Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives About Executive Functions in the Primary School Context in New Zealand A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Educational Psychology At Massey University, Albany, New Zealand Claire de la Haye-Stokes 2017 ii Abstract Cognitive psychology research has suggested that executive functions (EFs), a set of cognitive skills that facilitate goal-directed behaviour, play an important role in learning and academic success. EFs, comprised of the three core cognitive components of inhibitory skills, working memory, and cognitive flexibility, are also associated with social-emotional learning and competency. Research has also shown that targeted teaching and practice can improve EFs, with far reaching benefits. However, there is currently little evidence about whether teachers are aware of these skills, or of their importance. This study, therefore, explored New Zealand primary teachers’ perspectives about EFs as a necessary first step to understanding teachers’ knowledge, values and practice in New Zealand. The study used a mixed methods design to obtain quantitative and qualitative data through an online survey. Results indicated that teachers were generally aware that there is a set of non subject-specific skills that are important to learning, but their knowledge and understanding of EFs themselves, prior to completion of the survey, was limited. Teachers rated all EFs as very important to learning and the majority of teachers were already attempting to support development of EFs within their classroom practice. Knowledge of and use of specific activities or teaching strategies to target development of specific EFs was limited, however many teachers were providing learning environments conducive to using and practicing EFs. This research highlights the need for professional development and support for teachers to develop their understanding of EFs. It also demonstrated a need to provide teachers with a range of teaching strategies and activities to integrate within their current learning environments in order to better support development of EFs within their students. iii Acknowledgements Firstly I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to my two supervisors, Dr Tara McLaughlin and Dr Alison Kearney. Thank you for your insightful comments, and comprehensive and timely feedback. I am grateful for your academic guidance, practical advice, and for your unfaltering encouragement and motivation throughout this year. To my supportive family, here and overseas, your moral support was invaluable to keep me going. To all the teachers who participated in my research, I am thankful that you took the time out of your busy schedules in order to help me with this study. Finally, I would like to thank the Massey University Institute of Education Pathways Scholarship, which helped contribute towards some of the costs involved with undertaking this research. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures and Tables vii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Background to the Study 1 Rationale for the Study 2 Organization of the Thesis 3 Chapter Two: Literature Review 4 Reaching a Definition of Executive Functions 4 Inhibitory control 5 Working memory 6 Cognitive flexibility 6 How Executive Functions are Expressed in Children 7 Inhibitory control in children – domain-general skills 7 Working memory in children – domain-general skills 8 Cognitive flexibility in children - domain-general skills 9 Executive functions in children – domain-specific skills 9 Why Executive Functions are Considered so Important 10 Social-emotional competence 11 Learning disabilities and disorders 11 Lower socio economic status 12 Academic achievement 12 Relevance of Executive Functions to Schools and Teachers 13 Teachable skills 13 Classroom and curriculum interventions 13 Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Executive Functions 15 Teaching beliefs and their relevance to pedagogical practices 15 Teachers’ beliefs about executive functions 15 Statement of the Research Questions 16 v Chapter Three: Methodology 17 Introduction 17 Methodological Approach 17 Design 17 Method Selection 18 Questionnaire Design 18 Survey Participants and Survey Distribution 19 Data Analysis 20 Quantitative data analysis 20 Qualitative data analysis 21 Data Interpretation 21 Ethics 22 Conclusion 22 Chapter Four: Results 23 Demographic Information 23 Research Question One: What are New Zealand Primary School Teachers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Executive Functions? 24 Research Question Two: What Value do New Zealand Primary School Teachers Place on Executive Functions? 28 Research Question Three: How do New Zealand Primary School Teachers Support the Development of Executive Functions in Their Classroom Practice? 31 Chapter Five: Discussion 35 Research Question One: What are New Zealand Primary School Teachers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Executive Functions? 35 Research Question Two: What Value do New Zealand Primary School Teachers Place on Executive Functions? 39 Research Question Three: How do New Zealand Primary School Teachers Support the Development of Executive Functions in Their Classroom Practice? 41 Summary 43 Limitations 44 Implications 45 vi Recommendations 48 Conclusion 50 References 52 Appendices 63 Appendix A: Email Invitation to Participate 63 Appendix B: Survey Information Sheet 65 Appendix C: Questionnaire 67 Appendix D: Massey University Human Ethics Committee Approval 81 vii List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1. Temperaments, personalities and behaviours associated with executive functions. 7 Figure 2. Description of where teachers have previously encountered information about executive functions. 28 Figure 3. Mean importance ratings of learning skills from teacher questionnaire. 29 Figure 4. The importance teachers assigned a series of 6 skills in each of the three categories: working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. 30 Figure 5. Venn diagram illustrating attributes and skills associated with executive functions, New Zealand curriculum key competencies, and Dweck’s (2012) growth mindset. 36 Tables Table 1. Summary of LeCompte and Preissle’s 7-step thematic analysis framework. 21 Table 2. Demographic data of teachers. 23 Table 3. Examples of skills demonstrated by students with successful executive functions. 26 Table 4. Teachers’ mean importance ratings of 18 executive function skills. 