Skip to main content
Can We Improve Our Students’ Executive Function? Will That Help Them Read Better?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Here’s a fun exercise. I’m going to give you a list of words. You try to sort them into two groups, based on the sound they begin with:

cup, bag, bread, can, box, cookie, cake, bucket, corn, beans, crate, banana

Presumably you came up with /k/ sounds and /b/ sounds:

cup, can, crate, cookie, cake, corn

beans, bread, banana, box, bag, bucket

Okay, now go back and RESORT those words into two groups, based on the category they belong to.

Presumably you came up with containers and foods:

cup, can, crate, box, bag, bucket

cookie, cake, corn, beans, banana, bread

If you succeeded, BRAVO! You demonstrated cognitive flexibility: an executive function that allows you to change your thought process mid-stream.

Believe it or not, we have to learn this particular skill.

In video below, for instance, 3-year-olds sort cards according to their color (“red goes here, blue goes there”). They’re usually good at that. However, when the rules change to focus on shape (“trucks go here, flowers go there”), they struggle to follow the different instructions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXZau5VIIvU

Why? Because they haven’t yet developed the executive function of cognitive flexibility.

New Research: Improving Reading

For a number of reasons, we might think that this general executive function (cognitive flexibility) might support a specific academic skill (reading).

If that’s true, then maybe we can help struggling readers by training their cognitive flexibility. (This possibility relies on several assumptions; the scholars who did this work have lots of research supporting each one.)

To test this possibility, Kelly Cartwright & Co. had teachers spend several weeks training a group of 2nd – 5th  graders in cognitive flexibility.

Basically, those students repeated that word-sorting/resorting exercise you did at the top of this post. And, they tried a more complicated fill-in-the-blank version of that task as well.

The results?

Compared with other struggling readers, these students got better at cognitive flexibility. And — here’s the big news — they got better at reading as well. (More specifically: they didn’t get better at individual word recognition, but they got better at reading comprehension and grade level reading.)

So, in this research, Cartwright’s team found that training a particular executive function helps struggling readers do better.

Technically speaking, that’s awesome.

As Always, the Caveats

First: as Dan Willingham says in his Twitter bio, “One study is just one study, folks.” Even if Cartwright and Co. did everything right, it’s possible their results are a fluke. We won’t know until many other scholars succeed in replicating and extending this finding.

Second: We shouldn’t extrapolate too far based on this study. We don’t know if training other executive functions would help struggling readers. We don’t know if training EF benefits typical readers; or, people first learning to read; or, improves the performance of sophisticated readers.

Those questions are important — but not addressed directly by this research.

Third: Both reading instruction and executive function are hotly controversial topics. (Heck, I wrote a post about a month ago questioning the very idea of a “general” executive function.) I wouldn’t be surprised if this research (or my summary of it) prompted stern rebukes from scholars/practitioners with a different understanding of reading/EF processes.

I wouldn’t even be surprised if those stern rebukes were correct. If you’ve got an alternative perspective (and some research behind it), please let me know.

But, with those caveats in mind, this research strikes me as exciting and potentially powerful. Any strategy to help struggling readers should get our attention. One that a) costs essentially no money, b) doesn’t take very long, and c) can be done so easily might be a real boon to schools, students, and readers.

Watch this space…

Executive Function Isn’t What You Think It Is (Maybe)
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

As a soccer coach, I want my students to get better at soccer.

As an English teacher, I want my students to get better at English.

And, as a hip-hop dance instructor, I want my students to get better at hip-hop dance.

To accomplish those goals, I usually teach them soccer, English, and hip-hop dance.

That is: I need to tailor my teaching SPECIFICALLY to the topic I want my students to learn. Sadly, for instance, when I teach English, I’m not helping students learn soccer (or math, or dance…)

Wouldn’t it be great if I could teach some GENERALLY useful skill that would boost their abilities in all those areas? This broad, overarching skill would make my students better soccer players, English essayists, and hip-hop dancers. That would be amazing

Answer Number One

For a few decades now, we have mostly thought that the answer to that question is “no.”

