Written by Craig Pohlman, Ph.D.
Whether you’re a parent of a struggling student or an education professional, you’ve probably heard the term executive functions. It is has been a hot topic in the learning field for a while. So what are executive functions, why are they important, and how do they connect with the 8 constructs used by All Kinds of Minds to describe learners?
Executive functions are a set of mental abilities that manage other mental abilities. Just as a chief executive officer oversees what happens in a company, executive functions oversee our thinking. They have been linked with the pre-frontal lobes of our brains, which are right behind the forehead (positioned like a conductor on a dais above an orchestra). Executive functions allow for selective responding (rather than impulsivity), self-monitoring (rather than rolling along without finding or correcting mistakes), thinking ahead (rather than jumping into a task without a plan), and flexible thinking (rather than getting stuck on one way of doing something). Collectively, these functions have been described as a cornerstone for organized thinking.
Executive functions are very close to what All Kinds of Minds refers to as the production controls of attention. For example, the All Kinds of Minds framework includes previewing, the capacity to look ahead and anticipate likely outcomes for one’s actions and decisions, and facilitation/inhibition, the ability to hold off inappropriate decisions and steer towards appropriate ones. Weaknesses in one or both of these will result in a lot of impulsivity in academic work, social situations, or general behavior. Another production control is pacing, or working/acting at a rate that is on-target for the task, without rushing. Pacing is a bit like the mind’s speedometer and if it isn’t working well, a lot of speed limits will be exceeded. The production controls also include self-monitoring (internal quality control) and reinforceability, or the use of previous experience and prior knowledge to guide what you’re doing right now. Without consistent reinforceability, you won’t learn much from your mistakes and you could fall into a rut of doing things ineffectively.
Production controls, or executive functions, are the dashboard that helps us to navigate what is coming next in terms of thought, work, and action. Other aspects of attention (such as the processing controls), connect our minds to here-and-now environmental information, such as picking up details or maintaining focus for the right amount of time. In contrast, production controls look to the future by helping inform decisions and organize thinking.
Executive functions have been written about by many researchers and clinicians. Consequently, definitions have evolved and expanded to include attention input functions and even what All Kinds of Minds refers to as higher order cognition, such as using logic and solving problems. However, All Kinds of Minds makes a cleaner break between attention (both processing and production) and the mind’s more sophisticated higher thought processes, allowing for more specific descriptions of learners.
So what can be done to help students with unreliable production controls/executive functions? One general approach is to work from the outside to the inside. In other words, put structure and organization around the learner so that, over time, his thinking becomes more regulated and organized. For example, Jasper is an 11 year-old who is struggling in school because he rarely plans his writing before he starts, jumps into math problems without first considering the best approach, makes many little mistakes that he can easily correct when they are pointed out to him, and rushes through tasks so fast that his quality suffers.
Working from the outside to the inside, we need to provide Jasper with easy-to-use tools to promote the planning of his writing. Templates can work well for this purpose, such as graphic organizers that put the main idea in one shape (usually in the middle of the page) with supporting ideas and details emanating from that main idea. Graphic organizers can be fun to use, and Jasper might enjoy designing his own templates. Repeated practice with such tools will get Jasper to think ahead independently, to be more organized with his thoughts. Along the same lines, he needs a game plan he can use every time he takes on a math problem: confirm what the problem is asking, highlight essential details, select the procedure, estimate the answer, calculate, check, and compare with estimated answer. Just as athletes benefit from game plans for using their skills systematically, over time Jasper will become more methodical with his math work.
Jasper needs to develop new habits of mind, and an important one is checking his work. He may need some reinforcement to alter his habits. One strategy is earning bonus points for every mistake he finds and corrects on his own, which would also serve to slow his pace. In addition, he may need visual reminders to work at the proper rate, like posted “speed limits” for various tasks. Though his natural working and thinking speed might be 100 mph, when brainstorming ideas his limit might be 80 mph, when writing and solving math problems he needs to be at 40 mph, and when he is checking over his work his limit should be 20 mph. Acknowledging different speeds will help him to understand that it’s not about just being “fast” or “slow,” but rather gauging his speed for the situation.
Whether referred to as production controls or executive functions, it is critical to consider how well a struggling learner is regulating his thinking and work. Disorganization of thought usually leads to disorganization of behavior and academic output. Not only do parents, educators, and other professionals need to know about production controls, but students need demystification about this critical aspect of their minds. By working together, much can be done to help students with weaknesses in these areas.
Additional Resources:
The latest research on the Production Controls
To View or Post comments, please click “No Comments »” or comment count below.
Dear Dr. Pohlman,
My daughter, is 19 years old. She began having school problems in middle school, 7th grade when she fell behind in homework in a Social Studies class. She has had difficulties ever since. Her report card can have everything from an A to an F with her failure related to not doing and turning in assignments -primarily papers. We have been to several counselors, she was tested by one about 3 years ago and was found to be exceptionally gifted but learning disabled. As an example she scored 33 overall on the ACT with a 36 in the English subtest.