31 1 Chapter One Introduction Overview This study focuses on teacher perspectives about an area of cognitive psychology called executive functions (EFs). This introductory chapter presents the context of the study and introduces some of the key terms used in the research. This is followed by the rationale for the study, and finally by a summary of how the structure of the thesis is presented. Background to the Study Cognitive psychology research is important to education because it enables the processes and mechanisms behind successful learning to be revealed. In the past two decades, a significant amount of attention has been given to the domain of executive functions (EFs), a set of cognitive skills that facilitate goal-directed behaviour and that include suppressing distracting information and unwanted responses (i.e., inhibitory skills), monitoring and manipulating information in mind (i.e., working memory skills), and flexible thinking (i.e., cognitive flexibility skills) (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014). EFs are considered to regulate the basic cognitive processes that underpin all domains of academic learning and achievement (Best, Miller, & Jones, 2009; Bierman & Torres, 2016). EFs are also associated with social-emotional learning and competency (Rabhari & Vaillancourt, 2015). Longitudinal research has suggested that the EFs skills of young children are a better predictor of future performance on many measures of social and academic success than IQ or socio-economic status are, even after controlling for almost every other variable possible (Diamond, 2014; Moffitt et al., 2011; Samuels, Tournaki, Blackman, & Zilinski, 2016). Just as well-developed EFs predict positive outcomes for students, the reverse is also true, in that students experiencing delays or difficulties with EFs will have a less positive experience with academic and social-emotional learning (Blasco, Saxton, & Gerrie, 2014; O'Toole, Monks, & Tsermentseli, 2017). Fortunately, research has also shown that there are strategies that can be learned and practiced from an early age that can improve EFs, with far reaching benefits (Diamond, 2014; Samuels et al., 2016). What is less clear from the literature is how well known the research findings are to teachers. To date, much of the research into the role EFs play in learning, has been carried out in controlled, experimental studies away from classrooms (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014). It is therefore difficult to determine if the role EFs play in learning is evident within the 2 classroom environment, and whether teachers know about it and know how to recognize it. For example, with young children, the ability to sit quietly and not interrupt the teacher is widely accepted as a necessary behaviour that a child must master in order to be able to effectively learn academic content (Willis, Dinehart, & Bliss, 2014). But are teachers aware that this skill is actually an early developmental manifestation of EFs, specifically inhibition? The ability to suppress the impulse to call out to the teacher relies on the same inhibitory skills that in older children might be displayed by the ability to suppress distracting information in a word problem in order to attend to just the relevant information. However, success in the latter scenario depends on mastery of the earlier developmental manifestation of inhibition. In other words, teaching strategies that focus on developing EFs might predictably make more of a difference to future academic success than teaching strategies that focus solely on academic content. Rationale for the Study Given the strong association between EFs and academic success, it is important to understand the extent to which the theory, backed by research, translates into educational practice. This is particularly salient for primary schools, since younger children are the optimal age for rapid development of EFs (Diamond, 2013). The overall objective of this study therefore is to better understand if primary classroom teachers are well informed as to the nature of and importance of EFs, and furthermore, do they know how to develop EFs in their students. The study aims to understand what the current level of understanding and practice for EFs is in New Zealand since there is currently no research on this topic in New Zealand. In order to gather information about teachers’ perspectives the study utilized an online survey. To keep the study size manageable, the survey targeted a random sample of New Zealand primary school teachers. The survey was designed to explore teachers’ level of knowledge about EFs and their current pedagogical practice including strategies, activities or explicit teaching to help students develop their EFs. A third element to explore was teachers’ views about the value of EFs. This was explored because the success of any future professional development or intervention regarding EFs may depend on whether teachers value EFs and are motivated to help develop them in students (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017). It is hoped that the results of this study will help to build a picture of the current level of knowledge, understanding, value and practice of EFs amongst a sample of New Zealand primary school teachers. The information gained about teachers’ current 3 perspectives and practice can help inform appropriate next steps, such as professional development and inclusion of information about EFs into teacher training, so as to be able to capitalize on the cognitive research findings within New Zealand primary classrooms. Organization of the Thesis This research thesis is presented across five chapters. The present chapter introduces the research context, the key terminology associated with the study, and the rationale for the study. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature related to executive functions (EFs), states the research questions guiding the study, and gives the definition of EFs that is used throughout this study. The nature of each of the three EFs (inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility) and how they manifest in children is evaluated, along with a review of their importance for learning and life in general. The chapter concludes by examining the significance of EFs to schools and teachers, the relevance of teacher perspectives to pedagogical practices, and the need to examine the New Zealand context. Chapter Three details the mixed methods research approach, based on a constructivist paradigm, which utilised a survey to explore teachers’ perspectives about EFs. Details of the research design are described, including ethical considerations, sample randomization processes, participant recruitment, questionnaire construction, and data analysis. The results of the qualitative and quantitative data are presented in Chapter Four. The results are presented in four sections; teacher demographic data in the first section, followed by the three research questions and the key themes and trends relating to each of them. Chapter Five discusses the significance of the findings provided in the results chapter. Trends and themes are compared to the literature, and critically examined in relation to the three research questions. Interpretations of the results are summarized, followed by an explanation of the limitations of the study. The chapter concludes with implications and suggestions for further research. The thesis uses a five-chapter structure and concluding statements are within the fifth chapter. 