Despite all the hype, for example, teaching young children to play the violin doesn’t make them better at math later on.

The exception to that general rule: EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS.

When children get better at, say, inhibition, they improve across all their studies.

In soccer, they resist the temptation to run to the ball, and instead play their position.

In English, they break their bad habits — like using too many dashes — and choose good ones instead.

And in dance, they follow the tricky choreography that steers them away from the (super-tempting) downbeat.

So, executive functions — task switching, prioritizing, self-control, etc. — help students generally.

No wonder we spend so much time talking about them.

Answer Number Two

Professor Sabine Doebel wonders: what if that account of executive function is just wrong.

  • What if executive functions — like so many other things — depend on specific, local circumstances.
  • What if we don’t develop general abilities to inhibit actions, but we learn specifically that we shouldn’t run to the soccer ball (or use dashes, or step on the downbeat)?
  • And, what if getting better at one of those local skills doesn’t make me better at any of the others?

She explains this argument in a Tedx talk. Happily, this one includes an adorable video of children trying the famous “Marshmallow Test.” (It also has an even more adorable video of children trying the less-well-known “Card Sorting Task.”)

She has also recently published a think piece on this question in Perspectives on Psychological Science. This document, naturally, is more technical than a Tedx video. But it’s certainly readable by non-experts who don’t mind some obscure technical terminology.

Why Do We Care?

If the traditional account of executive function is accurate, then we can help students generally by training their EFs.

If Doebel’s account is more accurate, then — alas — we can’t.

Instead, we have to help students learn these specific skills in specific contexts.

Because Doebel is proposing a new way to think about executive functions, I don’t doubt there will be LOTS of institutional resistance to her ideas. At the same time, if she’s right, we should allow ourselves to be persuaded by strong research and well-analyzed data.

This question won’t be answered for a long time.

But, we can use our (general or specific) executive function skills, restrain our impatience, and keep an open mind.

Does Low-Structure Free Time Improve Executive Function?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

As teachers, we want our students to learn academic content: math and reading and music.

At the same time, we ALSO want them to learn how to manage the cognitive functions required to do so.

For instance, we want them to prioritize: “I’ll do this, then that, then t’other.”

We want them to navigate complexity: “If I can’t figure out this problem, I’ll ask my study-buddy. If I still need help, I’ll ask the teacher. If s/he’s not available, I’ll work on this other project until s/he is.”

We want them to inhibit unhelpful thought processes: “I know it’s snowing outside, but I’m going to focus on my book and NOT think about sledding this afternoon.”

In each of these examples, students learn how to manage their cognitive processes — no matter the academic content. Each of those processes is important, whether they’re managing phonics or subtraction or building a bibliography.

We call these mental skills “executive functions.” And, we really need our students to develop them, because executive functions make learning possible.

In fact, they make lots of adult life skills possible. If adults can’t inhibit unhelpful thought processes, we won’t accomplish much in our jobs.

Exercising Executive Function

Because of their importance, we really want to increase these capacities for our students.

Sure enough: if my students explicitly learn how to navigate classroom complexity, they’ll accomplish intricate school tasks more effectively later on.

But let’s ask a different question. Of course, I want my students to accomplish school tasks. I ALSO want them to accomplish tasks that they set for themselves as well.

In other words, we can consider “externally driven executive function” — where students improve at doing what adults tell them to do.

AND we can consider “self-directed executive function” — where they improve at accomplishing tasks they set for themselves.

How might we help young students get better at this second kind of executive function?

Training Self-Directed EF

Common sense suggests a ready hypothesis. If we let children practice managing their own activities, they’ll get better at doing so.

In other words: children whose free time is highly structured might develop “self-directed EF” more slowly than those whose free time is less structured.

Sure enough, researchers have found exactly that correlation.

6-7 year-olds who had less-structured free time (free play with other children, reading by themselves) showed greater self-directed EF than others who spent free-time in structured activities (karate lessons, art classes).

That is: they were better at accomplishing tasks they set for themselves, not tasks set by adults.

