EEG-based analysis of neurocognitive engagement during hots-oriented science tasks among Form Two

Salmiza Saleh; Fazrin Fazil; Nor Azila Noh

doi:10.51200/jpp.v14i1.7789

Authors

Salmiza Saleh School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Fazrin Fazil School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Nor Azila Noh Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51200/jpp.v14i1.7789

Keywords:

higher-order thinking skills (HOTS), science education, educational neuroscience, electroencephalography (EEG), alpha wave activity, cognitive engagement, secondary school students

Abstract

This study examined the effects of Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS)-based science tasks on academic performance and neurocognitive engagement among Form Two secondary school students in Malaysia. A quasi-experimental post-test control group design was employed involving 30 students assigned to either a HOTS-based science task group or a conventional science task group. Electroencephalography (EEG) was used to measure alpha-wave activity and neurofeedback output during science-learning activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, and Pearson correlation analysis. The findings indicated that students in the control group achieved slightly higher academic performance scores than students in the HOTS group, although the differences were not statistically significant. EEG findings showed that lower-achieving students demonstrated relatively higher alpha wave frequencies and neurofeedback outputs during task completion. However, these relationships were weak and statistically non-significant. The findings suggest that HOTS-oriented science tasks may increase cognitive demands and mental workload, particularly among students with weaker metacognitive regulation skills. Importantly, elevated alpha wave activity was interpreted with caution as a context-dependent indicator of attentional engagement and mental effort, rather than as evidence of intelligence or hidden cognitive potential. The study highlights the importance of balancing HOTS instruction with appropriate scaffolding and demonstrates the potential of EEG as a supplementary tool for examining students’ cognitive engagement during science learning activities.

References

A Ahmad, S., Arshad, M. Y., & Hashim, A. T. M. (2019). Teachers’ implementation of higher-order thinking skills in Malaysian science classrooms. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 42(1), 1–19.

Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2012). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011.00705.x

Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & Van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y

Arshad, M. Y., Osman, K., & Soh, T. M. T. (2018). Higher order thinking skills among secondary school students in science learning. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 199–225.

Başar, E. (2012). Brain function and oscillations: Integrative brain function. Neurophysiology and cognitive processes(Vol. 2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59509-4

Başar, E., & Güntekin, B. (2012). A short review of alpha activity in cognitive processes and in cognitive impairment. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2012.07.001

Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.

Chew, F. P., & Hamad, N. M. (2018). Challenges in implementing higher order thinking skills in Malaysian secondary schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(1), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i1/3827

Demos, J. N. (2005). Getting started with neurofeedback. W. W. Norton & Company.Dikker, S., Wan, L., Davidesco, I., Kaggen, L., Oostrik, M., McClintock, J., ... 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

Doppelmayr, M., Klimesch, W., Pachinger, T., & Ripper, B. (2002). Individual differences in brain dynamics: Important implications for the calculation of event-related band power. Biological Cybernetics, 79(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004220050457

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics(5th ed.). Sage Publications.Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education(7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education(7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Howard-Jones, P. A. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817–824. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Research Reviews, 29(2–3), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00056-3

Klimesch, W. (2012). Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.007

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00232.x

Mutlu, Y. (2019). Math anxiety in students with and without math learning difficulties. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(5), 471–475. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019553343

Neubauer, A. C., & Fink, A. (2009). Intelligence and neural efficiency. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(7), 1004–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.001

Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning(2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.004

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_1