4 Chapter Two Literature Review The term executive functions (EFs) refers to a set of high-order cognitive skills that enable individuals to stay focused, think before acting, control impulses, delay gratification, behave rationally and reflectively, solve problems, shift mindset as demands change, and undertake strategic goal-orientated planning (Diamond & Ling, 2016). These skills are developed and undergo great changes throughout childhood, adolescence and into adulthood (Bagby, Barnard-Brak, Sulak, Jones, & Walter, 2012). Strategies for enabling EFs such as self-control can be learned and practiced from an early age, with far reaching benefits (Murray, Theakston, & Wells, 2016). EFs are considered critical for success in many aspects of life, and recent research suggests they might be a better predictor of future success than IQ or socioeconomic status (Diamond, 2014; Samuels et al., 2016). Despite the robust links between EFs and academic success, much of the research still derives from a cognitive psychology perspective rather than an educational perspective, and it is unclear how well the gap between the empirical, cognitive data and teacher knowledge and practice has been bridged. In the literature review that follows, a definition of EFs will be derived from a synthesis of prominent studies in the field of cognitive psychology. A description of how EFs are expressed in children will then be given. The importance of EFs to children within the educational context and life in general will be ascertained. This will be followed by an exploration of the relevance of EFs to teachers and schools. Finally, the significance of teacher knowledge will be examined, and current beliefs and understanding within the New Zealand school context reviewed. Reaching a Definition of Executive Functions (EFs) Over the past few decades the definition of EFs has undergone many iterations and there has been a shift in conceptualization from being a unitary construct of frontal lobe function (Baddeley, 1990) to a set of collaborative, hypothetical cognitive processes (Anderson, 2001; Gibb, Piquette, Harker, Raza, & Rathwell, 2015). At the most basic level, EF refers to domain-general psychological processes that are associated with the cognitive abilities required for conscious control of attention and behaviour in order to achieve a goal. This is in contrast to domain-specific skills, which are more commonly associated with academic functioning, such as knowing the letters of the alphabet or multiplication facts. 5 Research into EFs has historically emanated from cognitive psychology, using neuropsychological perspectives, and involved the study of patients with frontal lobe damage who demonstrated intact IQ performance but who displayed impaired performance on executive (frontal lobe) tasks, including the regulation of emotion and attention (Blair, 2016). More recently research has shifted to a focus on individual variance within normally developing populations from a variety of perspectives, including developmental psychology, developmental psychopathology, and educational psychology (Zelazo & Müller, 2011). Subsequently, a number of models have been devised to try and capture the processes central to EFs (Miyake et al., 2000), with some researchers opting to narrow the definition of EFs to just two core skills (Bell & Cuevas, 2016; Gilmore, Keeble, Richardson, & Cragg, 2015). However, most researchers currently associated with studies of EFs draw on the results of neuroimaging studies to support a definition that there are three core neurocognitive skills that are dealt with by the prefrontal cortex, and which sub serve further, more complex EFs such as self-regulation (Best et al., 2009; Blasco et al., 2014; Hui-Chun & Gray, 2017; Miyake et al., 2000; Monette, Bigras, & Guay, 2011). The three core skills most commonly referred to in definitions of EFs throughout the literature are inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory, and this, therefore, is the definition used for this study. Inhibitory control. Inhibitory control (also referred to as inhibition, or impulse control) involves the ability to consciously override an impulse or habit to act in one way (Hui-Chun & Gray, 2017), whether due to external stimuli or internal predisposition, in order to act in a different and more appropriate way (Diamond & Ling, 2016). This ability to actively choose how to react and behave ensures that we thrive in a civilized society governed by rules and norms, giving measured responses rather than impulsive ones, waiting our turn, and resisting temptations that do not serve us well. Inhibitory control is also the process that enables irrelevant or distracting information to be screened out so that it does not distract us and interfere with our performance on the task at hand (Diamond, 2014; Molfese et al., 2010). Inhibitory control is the one element of EFs most commonly linked with another commonly cited developmental construct, self-regulation, partly due to overlaps with terms such as self-control and impulse suppression (Willis et al., 2014). Some studies define inhibition as a specific, measureable cognitive skill separate from, but a contributor to, the larger construct of self-regulation (Anderson, 2001; Diamond, 2014; 6 Diamond & Ling, 2016; Molfese et al., 2010). Others question if temperament-based inhibition of emotional reactivity, a commonly used description of self-regulation, is significantly dissimilar to the cognitive-based inhibitory control of EFs (McClelland & Cameron, 2012), and some use the terms interchangeably (Blair, 2016; Cuevas, Calkins, & Bell, 2016; C. J. Holmes, Kim-Spoon, & Deater-Deckard, 2016). For the purpose of this study, self-regulation will be considered to be a separate construct, defined as the conscious control of thoughts, feelings and behaviours (McClelland & Tominey, 2014), but at the heart of which lie the three core EFs. Working memory. Alan Baddeley is the most prominent name associated with studies in working memory and in 1974, along with Graham Hitch, he devised the original working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974) from which numerous revisions have subsequently been made. A simplified description of working memory describes it as a process involving holding information in mind whilst mentally working with it. Thus working memory involves both remembering information in the short term, and incorporating new information to synthesize with the original information. Working memory is a critical component in reasoning and problem-solving tasks, completing multi-step instructions, and completing mental calculations (Blasco et al., 2014; Hui-Chun & Gray, 2017). It is also critical for any other activity that unfolds over time (Diamond, 2014), such as reading for example, where the words read at the start of a sentence or passage need to be held in working memory until the last words have been read, in order to make sense of the whole (Diamond & Ling, 2016) . Cognitive flexibility. Cognitive flexibility, also referred to in some literature as shift (Bagby et al., 2012; Blasco et al., 2014), or attentional flexibility (McClelland & Tominey, 2014), is the ability to focus attention on one task, then change attention and focus on another, different task, in response to changed priorities or demands. It also involves the ability to think creatively, beyond the obvious, in order to problem solve or be able to see things from another perspective. Cognitive flexibility also works in conjunction with the other two core EFs, for example when faced with a need to change perspective, the previous perspective needs to be inhibited in order to allow the working memory to introduce and consider a new one (Diamond, 2014). Such flexibility is crucial when facing new, unexpected challenges and for being able to seize new and unanticipated opportunities should they arise (Diamond & Ling, 2016), and is the opposite of a rigid, inflexible, averse-to -change mindset. 