What Should Teachers and Parents Do?

As always, we should respond to this research modestly and incrementally. In other words: do not radically change your teaching or parenting style because of one study.

Note, for instance, that this study looked at 6-7 year-olds. (In fact, the results weren’t statistically significant for the oldest children in the study.)

And, that it established correlation, not causation.

And, it took place in a very particular socio-cultural setting (among relatively affluent families).

With these limitations in mind, the sensible implications go like this:

First: Students learn to regulate themselves differently for different tasks.

They get better at accomplishing adult-set tasks by practicing adult-set tasks.

They get better at accomplishing their own goals by practicing doing so.

Second: we want students to accomplish both kinds of goals.

Therefore, third: we should let them practice both ways. They’ll get better at following instructions when we teach them how to do so. They’ll get better at making their own way when we let them do so.

In Other Words…

I might have hypothesized this way: “children just aren’t all that good at self-regulation. The only way they’ll learn to accomplish their own goals is by practicing the tasks I set for them. Over time, they’ll internalize those mental self-control habits, and use them for their own ends.”

This research throws that hypothesis in doubt. Children learn lots of helpful executive function skills from us. And, they learn lots of executive function skills by practicing on their own.

Some of the time, we should let them.

The Debate Continues: Being Bilingual Doesn’t Improve Executive Function
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Being bilingual, of course, offers lots of advantages. You can speak with more people, and — depending on potential cultural differences — gain valuable additional perspectives.

For a long time, researchers have wanted to know: does being bilingual offer additional cognitive benefits? Can it, in a meaningful way, help us think differently, and think better?

Some researchers — including my grad-school professor Gigi Luk — have argued that it increases cognitive control.

This possibility has been studied, for instance, with immigrants who learn a second language in Head Start.

However, this claim has long provoked controversy.

In this recent study, using highly sophisticated statistical procedures, researchers found that being bilingual did not improve executive function for Turkish immigrants to Germany.

What Should Teachers Do?

I have, over the years, seen studies on this topic go back and forth.

For instance, the Head Start research cited above seems quite persuasive. In that study, all students increased self-control during their Head Start year; after all, they were getting older.

Crucially, the students who also became bilingual showed greater increases in self-control. The likely explanation? The cognitive control required to be bilingual helps with other kinds of self-control as well.

And yet, as seen in the study of Turkish immigrants, that conclusion just might not be plausible.

So, my suggestions:

First: if your school currently makes strong claims about the executive-function benefits of bilingualism, you should think strongly about acknowledging the controversy in this field. That claim does have support. It also faces lots of strong counter-evidence.

Second: use this study as a reminder to seek out contradictory findings before you make changes to your classroom.

That is: if you hear persuasive research about topic X, be sure to look for anti-X research before you start X-ing.

Third: somewhat glumly, I wonder if this question ever can be answered finally and persuasively. The category “executive function” is alarmingly nebulous. And, the reasons that people become bilingual vary dramatically.

Given so many kinds of variety, I increasingly doubt we’ll be sure of an answer here.

With that point in mind, I think we should highlight this important point: learning a second language has value even if doing so doesn’t produce additional executive function benefits.

When we learn new languages, we create new opportunities to meet and connect with a world full of people. That benefit alone makes all that hard work worth while.

Big Hairy Audacious Education Proposal of the Month
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

John Medina’s books have been a gateway drug for many a brain-focused teacher.

parenting teens

(Like so many others, I myself was introduced to the field by his book Brain Rules.)

His most recent book, Attack of the Teenage Brain!, joins a growing list of very helpful authors focused on adolescence and adolescents. (For instance: Sarah-Jayne Blakemore and Lisa Damour.)

Medina offers many suggestions: you can read about them here.

One in particular stands out for its combined wisdom and audacity: educating parents.

Follow the Logic

Medina follows a straightforward logical chain to his audacious proposal. It goes like this:

To succeed academically, high school students need extra high doses of executive function (EF).  Sadly, because of the neurobiological tumult of adolescence, the various neural networks that allow for EF struggle to get the job done.

