingthisinterplay,teacherscanadjustcontentandmethodstoreducecognitiveloadandbooststudents'motivationandconfidence.Forinstance,teacherscanemploystrategiessuchasemotionaldesigninlearningmaterials,gamification,andphasedtasksettingtocreateasupportiveandengaginglearningenvironment.Thestudyalsoprovidesspecificstrategiestoaddressstudents'emotionalandcognitiveneeds,improvingteachingeffectivenessandthelearningexperience.Forexample,itcanofferguidanceonhowtocreateasupportiveclassroomatmosphere,designemotionallyengaginginstructionalmaterials,andimplementgamifiedlearningactivitiesthatenhancestudentengagementwithoutoverwhelmingtheircognitiveresources.Moreover,theresearchemphasizestheimportanceofmonitoringandadaptingtostudents'emotionalandcognitivestatesthroughoutthelearningprocess.Thiscaninvolveregularformativeassessments,observations,andfeedbacksessionstoidentifywhenstudentsareexperiencinghighlevelsofanxietyorcognitiveoverload.Bymakingtimelyadjustmentstoinstructionalstrategies,teacherscanensurethatstudentsremainengagedandmotivated,reducingtheriskofcognitiveoverloadandemotionalstress.Insummary,thisresearchnotonlycontributestothetheoreticalunderstandingoftheinterplaybetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadbutalsoprovidespracticalguidanceforeducatorstooptimizetheirteachingpractices.Byintegratingaffectiveandcognitivestrategies,teacherscancreatebalancedandsupportivelearningenvironmentsthatfosterbothemotionalwell-beingandcognitivedevelopment,ultimatelyleadingtoimprovedlearningoutcomesinEnglishlanguageeducation.1.3ResearchQuestionsandMethods1.Howdoaffectivefactors(e.g.,motivation,anxiety)andcognitiveload(intrinsic,extraneous,germane)interactduringprimaryschoolEnglishvocabularyinstruction?Sub-question1a:Whatspecificclassroompracticesexacerbateoralleviatethe"cognitive-affectiveinterference"loop(e.g.,highload→anxiety→impairedperformance)?Sub-question1b:Howdostudents'emotionalstates(e.g.,fearofdictation)modulatetheirperceivedcognitiveloadduringvocabularytasks?2.WhatinstructionalstrategiescaneffectivelybalancecognitivedemandsandemotionalengagementtooptimizevocabularylearningoutcomesunderChina’s"DoubleReduction"policyframework?Sub-question2a:Howdomultimodalsupports(e.g.,visualaids,gamification)reduceextraneouscognitiveloadwhilefosteringpositiveaffect?Sub-question2b:Whatphasedtaskdesignsmitigateabrupttransitionsinlearningdemands(e.g.,wordrecognition→spellingmastery)tominimizeintrinsicloadandanxietycascades?1.4ThesisStructureThethesisisstructuredintofivechapterstosystematicallyaddresstheinteractionbetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadinEnglishteaching,withafocusonprimaryschoolvocabularyinstructionunderChina’s"DoubleReduction"policy.Thelogicalflowprogressesfromtheoreticalfoundationtoempiricalanalysisandpracticalimplications,asoutlinedbelow:Chapter1,Introduction.Thischapterestablishestheresearchcontextandrationale.ItbeginsbyhighlightingtheglobalimportanceofEnglisheducationandthechallengesposedbytraditionalteachingmethods,suchascognitiveoverloadandaffectiveinhibition,particularlyunderChina’s"DoubleReduction"policy.Theresearchpurposeandsignificancearethenclarified,emphasizingtheneedtobridgethegapbetweencognitiveandemotionaldimensionsinlanguagelearning.Thechapterconcludesbypresentingtheresearchquestionsandoutliningthemethodology,whichintegratesliteraturereview,theoreticalframeworkdevelopment,andcaseanalysis.Chapter2,LiteratureReview.Thischaptersynthesizesexistingresearchonaffectivefactors,cognitiveloadtheory(CLT),andtheirinterplayinEnglishteaching.Itfirstreviewsdomesticstudies,examininghowChinesescholarshaveadaptedWesterntheorieslikeKrashen’sAffectiveFilterHypothesisandSweller’sCLTtolocalcontexts.Internationalperspectivesarethenpresented,coveringSLAresearchonmotivation/anxietyandCLTapplicationsinmultimediaandbilingualsettings.Thechapteridentifiesgapsincurrentliterature,suchastheunder-exploreddynamicrelationshipbetweenaffectandcognition,andproposesfutureresearchdirectionstoaddresstheselimitations.Chapter3,TheoreticalFramework.ThischapterconstructsaconceptualmodelintegratingaffectivefactorsandCLT.Itbeginsbyelaboratingonemotionaltheories(e.g.,Fredrickson’sBroaden-and-BuildTheory)andmotivationalframeworks(e.g.,Self-DeterminationTheory),emphasizingtheirroleinlearningoutcomes.Cognitiveloadisthendefinedintermsofintrinsic,extraneous,andgermaneload,withspecificrelevancetolanguageinstruction.Finally,aninteractionmodelisproposed,illustratinghowemotionsinfluencecognitiveresourceallocation(e.g.,anxietyasextraneousload)andviceversa(e.g.,cognitiveoverloadtriggeringnegativeaffect).Chapter4,CaseAnalysis

appliesthetheoreticalframeworktothreeprimaryschoolEnglishteachingscenarios.The

TraditionalLecture-StyleInstruction

caserevealshowunstructuredinputanderror-focusedfeedbackexacerbatecognitive-affectivecycles:disorganizedpresentationincreasesextraneousload,whileprematuretasktransitionsheightenintrinsicload,triggeringanxietyandimpairingworkingmemory.Conversely,the

MultimodalInteractiveInstruction

casedemonstratesstrategieslikegamificationanddualcodingreduceloadandfosterpositiveaffectthroughlayeredactivitiesanddelayederrorcorrection.The

TechnologicallyImbalancedInstruction

casehighlightspitfallsofcluttereddigitaltools,whereambiguousrulesincreaseextraneousloadandemotionaldistressdespitelowintrinsiccomplexity.Triangulateddatafromobservations,feedback,andtestsrevealbidirectionalrelationships:cognitiveoverloadintensifiesanxiety,whilenegativeemotionsamplifyperceivedload.Collectively,thesecasesillustrateinstructionaldesign'scriticalroleinbalancingcognitivedemandsandemotionalsupporttooptimizeoutcomesunderChina’s"DoubleReduction"policy.Chapter5,Conclusion.Thischaptersummarizeskeyfindings,includingthedetrimentalimpactofunbalancedinstructionaldesignsandtheefficacyofintegratedstrategieslikephasedtasksandemotionalsupport.Practicalteachingsuggestionsareproposed,categorizedintocognitiveloadmanagement,emotionalengagementenhancement,andpolicy-alignedequitymeasures.Thechapterconcludesbyacknowledginglimitations(e.g.,regionalsamplingconstraints)andoutliningfutureresearchdirections,suchascross-culturalvalidationandneurocognitivestudies.Thethesisfollowsadeductiveapproach,movingfromtheoreticalexplorationtopracticalapplication.Eachchapterbuildsonthepreviousone,ensuringcoherenceandalignmentwiththeresearchobjectives.Thisstructurefacilitatesacomprehensiveunderstandingoftheaffective-cognitiveinterplayinEnglishteaching,providingboththeoreticalinsightsandactionablestrategiesforeducators.ChapterTwoLiteratureReview2.1ReviewofResearchatHome2.1.1TheRoleofAffectiveFactorsAffectivefactorsplayacriticalroleinEnglishlanguageteaching,significantlyinfluencinglearners'cognitiveandbehavioraloutcomes.Niu(2024)indicatesthatpositiveemotionalstateshelpcreateamoreeffectivelearningenvironment,enablingstudentstobecomemoreengagedandproactiveduringthelearningprocess.Conversely,negativeemotionalstates,suchaslearninganxiety,notonlydirectlyimpactstudents'academicperformancebutmayalsoleadtoalossofinterestinlearning,exertinglong-termeffectsontheirlearningattitudesandachievementmotivation..Attheprimaryeducationlevel,Ding(2022)notesthatpositiveaffectfostersself-directedinquiryamongyounglearners,whilenegativeemotionshinderlearningperformance.ThesefindingsarereinforcedbyLiang's(2021)research,whichidentifiesaffectivefactorsaspivotalmediatorsofmotivation,self-confidence,andanxietylevelsinEnglishinstruction.Thegrowingemphasisonaffectivedimensionsinsecondlanguageacquisitionhasspurredtheoreticaladvancements.Krashen'sAffectiveFilterHypothesis(1988)remainsfoundational,positingthatemotionalstatesfunctionasapsychologicalfilterregulatinglearners'receptivitytotargetlanguageinput:loweraffectivefiltering(facilitatedbypositiveemotions)enhanceslanguageprocessing,whereasheightenedfiltering(triggeredbynegativeemotions)impedesacquisition.RecentapplicationsofthisframeworkincludeYu's(2024)investigationintodual-teacherclassroommodelsforhighschoolvocabularyinstruction,whichexploresstrategiestooptimizelearninginterestandefficiencythroughaffectiveregulation.Similarly,Ren(2021)employsthehypothesistoanalyzeemotionalvarianceamongprimaryschoollearners,proposingtargetedstrategiestocultivatepositiveaffectivestates.Collectively,thesestudiesunderscoretheAffectiveFilterHypothesis'senduringrelevanceinguidingempiricalresearchandpedagogicalinnovation.Primary-levelresearchhasyieldedfoundationalinsightsintoaffectiveinfluences.Ding(2022)observesthatemotionalfactorssignificantlymediateEnglishlearningprogression,wherepositiveaffectpromotesself-directedexplorationwhilenegativeemotionshinderperformance.Tao(2021)positionsemotionalcultivationasessentialfordevelopingstudents'comprehensivelanguagecompetencies.Throughempiricalsurveys,Ouyang(2021)analyzescurrentaffectivestatesinprimaryEnglishclassrooms,proposingtargetedinterventionstrategies.Ren's(2021)applicationoftheAffectiveFilterHypothesisfurtherexaminesemotionalvarianceamongyounglearnersandcorrespondingpedagogicaladaptations.However,limitedattentionhasbeengiventoaffectivefactorsspecificallyinprimary-levelvocabularyinstruction,withexistingstudiespredominantlyaddressinggeneralteachingmethodologies.2.1.2ApplicationofCognitiveLoadTheory(CLT)CognitiveLoadTheory(CLT),proposedbySwellerinthe1980sbasedontheassumptionoflimitedcognitiveresources,encompassesthreecorecomponents:intrinsic,extraneous,andgermaneloads.Intrinsicloadreferstocognitivedemandsarisingfromtheinherentcomplexityoftasks,suchasthesyntacticcomplexityofEnglishstructures,whileextraneousloadstemsfrominefficientinstructionalpresentationthatimposesunnecessarycognitiveconsumption.Empiricalstudiesconfirmthatinstructionaldesignstailoredtolearners'cognitivelevelscantransformgermaneloadintolong-termmemorygains,exemplifiedbyvocabularyinstructionorganizedthroughsemanticfieldtheorytodeepenconnectionsbetweennewlexicalitemsandexistingschemata.ResearchontheapplicationpathwaysofCLTdemonstratessignificantdivergencesbetweendomesticandinternationalstudies.Chinesescholarspredominantlyfocusonlocalizedadaptationsofteachingstrategies.LiangYue(2025)constructedadeepinstructionaldesignframework,verifyingthesynergisticeffectsofmultimodalresourceintegrationinbalancingintrinsicandextraneouscognitiveloads,whileemphasizingstructuredknowledgepresentationtoenhancehigher-orderthinkingskills.ZhangLiying's(2024)empiricalstudyfurtherrevealedasignificantcorrelationbetweenthetemporalsequencingofmultimediamaterialsandtheactivationofcognitiveschemataincollegeEnglishcourses,offeringnovelperspectivesforoptimizinginstructionalworkflows.CurrentCLTresearchexhibitsnotableimbalancesinbasiceducation.AlthoughZhaoWangpan's(2023)middleschoolreadinginstructionexperimentsvalidatedtheeffectivenessofcognitiveloadregulation,thedesignframeworkfailedtoaccountforyoungerlearners'limitedworkingmemorycapacityandunderdevelopedmetacognitivestrategies.HuYan's(2022)studyonmultimediavocabularyinstructionsuggestedthatdynamicvisualstimulimayincreaseextraneouscognitiveloadinprimaryschoolstudents,yetthisconclusionwasextrapolatedfromadolescentsamples,lackingage-specificstratifiedvalidation.Asafoundationalmoduleoflanguagelearning,vocabularyacquisitioninvolvescompoundedcognitiveloadsfromphonologicaldecoding,semanticextraction,andculturalmapping.However,systematicexplorationofloadgenerationmechanismsandinterventionstrategiesforprimary-levelvocabularyinstructionremainscriticallyunderdeveloped.2.1.3RelationshipBetweenAffectiveFactorsandCognitiveLoadTheoreticaldebatescontinueregardingthedirectionalrelationshipbetweencognitiveandaffectiveinteractions.Meng(2004),throughneuroscientificanalysis,proposedarevisedperspectiveonKrashen'smodel,suggestingthatcognitiveoverloadtriggersnegativeemotionalresponses,whichinturnintensifylearners'perceivedtaskdifficulty,formingabidirectionalfeedbackloop.ThisviewalignswithCheng's(1999)classroomobservationsdemonstratingthatthecomplexityofvocabularytasksandlearners'emotionalstatesofteninteractreciprocally,creatingacyclicalmechanismofinfluence.AsemphasizedbyTangandZhou(2008),currentresearchprioritiesfocusonestablishingage-appropriatepedagogicalframeworksthateffectivelyintegratecognitiveloadoptimizationwithemotionalsupportstrategies.Inpracticalapplications,significantachievementshavebeenmade.Li's(2023)"emotion-embedded"vocabularypedagogyreducedself-reportedcognitiveloadby38%inexperimentalgroups,whileHu's(2023)multimodalteachingapproach,combiningcognitivescaffoldingwithemotionalreinforcement,improvedvocabularyretentionamongruralstudents.However,challengesremaininimplementingtheseinnovations.Wang's(2014)surveyrevealedthatprimaryschoolteachersgenerallylackprofessionalcompetenciesinsimultaneouslyassessingcognitiveloadandregulatingemotionalstates.Therefore,futureresearchshouldprioritizethreekeydirections:conductinglongitudinalmixed-methodsstudies,developingculturallyadaptiveassessmenttools,andenhancingprofessionaltrainingprogramstostrengthenteachers'interdisciplinarycompetencies.2.2ReviewofReviewAbroad2.2.1TheRoleofAffectiveFactorsInternationalresearchhasextensivelyexaminedaffectivefactorsinsecondlanguageacquisition(SLA).KrashenproposedtheAffectiveFilterHypothesis,emphasizingmotivation,confidence,andanxietyasfiltersforlanguageinputandadvocatingforrelaxedenvironmentstoloweraffectivebarriers.Gardner&Lambert(1972)distinguishedintegrativeandinstrumentalmotivation,thoughlaterstudies(e.g.,Cheng,2004)foundinstrumentalmotivationdominantinhigh-pressurecontexts.Inrecentyears,researchfocushasshiftedtotheinteractionmechanismsbetweenemotionandcognition.MacIntyreandGardner's(1994)meta-analysisconfirmedthroughquantitativeresearchthatanxietylevelsaresignificantlynegativelycorrelatedwithlanguageperformance,furtherclarifyingthedirectimpactofemotionalstatesoncognitiveprocessing.Thesestudiescollectivelyconstructamulti-levelanalyticalframeworkforemotionalfactorsinsecondlanguageacquisition,encompassingbothindividualintrinsicmotivationalstructuresandtheinteractivedynamicsbetweenemotionalstatesandcognitiveprocesses.Thisframeworkprovidestheoreticalsupportforinstructionaldesignandinterventionstrategies.2.2.2ApplicationofCognitiveLoadTheory(CLT)Internationalresearchprioritizesdynamicmeasurementofcognitiveloadanddevelopmentofinterventiontechnologies.YuanandTang(2025)conductedaexperimenttoquantitativelyanalyzetheimpactmechanismsofbilingualsubtitlesequencingonvocabularyacquisition,revealinganonlinearcorrelationbetweensubtitletransitionfrequencyandworkingmemoryload.Innovativelyembeddingcognitiveloadmonitoringintoflippedclassroomdesigns,XinandZhang(2024)demonstratedthroughcomparativeworkloaddistributionmodelsofextracurricularandin-classactivitiesthatrestructuringinstructionalsequencescanreduceextraneouscognitiveloadby27.6%.Kim's(2018)analysisofprimary-levelEnglishlearners'interactivebehaviorsconfirmedsignificantcorrelationsbetweentaskcomplexityandpupildiametervariations,providingquantitativebenchmarksforreal-timetaskdifficultyadjustment.Further,XinandZhang(2024)foundintheirflippedclassroomstudythatadjustinginteractionfrequencyduringclassactivitieseffectivelyreducescognitiveloadwhenprefrontalcortexactivationexceedsthresholdlevels.Thesemethodologicaldivergencesreflectfundamentaldistinctionsinacademicecosystems:domesticeducationalresearchpredominantlyaddressesconcretepedagogicalchallenges,whereasinternationalscholarshipemphasizesempiricalverificationoftheoreticalmodelsandcross-disciplinaryintegrationoftechnologicaltools.2.2.3RelationshipBetweenAffectiveFactorsandCognitiveLoadStudiesrevealdynamicinteractions:vanDillenetal.(2009)foundhighcognitiveloadsuppressesemotionalbrainregionsviafMRI.Atiomo(2020)positedtherelationshipbetweenanxietyandcognitiveloadishowevercomplexbecause,theimpactofallocationofattentionalresourcesandcognitiveloadduringanxietymayvarydynamicallywithstagesofprocessing.Pedagogicalrecommendationsincludeaffectivedesign(e.g.,colorfulmaterials),thoughcross-culturaladaptabilityremainsunderexplored.Despitetheoreticalandempiricalmaturity,internationalstudiesfacelimitations:restrictedsamplerepresentativeness(e.g.,Penninoetal.’s2022focusonpandemic-eraonlinelearners),methodologicalhomogeneity(overrelianceonquantitativesurveyswithoutmixedmethodsorlongitudinaltracking),culturalbias(e.g.,unverifiedapplicabilityofintegrativemotivationinnon-Westerncontexts),andvaguepracticalguidance(e.g.,"optimizemultimediadesign"withoutconcreteprotocols).2.3SynthesisandFutureDirectionsCurrentresearchindicatesthatstudiesonaffectivefactors,cognitiveload,andtheirinteractionsinEnglishlanguageteachingpredominantlyfocusonsecondaryandtertiaryeducation,withlimitedinvestigationattheprimarylevelandanotablegapinvocabularyinstructionresearchforyounglearners.Giventhesignificantimpactoftheinteractionmechanismsbetweenaffectivefactorsandcognitiveloadonstudentlearningoutcomes,itisimperativetoconductsystematicresearchwithinthecontextofprimaryschoolEnglishvocabularyteaching.Thisstudyaimstoaddressthiscriticalgapbycomprehensivelyexaminingthemanifestationsofaffective-cognitiveinteractions,theirpedagogicalconsequences,andtheunderlyingmechanismsinprimaryvocabularyacquisition.Throughrigorousempiricalanalysis,theresearchwilldeveloptargetedinstructionalstrategiestooptimizebothcognitiveprocessingefficiencyandemotionalengagement.Thefindingswillprovideevidence-basedguidanceforenhancingteaching