Her pediatrician put her on Adderall at the urging of the counselor before she left for college Fall 07, she admits she took it regularly initially but then later was sporadic.She has just finished her first year (away) at college and has moved back home to go to Community College. Her grades first semester were straight A’s halfway and then she ended up with an F in Writing, 2 C’s, a B and 2 A’s. Second semester was worse with her dropping the Writing class and grades of 2 A’s and 2 D’s in the other classes. She admits to being such a perfectionist that it is hard to get started and complete things. Her biggest problem is writing papers, although she has written some exceptional ones at times.
Does this sound like a problem of executive functions? She is resistant to external structure but we have hired a tutor to help her pass the writing class.
I welcome your input and appreciate the article you wrote.
Problems with the attention production controls, or executive functions, often play out most significantly in writing, which is so multi-faceted and usually has to be accomplished as an extended project. Two production controls, in particular, can derail writing if they do not operate reliably. The first is previewing, which is the capacity to think ahead and generate a plan before starting a task. Good writing almost always begins with a good plan, and disorganized writing is almost always the result of poor planning. The second is self-monitoring, or the mind’s quality control mechanism. Without consistent self-monitoring, mistakes can accumulate in writing in areas such as punctuation, vocabulary use, syntax, and cohesive ties. In general, weak production controls/executive functions can result in writing that does not match the quality of the student’s thinking or oral expression. Providing external structure is an important way to work from the outside to the inside. But since students may have bad habits that are so ingrained, it may take considerable encouragement and possibly even reinforcement to implement better strategies for planning and self-checking one’s writing.
On Being a Neuro- educator
There is a fundamental difference between being an educator and a neuro-educator. It is not so much what you do but why you do what you do in the classroom.
If the ultimate goal of classroom instruction is to raise standardized test scores then the teaching approach takes on one look. The teacher teaches the test, the multiple choice test that assesses the acquisition of facts. If, however, the goal of teaching is to help develop independent learners then teaching naturally takes on a differentiated look where each child is at a different capability because of differences in the developmental levels of brain process power.
The key for the neuro-educator is to identify where each student is in strengths and weaknesses and help the students to develop skills and strategies to rely on strengths while developing/ strengthening weaknesses. While part of this process is the demystifying that Dr. Mel Levine speaks of in The Myth of Laziness, the other piece is a therapeutic approach to teaching. In the therapeutic approach, the neuro-educator uses the facts and figures to teach cognition, meta-cognition and study skills.
But teacher colleges do not offer this sort of training. Instead, many teacher training programs focus on methods to be implemented without offering the when and why these methods work or what to do when the method does not work. One size does not fit all. Teaching is not the following of a program.
My nineteen year old son said astutely, “It is going to be this generation that is the downfall of America” because we are raising children who cannot analyze and synthesize information. They know, at best, only what they are told to know. There is no ability to identify problems and solve them. Through middle school, and even into high school, the schools are more concerned with the standardized test scores that measure recall.
A neuro-educator may do the same project as the other classes, but for very different reasons. Teachers are taught to “engage” students and make learning fun so that they will retain the information better. This is true to a certain point but begs the question as to the purpose of education.
Teachers spend an inordinate amount of time in “lesson planning” even after years of doing the same thing. It should get easier, but it doesn’t. And the results are slowly slipping, as many critics of the educational system are apt to point out. The teachers spend much time cutting out the hearts for the valentine’s theme (or have parent volunteers to do it). These valentines’s may be used as flash cards for the students’ math facts or some other engaging option. Flash cards are flash cards whether they have pictures on them, are cut out in different shapes, or are on plain index cards.
The neuro-educator may do this same project but allow the students to cut their own hearts in order to help students to develop the fine motor muscles and skills necessary for writing down the education ladder. It is not too time consuming to allow this participation by the students if the educator understands the need for laying this foundation toward the end of writing in the upper grades and as adults. This process gives the neuro-educator the opportunity to observe which students may need extra support and/or early intervention by a specialist. To use the words of Dr. Levine, some kids in the early grades need help and time to develop their cutting skills so that they do not develop “out-put dysfunction” (and all the complications that go with it) later.
The prescriptive suggestions that were given by Dr. Levine in his book, The Myth of Laziness, would be a natural implementation in the neuro-educator’s classroom. Thus, differentiating is not developing different lesson plans and projects for different groups of students (or worse, for the teacher, individual students) but an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each student. The difference comes in the assessment which measures the growth that a student exhibits toward where they should developmentally be. This assessment should be based, largely, on the student’s ability to cognate, not on how well they can regurgitate.
A new teacher, trained in neuro-education, can spend 4-5 years learning, understanding, and applying neuro-developmental concepts, spending many hours developing and implementing IEP’s based on these concepts. Eventually, it becomes second nature and the hours most teachers continue to spend on lesson plans throughout their careers vanish. Lesson planning becomes an automatic, ongoing assessment and adjustment throughout the day. There is little take- home work and preparation. With a universal design to lesson planning, explicitly teaching cognition and metacognition skills, there is only slight adjustment to grade level and age appropriate expectations that does not require hours of preparation.
This is a very intriguing concept, especially in light of the amount of work that most teachers do year after year. At the same time, the long-term payoff for our students, and society at large, is huge when compared to the short-term detriment the educational system is digging for the future. Teaching to the test does increase standardized testing scores. But is that what we want in the long run for ourselves and our children? Accountability is a must – standardized testing is a piece, but not the main part, of that puzzle.