2.

The Role That Executive Function Plays in Learning

and Adaptation

In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of the evidence that executive function (EF) provides a
foundation for learning and achievement—evidence that is addressed more fully in subsequent
chapters. Generally, EF has both direct and indirect roles in classroom learning. EF skills directly make
it possible for students to sit still, pay attention, remember and follow rules, and flexibly adopt new
perspectives. Indeed, some researchers assert that skills such as cognitive flexibility, working
memory, and inhibitory control contribute to more fully engaged, active, and reflective forms of
learning, which are just what is needed in classrooms (Lyons and Zelazo 2011; Marcovitch et al.
2008; Zimmerman 2008). Children who arrive at school with well-practiced EF skills may learn
more easily, and this may initiate a positive cascade of indirect effects, such as liking school and
being motivated to work hard. More research on these indirect effects is needed, but children with
good EF skills who learn more easily may be more likely to enjoy school, feel optimistic about their
own learning potential (e.g., adopt a growth mindset; Dweck 2006), and get along with teachers and
peers. In contrast, poor EF skills may interfere with children’s own (and others’) learning and may
lead to behavior problems, suspension, expulsion, or being held back (U.S. Department of
Education 2014).

A number of sources provide evidence about the roles of EF in learning and adaptation. These
sources include individual differences research that links EF to school readiness and academic
achievement in kindergarten and the early school grades (e.g., Alloway et al. 2005; Blair and Razza
2007; Bull, Espy, and Wiebe 2008). In these studies, the relation of EF to academic achievement is
seen over and above effects of intelligence and prior knowledge. Moreover, longitudinal studies have
shown that measures of EF and closely related constructs, such as self-control, predict important
outcomes, including Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores in adolescence (Mischel, Shoda, and
Peake 1988); the likelihood of graduating from college by age 25 (McClelland et al. 2013); and
physical health, substance dependence, socioeconomic status (SES), and the lifetime likelihood of a
criminal conviction by age 32 (Moffit et al. 2011). EF predicts these outcomes even after controlling
for SES and IQ.

19