7 How Executive Functions are Expressed in Children Executive functions (EFs) first emerge in infants around the end of the first year of life, with particularly rapid development taking place in the subsequent years, up to around age 5 (Zelazo & Müller, 2011), and with further development right into adulthood (Cuevas et al., 2016). Research suggests that EFs can be conceptualized as being skills that are both correlated with one another and also separable (Hui-Chun & Gray, 2017), that they overlap and build upon one another to help develop management of thoughts and behaviour (McClelland & Tominey, 2014), and that the organization of them changes over time, becoming more modular with age (De Franchis, Usai, Viterbori, & Traverso, 2017). However, the exact developmental course over time of each component, and the difference between children in terms of how they coordinate the components, remains unclear (Best et al., 2009). Within the school environment, EFs manifest in both domain-general skills and domain-specific skills. They can also manifest in a range of observable temperaments, personalities, and goal-directed behaviours. Zelazo, Blair, and Willoughby (2016) devised a semantic map to illustrate the behaviours, temperaments and personalities associated with EFs, and which is summarized in Figure 1. Temperament and Personality Goal-Directed Behaviour Strong EFs are more often displayed by individuals with the following temperamental or personality characteristics: Strong EFs are needed for the following examples of goal-directed behaviour: • Effortful control • Conscientiousness • Openness • Grit • • Self-control • Reflective learning • Deliberate problem solving • Emotion regulation • Persistence • Planning Figure 1. Temperaments, personalities and behaviours associated with EFs (Zelazo et al., 2016). Therefore EFs can be summarized as the cognitive processes that enable a child to consciously control or regulate their learning and behaviour, to follow school rules, to work in the presence of distractions, to sustain attention and attend to classroom activities, to work and play well with others, and to persist with challenging tasks. Inhibitory control in children – domain-general skills. Diamond (2014) uses the term self-control when referring to inhibition in children, and describes it as the 8 ability to resist temptation and not act impulsively. Example behaviours include being able to sit still for appropriate periods of time, not calling out or interrupting, waiting one’s turn, and resisting taking or eating something desirable. Inhibition is what stops a child from saying something rude or hurtful, hitting or hurting another child who has done something or taken something and caused upset, and grabbing or stealing what they want (Diamond, 2013). It is also what allows a child to stop in games such as musical statues, traffic lights, or any other game involving stopping and starting (Gibb et al., 2015). Other aspects of inhibition include discipline and perseverance; to stay on task and complete that task when it is frustrating, boring or challenging; resisting temptations to switch to a preferable activity; inhibiting distractions; and delaying gratification (Diamond, 2014). Inhibitory control is far more challenging for younger children than older ones, but even at an early age, studies such as Walter Mischel’s famous study of delayed gratification, referred to as ‘The Marshmallow Test’ (Mischel, 2014), demonstrate how some children develop good strategies early on to suppress attention to powerful and distracting stimuli (Diamond, 2013). McClelland and Tominey (2014) prefer to describe inhibitory control in children as being intrinsically linked with the other two EFs. For example, to inhibit an unwanted, aggressive behavioural response when faced with having a favourite toy taken by someone else, a child must also draw upon two other EFs. Working memory permits the child to recall the appropriate alternate response, and cognitive flexibility allows the child to have previously attended to instruction from a teacher explaining what the appropriate response is. In the context of role-play, inhibitory skills are crucial to suppress the impulse to act out of character (Bierman & Torres, 2016), however it is working memory that allows the child to remain in character, and cognitive flexibility that allows him or her to adapt that character’s role within the changing demands of the game (Dias & Seabra, 2017). Working memory in children - domain-general skills. Probably the most easily recognized example of working memory is the ability to remember and follow instructions, directions or rules, especially where there are multiple steps (Diamond, 2014). Being able to participate successfully in classroom, playground or group games requires working memory to hold the game’s rules and objectives in mind whilst simultaneously updating that information (mental reordering) and for the new information to be applied to thinking or plans as the game progresses (McClelland & Tominey, 2014). Being able to hold a question or comment in memory until you are 9 able to ask or share it also draws on working memory, as does the ability to consider a variety of alternatives to solve a problem or to consider which apparatus you will need to complete a task (McClelland & Tominey, 2014). Reasoning, problem solving and creative thinking all require the ability to store and manipulate information mentally to come up with new connections or combinations (Diamond, 2014). Cognitive flexibility in children - domain-general skills. A child that can stop what they are currently doing, and successfully go and engage with another task is demonstrating cognitive or attentional flexibility. If one way of approaching a problem is not working, being able to come up with a different approach or to re-conceptualize the problem is also showing cognitive flexibility (Diamond, 2014). Within games and thematic play, the ever-changing situation requires rapid adjustments and adaptations, through cognitive flexibility, to