All that myelination, all that blooming and pruning: it can add up to a cognitive muddle that we call “teenage behavior.”

Given a) the importance of executive function, and b) the difficulty of EF during adolescence, what can we do to give our teens a boost?

Sidebar: Defining Executive Function

Because we hear so much about EF, you might think that everyone knows what it is.

In fact, you might have noticed that everyone’s list of executive functions is different — and worry that you’re the only one who doesn’t understand why.

Don’t fear; it’s not you. Definitions of EF vary widely.

Medina boils executive function down to three key features: working memory, self-control/inhibition, and mental flexibility. (That last one creates all sorts of room for definitional variety. So: planning, organizing, task-switching, prioritizing, strategically postponing…you get the idea.)

To strengthen executive function, we can’t really improve working memory. But, we might be able to help with self-control and mental flexibility. How might we do so?

Parenting Matters: So, Try Educating Parents

Medina devotes chapter 4 of Attack to research on parenting and EF.  We have all sorts of research to show that the right kind of parenting boosts executive function, and the wrong kind undermines it.

If good parenting enhances EF, we might improve high school learning by promoting the right kind of parenting. His big hairy audacious suggestion: “a night school annex for parents.”

As Medina writes:

“The argument for creating such a program is rooted in a blunt observation: most adults are woefully unprepared to rear children.” (p. 105)

Simply put, the “right kind of parenting” can indeed be taught. It’s called “authoritative” parenting — contrasted with “indulgent,” “indifferent,” and (unhelpfully) “authoritarian” parenting.

Medina’s parenting annex would teach authoritative parenting, thereby improve teens’ EF, and thereby enhance their learning.

Objections, and Answers

Objection #1: who are you to define “the right kind of parenting”? Is my parenting wrong just because you say so?

Answer: Medina walks his readers through lots of research on this question. The short answer: “the right kind of parenting” results in healthy and effective adults.

“Permissive” or “authoritarian” parenting isn’t bad because Medina (and Laurence Steinberg) say so. It’s bad because children parented that way struggle as adults.

You might not agree with their answer, but that’s what they say.

Objection #2: A night school annex for parents? Let’s be practical: how on earth would that work? The money. The time. The curriculum. The headaches.

I mean, really?

Answer: Medina has a curriculum answer, but leaves the other questions for another day. If we as a society ever agree to tackle this problem, we’ll find the money. We’ll fix the headaches.

In brief: when we decide that educating teens calls for educating parents, we will get the job done.

 

Executive Function: More Than Meets the Eye
Lindsay Clements
Lindsay Clements

AdobeStock_115460194_Credit

Executive functioning (EF) is a burgeoning research area for psychologists, neuroscientists, and educators. For some, EF might seem like the cognitive science flavor of the week. But for others, its study is uncovering a significant piece of the puzzle for how we learn, feel, and act. And those latter folks have a lot to show for it.

In fact, the mainstream interest in EF that has developed over the last two decades may be best summarized by typing “executive functioning” into the search bar on Amazon.com. Here you’ll find a wealth of books illustrating scattered, messy, and forgetful youth. In these works, authors offer parents and educators a pathway to better understand those children that forget their homework, fidget through class, and get lost in thought when they’re supposed to be finishing chores.

Yet while the disorganized adolescent is certainly one component of executive functions in action (or inaction), it merely scratches the surface of what research is uncovering. And with business booming in the EF world, so to speak, it is now more important than ever to take a step back and examine some of the ways that EF research is being applied in classrooms and households.

What is EF?

Executive functioning is an umbrella term that includes the cognitive processes of attention, self-regulation, mental flexibility (the ability to transition from or between one thought or action to another), and working memory [1].

We use EF when we do mental math to calculate a waiter’s tip; when we remember to raise our hand instead of blurting out an answer; when we attend to a science lecture; and when we describe the same event from the varying perspectives of multiple people.

Studies continue to uncover just how entrenched these processes are throughout the lifespan. EF is linked to several positive developmental outcomes, such as school readiness in early childhood [2] and the development of both crystallized and fluid intelligence in middle childhood [3].

