Executive function: critical and trainable

Scientific American's website reports on a new study demonstrating that IQ is far less relevant to math success than two specific brain skills -- working memory and inhibitory control, which are part of the suite of skills known as executive function.

Regular followers of this blog won't be surprised to learn that these skills are trainable. 

"It's often thought that kids don't do well because they're dumb, and there's nothing we can do about it," the site quotes Penn State professor and lead study author Clancy Blair. "But not only is executive function pivotal for academic success, it's amenable to training, and this training might make a big difference in a child's ability."

There's also a clear educational mandate here: "Preschool curricula that focus on development of these skills and self-regulation are needed in a big way," Blair says. "There is a federal push to learn our numbers, our letters and our words, but a focus on the content, without a focus on the skills required to use that content, will end up with children being left behind."

Comments

[Stuart Buck]

Is there evidence, so far, for any or all of the following points: (1) the average elementary school teacher will be able to (2) train a classroom full of kids in working memory and inhibitory control, (3) in a way that would translate into improved math skills?

[David Shenk]

Great question, Stuart. I'm far from an expert in this, so I've consulted two people who are --- Adele Diamond from the University of British Columbia and Clancy Blair from Penn State.

I'm still learning the details, but the short answer to your question is a resounding yes. From a powerpoint presentation Diamond sent me, referring to the "Tools of the Mind" program: "EF can be improved in preschoolers without expensive, highly technical equipment, without 1:1 attention, and without highly trained specialists."

[Stuart Buck]

If you find out, let us know -- I'd love to teach these skills to my own kids.

[Kevin Karplus]

The Scientific American article only talked about early elementary school arithmetic skills, which indeed have a lot to do with being able to remember things and stay on task, but have little to do with mathematical thinking.

Have they found any evidence for similar correlation at a more meaningful level of mathematics (say high school algebra, calculus, or higher math)?

[Sam Koritz]

(I'm a fan of this blog & have it on my recommended links list at ProgressDaily.com, so please take this as a friendly attempt at constructive criticism.)

The Clancy Blair study does NOT demonstrate that "IQ is far less relevant [than executive functioning] to math success."

As the article's first sentence says: "sheer intelligence is not ENOUGH." In other words, you MUST have sheer intelligence (and other qualities).

Later in the article we learn, though, that high IQ sometimes IS enough: "…a child whose IQ and executive functioning were both above average was … MORE likely to succeed in math than a kid who simply had a high IQ.” So some of the children with high IQs and poor or average executive functioning DID succeed in math.

On the other hand, the researchers provide no evidence that any children with low or average IQs excelled in math -- regardless of their executive functioning.

Far from suggesting a way to develop the genius in all of us, this study suggests a way to more closely allign scholastic performance with IQ scores.

[David Shenk]

Thanks for your critique, Sam. My rebuttal:

Let's distinguish the Blair study from the Scientific American article. The phrase "sheer intelligence" is a silly one which immediately passes on two falsehoods: A. That there is a measurable, inherited thing called intelligence. (I've refuted this elsewhere, citing Sternberg and others). B. That I.Q. scores reveal said intelligence.

I.Q. is a population curve designed to show how well we have learned a variety of skills IN COMPARISON WITH ONE ANOTHER. It's crucial to remember that it's a curved score designed to give half the population scores above 100 and half below 100. If, one year, everyone suddenly got 25% better at all these skills, 50% of I.Q. test-takers would still get below average I.Q. scores. If, the next year, everyone improved their skills another 25%, half the test takers would still get scores under 100. What I.Q. tells us definitively is that, in a big world, there's always going to be some people learning skills better than others. Not too useful.

The skills that I.Q. measures are important. I'm not trying to dismiss their importance. But they are skills -- not innate abilities. I was simply pointing out that I.Q. doesn't measure all important skills, and since the Blair study shows that "a child whose IQ and executive functioning were both above average was three times more likely to succeed in math than a kid who simply had a high IQ" -- that seems to indicate that executive function is a *more* powerful factor than the skills measured by I.Q. I admit that's a pretty simplistic conclusion, and "far less relevant" is a sloppy choice of words. It's better to focus on the combination of skills, and how powerful that combination is.

[Sam Koritz]

David, thanks for the rebuttal.