meet the new demands (Dias & Seabra, 2017). Cognitive flexibility also underlies the ability to admit you were wrong when presented with additional or updated information, and to empathize with someone and see things from their perspective (Diamond, 2014). It also enables a child to change perspective spatially, and consider, for example, how an object would look from a ‘bird’s eye’ view. Executive functions in children – domain-specific skills. Many years of research into language learning has demonstrated that it is a complex process (Kamhi & Catts, 2012). All three of the EFs are involved collaboratively in managing the process of language learning, with the literature offering a variety of viewpoints as to the degree of involvement of each of the individual EFs (Berninger, Abbott, Cook, & Nagy, 2017). The contribution of each of the EFs to language learning processes is described in great detail in a number of studies. For example, reading has been reported to require: inhibition to allow the suppression of misleading or irrelevant information (Chiappe & Hasher, 2000; De Franchis et al., 2017), working memory to facilitate word decoding and reading comprehension (Booth, Boyle, & Kelly, 2014; Diamond, 2014), and cognitive flexibility to sustain focus and derive meaning (Berninger et al., 2017; Cartwright, 2012). Writing places the greatest strain on cognitive resources, even more so than for reading, and all of the EFs are involved in the whole process, from initial planning through to final editing (Best et al., 2009; Drijbooms, Groen, & Verhoeven, 2015). Difficulties arise in ascertaining the degree to which each of the EFs are recruited in the writing process. A popular model adopted by researchers called the Simple View of Writing, suggests EFs are less involved in the early writing efforts of young children 10 (Drijbooms et al., 2015), but that as a writer matures and develops, they increasingly use EFs to allow planning, revisions, and attention to the global structure and coherence of text (Altemeier, Jones, Abbott, & Berninger, 2006; Graham, Harris, & Olinghouse, 2007). Other researchers prefer to describe the recruitment process of EFs in writing as being less of a developmental trajectory, and instead reflecting individual differences in children as regards development, personal interest, learning history, ability, context, and access to resources and technology (Bazerman et al., 2017; Berninger, 2015). Evidence for the importance EFs play in mathematics learning has come from cognitive psychology research of an experimental nature, where test scores are correlated to current or future mathematics achievement (Cragg, Keeble, Richardson, Roome, & Gilmore, 2017; Gilmore & Cragg, 2014). All three EFs, and in particular working memory (Diamond, 2013; van der Sluis, de Jong, & van der Leij, 2007) are considered to be the core skills at work when accurately and efficiently selecting and performing arithmetic procedures and reaching a solution to a problem (Cragg et al., 2017; Friso-van den Bos, van der Ven, Kroesbergen, & van Luit, 2013). Inhibition skills such as suppressing impulsive responses, filtering irrelevant numbers or information, and self-monitoring are considered to be important skills involved in successful mathematical problem solving (Blair, Ursache, Greenberg, & Vernon-Feagans, 2015). Similarly, the cognitive flexibility skill of attention shifting is considered to be important, as it allows switching between number functions, in order to tackle multi-step numeracy problems (Friso-van den Bos et al., 2013; van der Sluis et al., 2007). When faced with word problems in mathematics, all of the EFs associated with reading and writing are also added to the EFs required. Furthermore, the application of math’s skills to novel problems or real-world situations greatly increases the recruitment of EFs (Gilmore et al., 2013). The literature therefore highlights the many ways in which EFs are expressed in both domain-general contexts, and domain-specific contexts, and demonstrates how critical they are to success in the respective domains. Why Executive Functions are Considered so Important Research has shown that well-developed EFs are associated with a variety of positive outcomes including “better social cognition, social understanding, prosocial behaviour, social-emotional learning, and academic ability” (Rabhari & Vaillancourt, 2015, p. 257). EFs are involved in the regulation of more basic cognitive processes and 11 are associated with and predictive of different domains of school achievement (Best et al., 2009; Bierman & Torres, 2016; Blasco et al., 2014; Samuels et al., 2016). They are understood to be an important predictor of physical and mental health (Vuontela et al., 2013), criminality, and general success in life (Moffitt et al., 2011). They have been shown to predict mathematical ability (Blair et al., 2015; Clark, Pritchard, & Woodward, 2010; Shah et al., 2017) and to be significantly associated with different domains of literacy, in particular decoding and comprehension (Best et al., 2009; Booth et al., 2014; Cartwright, 2012; Chiappe & Hasher, 2000; De Franchis et al., 2017). Longitudinal research has shown the relevance of executive functions throughout development on many social and academic measures, even after controlling for almost every other variable possible (Best et al., 2009; Diamond, 2014). For example, Moffitt et al. (2011) found that a child displaying good inhibitory control at an early age, was less likely to succumb to substance abuse or drop out of school as an adolescent, and 30 years later had a better job, higher income, better health, fewer criminal offenses, and overall better quality of life than someone who as a child had displayed inferior inhibitory control. Social-emotional competence. A reciprocal relationship is suggested to exist between EFs and peer relationships from early childhood through to adolescence (C. J. Holmes et al., 2016), with peer problems earlier in life contributing to poorer EFs later in childhood, and better EFs reducing the likelihood of peer problems later in childhood. Similarly, childhood aggression is understood to correlate strongly with weaker EFs, specifically inhibition (O'Toole et al., 2017; Poland, Monks, & Tsermentseli, 2016). Learning disabilities and disorders. Difficulties with EFs are a prominent feature of many learning disabilities and disorders (Blasco et al., 2014). Children diagnosed as having Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) tend to display deficits across all measures of EFs, and with particularly significant deficits in cognitive flexibility (Blijd-Hoogewys, Bezemer, & van Geert, 2014). Poor EFs are also linked with persistent Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Antonini, Becker, Tamm, & Epstein, 2015; Best et al., 2009; Robinson & Tripp, 2013), conduct disorder (Fairchild et al., 2009), obsessive compulsive disorder, (Hybel, Højgaard, Hove Thomsen, Lykke Mortensen, & Lambek, 2017), schizophrenia (Wiguna et al., 2014), depression (Hulvershorn, Cullen, & Anand, 2011), and addictions (Moreno-López et al., 2012). 