Weak EF skills, on the other hand, go far beyond a messy backpack. Low EF has been found to predict difficulties with mathematics [4], externalizing problem behaviors in middle childhood [5], and harsh parenting in adulthood [6]. Challenges with EF also appear to play a role in a number of developmental disorders, such as ADHD and Autism [7].

Imaging studies show that the frontal lobe of the brain is the EF powerhouse, with the most rapid development of these skills occurring in early childhood [8]. While all children are born with the capacity to develop their EF, actual skill growth requires some degree of explicit practice and modeling. For this reason, much of the mainstream EF literature is geared toward K-8 parents and educators. The Harvard Center on the Developing Child, for example, offers a variety of strategies to support children’s EF growth. Picture sorting games for toddlers, memory games like Simon Says for kindergarteners, and fantasy role-play throughout elementary school serve this purpose.

Next Step: Step Back

There is little doubt that executive function skills exist or that they provide an important cognitive foundation for development. But a critical lens is essential when we begin to take empirical EF knowledge and apply it to youth.

In particular, let us tread lightly when we make a qualitative assumption about a child’s skill level, or how to improve it.

How can we be mindful of this caveat in daily practice? A good start is to question the tendency for EF skills to be dichotomized as high or low, good or bad. Of course, some children have different EF skills than others. But the growing instinct to take the attentive, obedient child and the fidgety, distracted child and fit them into either side of this dichotomy risks overlooking important individual contexts.

Imagine middle school student Joe. Joe lives in a high-crime neighborhood but attends a high-resource school in the next town over. As a result of his home environment, Joe has learned to self-regulate in ways that heighten his vigilance and attention to seemingly unimportant details. He is hyper aware of sights and sounds in the distance that, at home, imply an approaching stranger. In his classroom, however, Joe’s attention and self-regulation skills are less fitting, as the distant sound he is attending to instead of his math lesson is simply another student walking the hallway. Compared to his peers, who do not navigate such contrasting environments each day, Joe’s EF skill level concerns his teacher.

In this scenario, Joe is functional at home (high EF) yet distractible and inattentive at school (low EF). And if we can only fit Joe into the dichotomy of high or low EF, instead of on a fluid spectrum, his low-EF presentation at school is likely to make that call.

The factors that engender the presentation of high or low EF skills is an important distinction to make. Here, Joe’s distraction is different from his classmate Jane’s, which is a result of her ADHD. Accordingly, the support system that each needs is also different.

A crucial step toward accurately qualitatively assessing children’s EF, especially in schools, is therefore to attend to the interactions between the person and the world within which a child is situated. Before we call in the specialist, before we assign remediation, before we purchase the neurotraining software, let’s ask such questions as what are the social rules, values, and stressors that this child is navigating among?

Because for some children, a workbook of puzzles and concentration exercises ordered from Amazon may be enormously helpful. But for others, a consideration of context, resources, and resiliency is the better route.

1. Best, J.R. & Miller, P.H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641-1660.
2. Blair, C. & Razza, R.P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2), 647-663.
3. Brydges, C.R., Reid, C.L., Fox, A.M. & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40(5), 458-469
4. Toll, S.W.M, Van der Ven, S.H.G, Kroesbergen, E.H. & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2011). Executive functions as predictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 521-532.
5. Woltering, S., Lishak, V., Hodgson, N., Granic, I. & Zelazo, P.D. (2016). Executive function in children with externalizing and comorbid internalizing behavior problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(1), 30-38.
6. Deater-Deckard, K., Wang, Z., Chen, N. & Ann Bell, M. (2012). Maternal executive function, harsh parenting, and child conduct problems. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(10), 1084-1091.
7. Craig, F., Margari, F., Legrottaglie, A.R., Palumbi, R., de Giambattista, C. & Margari, L. (2016). A review of executive function deficits in autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment,12, 1191-1202.
8. Brydges, C.R., Reid, C.L., Fox, A.M. & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40(5), 458-469.