I don't believe that by using the phrase “sheer intelligence” the author was suggesting that intelligence is inherited. “Sheer” in this context means “free from admixture” (executive functioning being the thing that must be mixed with intelligence).

The very premise of the study is that most people who score well on IQ tests excel at math. The study apparently comes up with a way for IQ to even more closely match math excellence. Since some IQ tests include no math at all (and the various types of IQ tests yield similar results), the fact that IQ scores predict math achievement suggests that the IQ tests are usefully measuring some sort of relatively general cognitive aptitude.

Based on my reading on the subject, I’d say that you have certainly NOT refuted (to the satisfaction of most researchers) the theory that there is “a measurable, inherited thing called intelligence.” Most researchers believe that the ability to perform well on IQ tests is inherited to some extent (beyond the inherited differences among species). And plenty of researchers believe that IQ tests measure (again, in a statistical, not absolute, way) what laymen mean by “intelligence” (for example, laymen assume that people with large vocabularies are intelligent, and vocabulary size does correlate with IQ).

[Andrew]

I noticed one other thing missing from the article. It does not say that executive function alone is enough. In other words the article does not say that children with average IQ and high executive function are likely to perform better than those with higher IQs and average executive function. Does the study address this?

[JPZ ztech]

"I noticed one other thing missing from the article. It does not say that executive function alone is enough. In other words the article does not say that children with average IQ and high executive function are likely to perform better than those with higher IQs and average executive function. Does the study address this?"

The obvious answer to this is, yes. A person with lower crystallized intelligence, (ie; IQ) can outperform someone with a higher IQ in almost any form, IF they possess the fluid abilities that Blair talks about. IQ, generally, acts as a limiting factor to 'intelligence' once were well into adulthood. Kids develop at different rates, due to (innate and enviornmental) differences in gfluid and gcrystallized. Essentially, IQ acts as the bandwith limitator (it determines how many particles of raw information we can hold per unit of time - it doesn't mean we have actually done anything 'intelligent' with this information), while fluid ability enables us to activate and shift our attention and thought to this information. As an example, Lets say you encounter a stream of auditory information as such:

6....4....5....9....1....4.....3

IQ would act as the primary limitator in the sense that it limits the length of the stream that you can hold in memory. A normal person with an average IQ will be able to hold 7 bits of this stream.
A person with a 90 IQ would hold about 6 bits. We will assume that the 90 IQ person has a higher fluid intelligence.
Now to process this information, we'll say that the 4th digit has to be multiplied by the 2nd digit and added to the 3rd. This tasks requires 'attention' and 'shifting' ability. And although the higher IQ person had the ability to hold the whole seven digits of this stream, he or she may have failed to perform this complex task. But the 90 IQ person may have been able to execute such a series without problem, BEFORE the information faded from memory. Now in a person with a really high IQ, the information would not decay for some time, and even with poor attention and shifting, they are likely to be capable of registering the answer to this problem, simply because they have so much extra time to focus on it.

So yes, a person with a lower IQ has a somewhat spontaneous ability to emulate high level problem solving ability associated with their higher IQ peers. I say somewhat spontaneous because the enviornment is constantly influencing our fluid intelligence (although there is, probably, also a large genetic component). In reality, there is a huge spectrum of problems that higher IQ peers are blind to, and slower learners may be solving for months, if not years of time. Such an effect is at it's peak in our childhood, up until are early adult years.

With regards to most in the scientific community and the 'laymen', most have either self-limited understandings of intelligence, or have good reason not to admit the importance of 'fluid intelligence'. I as a 'laymen' can tell you that if the average school teacher (120 IQ) is about as equally intelligent as Richard Feynman...... DAYZ GOTTA BE SUMTIN' WONG WIT DA WAY WE MESURE INTELLIGENSE. But than again, not everyone is fluid.

[Ron Steckly]

I'm very interested in learning more about this. I was recently diagnosed with a learning disability, primarily because I have a very high level of crystallized intelligence, but abnormally low fluid intelligence. Being 24, its very perplexing for me; I have always excelled at school--except for math classes. The tester told me there was no way to remediate this deficiency. I'm wondering if there is a way for an adult to improve his or her fluid reasoning?