12 Lower socio economic status. Higher levels of EFs are believed to enhance the resilience of children who experience early adversity (Bierman & Torres, 2016), but are often delayed amongst children growing up in poverty who commonly display low levels of classroom engagement, and elevated attention problems (McClelland & Tominey, 2014; Shah et al., 2017). The literature indicates that it is those children with the poorest EFs who consistently gain the most from interventions targeting EFs (Diamond & Ling, 2016), irrespective of whether their poorer EFs are associated with lower socio-economic status (Blair & Raver, 2014), or ADHD (J. Holmes et al., 2010). Developing EFs might therefore act as a preventative measure against the academic risks associated with poverty (Pears et al., 2014). To this end, there are a great number of researchers who hypothesize that even small improvements in children’s EFs can produce great impact on a child’s life (Diamond, 2014; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Fay-Stammbach, Hawes, & Meredith, 2014; Moffitt et al., 2011; Molfese et al., 2010; Monette et al., 2011; Shanmugan & Satterthwaite, 2016), and may even play a key role in narrowing the gap between disadvantaged children, such as those growing up in poverty (Blair, 2016) and their more advantaged peers (Bierman & Torres, 2016). Academic achievement. In their recent meta-analysis of studies exploring the potential of executive function interventions on academic achievement, Jacob and Parkinson (2015) sought to examine the strength of the correlation between EFs and achievement. Their analysis documented strong associations between EFs and academic achievement, for both single point in time and predictive studies, across ages (3 - 18 years), and irrespective of specific construct studied (inhibition, attention control, attention shifting, and working memory) or measurement type used (naturalistic vs. laboratory based) (Jacob & Parkinson, 2015). In summary, at the most general and basic level, EFs play a pivotal role in a powerful, self-fulfilling prophecy, where those with good EFs are able to capitalize on their strengths, and those with weak EFs will slip further and further behind. Children with weak EFs will struggle to pay attention in class, complete tasks, inhibit impulsive behaviours, and will generally experience less enjoyment at school. Teachers tend to get frustrated or annoyed at them so that feelings of negativity about their own self-worth are perpetuated, thus heightening the risk of resistance to school and schoolwork, and ultimately to dropping out of school completely (Blair & Diamond, 2008). Conversely, children with good EFs are pleasant to teach, find schoolwork easier, receive praise 13 more often, and generally enjoy the school experience. They hold a positive perception of their self worth and are motivated to learn and behave well (Blair & Diamond, 2008). The research therefore paints a clear picture of the importance of having good EFs, and of the crucial role schools could play in supporting children in developing EFs. Relevance of Executive Functions to Schools and Teachers Teachable skills. The general consensus is that EFs, as a set of definable cognitive skills that affect the pace and quality of children’s learning capabilities, can be taught (Bierman & Torres, 2016; Blair, 2016; Cartwright, 2012; Diamond, 2013; Molfese et al., 2010; Zelazo et al., 2016). There is however, debate as to the extent to which they can be taught, and the transferability of improvements (Diamond & Ling, 2016; Shah et al., 2017). Diamond and Ling (2016) conducted a meta analysis of 84 studies that focused on the relative successes of interventions, programs and approaches for improving EFs. Results of their review indicated that training of narrow and specific EFs, such as working memory, improve that particular skill, and transfers to similar skills such as attention, but does not transfer to dissimilar ones such as flexibility. However, training that covers a wider range of skills and is embedded in real world contexts, such as martial arts training or classroom curricula like Tools of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 2007) predictably shows more widespread cognitive benefits (Bagby et al., 2012; Blair & Raver, 2014). For example, in a Brazilian experimental study, a classroom intervention for Grade 1 students produced improvements in not only EFs, but also reading and maths in the experimental group compared to the control group, the benefits of which endured at the one year follow-up and showed transfer effect for behavioural measures (Dias & Seabra, 2017). Classroom and curriculum interventions. One of the most well established curriculums that promote self-regulatory skills, and in which inhibition skills feature prominently, is the Montessori Method. Developed by Maria Montessori in the early 1900s to develop ‘inner discipline’, the pedagogy aligns with constructivism and aims to instill independence, autonomy, self-direction and self-efficacy within the child. Ervin, Wash, and Mecca (2010) compared 127 Montessori-schooled children with 129 non-Montessori schooled children over a period of three years. They found the Montessori schooled children exhibited significantly superior self-regulation skills and subsequent academic performance compared to the non-Montessori schooled children. However, Bagby et al. (2012) caution against drawing any conclusions about a causal 14 relationship between school environment and the development of EFs in the absence of an experimental design. A more recent intervention used within early childhood education is Tools of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 2007), a curriculum grounded in Vygotskian Theory of development and designed to enhance EFs within an instructional context. The curricula is largely based upon purposeful play that is planned collaboratively by the children and their teachers, and recorded in play plans (Willis et al., 2014). Structured play offers an opportunity to engage in purposeful, goal directed activity in a fun and engaging way, to hold information in mind either with or without the aid of concrete prompts (Diamond, 2014), and to sustain attention, all classic components of EFs (Blair, 2016). However, although some studies have found evidence of efficacy for the program on measures of EFs, social and behaviour competencies, and academic achievement (Barnett et al., 2008; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; Dias & Seabra, 2017), others found no significant effect (Farran & Wilson, 2014; Wilson & Farran, 2012), or a lack of empirical evidence to support intervention effect (What Works Clearinghouse, 2008). Hypotheses offered by the study authors as to why the program might not achieve widespread success include complexity of the program, lack of teacher training for confident implementation, better outcomes for