Evaluating the rationale and evidence supporting executive functions skills instruction in the classroom: A critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Executive functions are widely considered as an umbrella term for the higher order cognitive processes that contribute to goal‐directed behavior. In addition, executive functions are highly correlated with positive academic outcomes. To promote the development of executive functions among youth within educational settings, some theorists and clinicians have proposed methods of explicitly instructing executive functioning skills, such as planning, organization, time management, and self‐regulation skills. This critical review serves to evaluate the theoretical rationale and the supporting evidence of the six most cited handbooks for improving executive functions skills among elementary and high school students via class‐wide instruction. Research that cited these handbooks and that addressed whole‐class instruction of executive skills was evaluated and critiqued according to the four levels of the Every Students Succeeds Act. The overall evidence supporting each handbook was then critiqued as lacking, emerging, or sufficient. Although the handbooks are informed by theory and clinical experience, the supporting research is limited to mostly Level 3 and 4 evidence, as defined by the ESSA framework, including only a handful of case studies and small sampled quasi‐experimental studies. Overall, the evidence supporting the explicit instruction of executive functioning skills through a class‐wide approach is lacking and more rigorous research is still required. Best practices for instructing executive functioning skills to students and directions for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".