An Electroencephalography (EEG) Study of Cognitive Load and Neural Efficiency During Higher-Order Thinking in Secondary Science Learning
Main Article Content
Abstract
Higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) are vital for scientific reasoning and problem-solving, yet many students—particularly in Malaysian secondary schools—struggle to master them. Despite curriculum reforms emphasising HOTS, traditional instruction and assessment practices often fail to stimulate the cognitive processes required for deep learning. This study investigates the neural correlates of HOTS engagement using electroencephalography (EEG) among 45 Form Two students, categorised into high-, moderate-, and low-ability groups based on prior science performance. Students completed two 15-minute HOTS-based tasks: a learning activity and an assessment. EEG data were collected following the international 10–20 system, and spectral analyses focused on theta (4 Hz–8 Hz), alpha (8 Hz–12 Hz), and beta (12 Hz–30 Hz) bands to assess cognitive load and neural efficiency. Results revealed that high-ability students demonstrated elevated alpha and beta power, suggesting efficient processing and sustained engagement. In contrast, low-ability students exhibited increased theta activity, indicating cognitive overload. Assessment tasks elicited stronger beta responses than learning tasks across all groups, reflecting higher cognitive demands. Correlation analyses confirmed a positive relationship between alpha/beta activity and HOTS performance. This study provides empirical support for using EEG to explore learning engagement and cognitive effort in science education. The findings highlight the need for neuroscience-informed teaching strategies that reduce cognitive overload and promote deeper engagement with HOTS content.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Badolo, M., Malik, M. A., Nur, R., & Latifa, A. (2025). The impact of metacognitive strategy training on higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) in high school mathematics: A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Environment, Engineering, and Education, 7(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.55151/ijeedu.v7i2.302
Barry, D. N., Snyder, J. S., & Smallwood, J. (2020). Neurocognitive mechanisms of learning and instruction: A review. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101265
Choi, H., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: Towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9262-6
Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics, including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J., Rowland, J., Michalareas, G.,Van Bavel, J. J., Ding, M., & Poeppel, D. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002
D’Mello, S., Dieterle, E., & Duckworth, A. (2017). Advanced, Analytic, Automated (AAA) measurement of engagement during learning. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1281747
Batista-García-Ramó, K., & Fernández-Verdecia, C. I. (2018). What we know about the brain Structure–Function relationship. Behavioral Sciences, 8(4), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8040039
Hamzah, H., Hamzah, M. I., & Zulkifli, H. (2022). Systematic literature review on the elements of metacognition-based higher order thinking skills (HOTS) teaching and learning modules. Sustainability, 14(2), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020813
Hashemi, M. R., Karimi, M. N., & Mofidi, M. (2021). Developing and validating a teacher professional identity inventory: A mixed methods study. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(1), 1–18.
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542
He, X., Li, Y., Xiao, X., Li, Y., Fang, J., & Zhou, R. (2025). Multi-level cognitive state classification of learners using complex brain networks and interpretable machine learning. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 19, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-024-10203-z
Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817
Howard-Jones, P., & Jay, T. (2016). Reward, learning and games. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.04.015
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Nasir, N. S., Cantor, P., & Yoshikawa, H. (2024). Weaving a colorful cloth: Centering education on humans’ emergent developmental potentials. Review of Research in Education, 47(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X231223516 (Original work published 2023)
Keil, A., Debener, S., Gratton, G., Junghöfer, M., Kappenman, E. S., Luck, S. J., Luu, P., Miller, G. A., & Yee, C. M. (2014). Committee report: Publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using EEG and ERP. Psychophysiology, 51(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12147
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2018). 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, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kober, S. E., Neuper, C., & Wood, G. (2020). EEG theta and alpha band power reflect working memory demands during problem solving. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 137. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.606684
Lim, C. L., Ab Jalil, H., Maa’rof, A. M., & Saad, W. Z. (2020). Self-regulated learning as a mediator in the relationship between peer learning and online learning satisfaction: A study of a private university in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction, 17(1), 51–75.
Luck, S. J., & Gaspelin, N. (2017). How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn’t). Psychophysiology, 54(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12639
Maker, J., Zimmerman, R., Alhusaini, A., & Pease, R. (2015). Real Engagement in Active Problem Solving (REAPS): An evidence-based model that meets content, process, product, and learning environment principles recommended for gifted students. Apex, 19(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.21307/apex-2015-006
Masson, S., Potvin, P., Riopel, M., & Brault Foisy, L.-M. (2014). Differences in brain activation between novices and experts in science during a task involving a common misconception in electricity. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12043
Mat, H., Nusantara, T., Atmoko, A., & Hanafi, Y. (2025). Need analysis: Development of a teaching module for enhancing higher-order thinking skills of primary school students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(3), 1643–1650. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v14i3.30335
Matusz, P. J., Dikker, S., Huth, A. G., & Perrodin, C. (2018). Are we ready for real-world neuroscience? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_e_01276
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2020). Pendidikan dalam angka [Education in numbers]. Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Mohamed, N., & Saleh, S. (2025). Brainwaves and higher-order thinking: An EEG study of cognitive engagement in mathematics tasks. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(1), 16889. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16889
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
OECD. (2020). Future of education and skills 2030. OECD Publishing.
Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: A broader view on the role of memory in learning. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9263-5
Pernet, C. R., Appelhoff, S., Gorgolewski, K. J., Flandin, G., Phillips, C., Delorme, A., & Oostenveld, R. (2020). EEG-BIDS, an extension to the brain imaging data structure for electroencephalography. Scientific Data, 6(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0104-8
Peters, M., & Bjork, R. A. (2022). Optimizing challenge in learning: The role of desirable difficulties and differentiated instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(3), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000632
Pinti, P., Tachtsidis, I., Hamilton, A., Hirsch, J., Aichelburg, C., Gilbert, S., & Burgess, P. W. (2022). The present and future use of neuroimaging in educational research. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 27, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100174
Puma, S., Matton, N., Paubel, P. V., & Raufaste, É. (2018). Using theta and alpha band power to assess cognitive workload in multitasking environments. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 123, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.004
Sanabria-Z., H., Ugalde-Rojas, D., & Aguirre-Celis, L. (2025). Neuroeducation in science instruction: A review. Frontiers in Education, 10, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.00223
Schapkin, S., Raggatz, J., & Hillmert, M. (2020). EEG correlates of cognitive load in a multiple-choice reaction task. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 80(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.21307/ane-2020-008
Shah, N., & Zakaria, Z. (2024). The integration of higher order thinking skills in science classrooms: Malaysian teachers’ perspectives and practice. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i2/21306
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
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
Tzovara, A., Chavarriaga, R., & De Lucia, M. (2012). Quantifying the limits of EEG-based decoding. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 209(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.05.035
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2021). Cognitive load theory in health professional education. Medical Education, 55(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14252
Wang, D. (Adam), Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2020). Ironic effects of thought suppression: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898795
Wei, H., Sun, J., & Long, F. (2025). Test anxiety shapes theta band activity linked to elevated working memory load during the encoding phase. Biological Psychology, 198, 109047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109047
Zhang, Q., Lin, Y., & Deng, X. (2022). Embedding future skills in science curricula: A comparative study. International Review of Education, 68(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-022-09923-w
Zohar, A., & Alboher-Agmon, V. (2018). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and instruction of higher-order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.010
Zohar, A., & Ben-Ari, M. (2022). Teaching higher-order thinking in science: A new framework. Science Education, 106(5), 1001–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21757
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2022). Neuroscience and science education: Bridging the gap. Studies in Science Education, 58(2), 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2032089