children from poorer backgrounds, and difficulty fitting the program into a school day. The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (IY TCM) Program in New Zealand, known as the Incredible Years Teacher Training Program (IY TTP) in the U.S., focuses on improving the quality of teacher–student interactions and the promotion of positive classroom management strategies. Although IY TTP is not an intervention specifically designed for EFs, the program has been used in the U.S. as part of the Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) in a 2008 study that included direct measures of EFs (Raver et al., 2008). The cluster-randomized trial included 35 Head Start classrooms (government funded early childhood centres for low-income families) and 543 children aged 3-4 years. Significant intervention effects were recorded on two measures of EFs, namely attention and inhibitory control, with examiners also rating the experimental group as being more focused and less distractible during testing sessions relative to the control group (Raver et al., 2011). The intervention also correlated with superior academic scores and classroom behaviour (Raver et al., 2011). The studies mentioned above have indicated that there are a number of interventions that have been shown to improve EFs, but similarly there have also been 15 interventions with little or no reported improvement to EFs, with lack of teacher confidence or lack of time being posited as possible reasons why. Given that the success of an intervention will rely in part on the expertise and commitment of the teacher delivering it, it would be useful to ascertain what teachers currently know about EFs and whether they value them as a set of skills for learning. Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs about Executive Functions Teaching beliefs and their relevance to pedagogical practices. Teachers hold a variety of beliefs about learning, shaped not only by their training, but also by variables such as age, experience, and culture (Snider & Roehl, 2007; Stohlmann, Cramer, Moore, & Maiorca, 2014). Gilmore and Cragg (2014) suggest that teachers with training or interest in cognitive psychology or neuroscience may be aware of the importance of EFs and therefore adapt their teaching style to reduce the demands placed on students’ EFs. However, teacher-training courses do not tend to include neuroscience in the curriculum, and for those teachers that are interested, only limited resources are available that are intended for use by teachers, such as books by Dawson and Guare (2003, 2009b), Kaufman (2010) and Meltzer (2010). Furthermore EFs may be considered a hidden curriculum in schools since many teachers know that students need them, but typically don’t realize that they can teach the skills explicitly (Dawson & Guare, 2009a). The importance of teacher beliefs is significant. Any curriculum reform or change in practices can only be achieved if teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are first addressed (Wallace & Priestley, 2011). Additionally, teachers’ beliefs are not always indicative of actual classroom pedagogy. For example in a study exploring teacher knowledge of self-regulation skills, Willis et al. (2014) found discrepancies between teacher beliefs that children had the ability to exert internal control, and their classroom management which encouraged external control. Teachers’ beliefs about executive functions. Studies investigating teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to the role EFs play in academic achievement are limited. One study conducted in Israel sought to explore whether the well-established link in scientific literature between EFs and academic achievement was expressed in the pedagogical beliefs and practices of elementary teachers (S. Rapoport, Rubinsten, & Katzir, 2016). Results indicated that most teachers recognized the effect that EFs have on reading and arithmetic, and that their beliefs about this effect were related to their reported teaching practices (S. Rapoport et al., 2016). However, they also found that 16 most teachers’ knowledge about EFs was intuitive rather than derived from explicit training, and that contrary to their hypotheses, the experienced teachers held more traditional views which rated subject-specific skills above domain-general skills. Gilmore and Cragg (2014) carried out a study in the U.K. to explore teachers’ knowledge of EFs and their understanding of the importance of EFs to mathematics. Their online survey, which had 96 respondents from across all school stages, found that although only 18% of teachers had heard of the term executive functions, 72% were aware that the skills described were important to learning. Contrary to the Israeli study, their study found that knowledge about the importance of EFs increased with number of years of teaching experience. Specifically, 63% reported that they had learned about EFs from their own teaching experience, whereas only 16% had learned from either initial teacher training or later professional development (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014). Only a small number of studies reporting New Zealand teachers’ beliefs or perspectives about pedagogical issues could be located, and of those, none were concerned with EFs. Statement of the Research Questions Despite a critical mass of studies examining EFs and academic achievement across many countries and educational settings (Mulder & Cragg, 2014), a search of the literature reveals a scarcity of studies exploring teachers’ knowledge, perspectives or beliefs of EFs, and no studies within New Zealand. Therefore, before it is possible to consider ways in which to capitalize on the many benefits associated with good EFs, it is first necessary to establish what level of understanding New Zealand teachers have of EFs, how much value they believe EFs add to learning, and what their current pedagogy entails as regards supporting the development of EFs. The research questions to guide the study were therefore as follows: • What are New Zealand primary school teachers’ knowledge and understanding of executive functions? • What value do New Zealand primary school teachers place on executive functions? • How do New Zealand primary school teachers support the development of executive functions in their classroom practice? 17 Chapter Three Methodology Introduction This chapter describes the mixed methods research approach utilized to explore teachers’ perspectives about executive functions (EFs) in the classroom context in New Zealand. Based on a constructivist paradigm, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through an online, anonymous survey. The survey was distributed to a sample of primary schools in Auckland, New Zealand, selected via a randomization process of a publically available database. Prior to embarking on the study, approval was gained from the Massey University Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC), the details of which are outlined in this chapter. The processes of analysis and interpretation of survey responses is discussed at the conclusion of this chapter. Methodological Approach This mixed methods study aimed to explore and describe teachers’ perspectives on EFs. The study was positioned in a constructivist perspective. Constructivist theory suggests that knowledge is constructed rather than discovered, subject to social, cultural and historical context, and moulded by experience. As a researcher I was guided by this theory as I captured, described and interpreted the individual views, values and practices of primary teachers to construct a larger understanding of teachers’ perspectives of EFs in the New Zealand context within the current educational climate. Design The aim of this study was to capture and analyse the knowledge, perspectives and practices of individual primary school teachers, to gain a larger understanding of teachers’ perspectives of EFs in the New Zealand context. A mixed methods design was chosen as it integrates both quantitative and qualitative data within one single study, and permits a more complete and synergistic use of data (Creswell, 2014). Quantitative data was obtained through close-ended or response scale questions which can help identify current opinion or patterns of behaviour, and can provide good breadth of coverage on a range of topics (Coolican, 2013). Qualitative data was obtained through open-ended questions that allow the participants to use their own terms and descriptions of concepts, and which can offer greater depth and detail (Coolican, 2013). There are a variety of ways to approach mixed method research, and a convergent design was chosen for this study. Convergent design allows for side by side comparison of findings from both data sources, a means for either corroborating or contradicting findings, and a 18 useful way to understand contradictions between results (Guetterman, Fetters, & Creswell, 2015). In the context of this study, the convergent mixed method design sought to explore teachers’ knowledge of, value held, and practice of EFs in the classroom context. Method Selection The research questions of the present study required primary school teachers to indicate what they know already about EFs, what value they place on EFs, and what they currently do in their classrooms to support the development of EFs. A platform was therefore required that could allow both response scale measures or close-ended questions, and also opportunities to share their views and experiences within open- ended questions easily and efficiently. The web-based survey tool Survey Monkey was selected as it could combine quantitative and qualitative questions, and afford fast access to the target population. Questionnaire Design An online questionnaire was designed that comprised 21 questions, presented through a variety of multiple choice, Likert response scale, and open-ended questions. A higher number of multiple choice or Likert scale questions involving radio buttons (single click response) were used as it is reported that these make questionnaire completion faster and more appealing (De Bruijne & Wijnant, 2014). Eight open-ended questions were strategically placed within the questionnaire to probe teachers’ existing knowledge, experience and opinions or to allow them to expand on their responses. The questionnaire items were selected by drawing on research literature of EFs and similar studies probing teachers’ knowledge of EFs (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014; Shirley Rapoport, Rubinsten, Katzir, Reimer, & Colzato, 2016). Consideration was taken to avoid any leading questions, loaded questions, questions that might provoke a feeling of discomfort, double-barrelled questions, or double negatives (Harvard University, 2017). The full survey is included as Appendix B. The first section comprised a series of demographic questions aimed at capturing teacher experience, qualification, year level taught and decile1 rating of school in order to describe the response sample. No identifying information was requested so that anonymity was maintained. 1 New Zealand schools have decile ratings of 1 to 10, that help determine how much funding they get from the government. A school’s decile measures the proportion of students living in low socio-economic or poorer communities. The lower a school’s decile rating, the more funding it gets. 19 The second section sought to ascertain teachers’ current knowledge and beliefs about EFs by asking them to explain EFs in their own words, and to indicate to what extent they had come across the construct prior to completing the questionnaire. The respondents were subsequently asked to rate the importance of a set of 10 skills for learning at primary school on a 5-point Likert scale (from not important = 0 through to extremely important = 4). Three items referred to EFs, two items referred to social/emotional skills, two items referred to subject-specific skills, and three items referred to general skills. The non-EFs skills are skills commonly associated with school success in research literature. The items were intermixed. In section three, EFs were separated into three components, working memory, cognitive flexibility and inhibition. A brief description was provided for each, and the respondents asked to share an example of how a child in their class would behave if they demonstrated good skills for each component. Section four targeted teachers’ personal perspectives about the value of EFs, and stated that there were no right or wrong answers. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a set of 18 skills (6 within each of the three components) for learning at primary school on a 5-point Likert scale (from not important = 0 through to extremely important = 4). The last section tapped into teachers’ current practices. Items probed whether teachers were trying to support development of EFs, and what supports or hinders them. A list of 22 classroom strategies for the promotion of EFs was provided and respondents were asked to indicate which, if any, they use. They were given an opportunity to comment if there is anything else they do in their classroom to promote EFs and if they had any other relevant comments to share. Ahead of distribution, a pilot study of the survey was conducted to ensure credibility and validity of the survey. The questionnaire was reviewed for relevance and clarity by two academics and revisions were made. The survey was then completed by a group of representatives of a relevant population (early years education university Masterate research group) and further feedback was provided. Final revisions to the survey were completed. Survey Participants and Survey Distribution The participants for this study were Auckland-based primary school teachers currently teaching Years 1 to 6, from across the complete socioeconomic public school decile range. To access this population, the New Zealand Government schools database 20 from the Education Counts website was used to access a list of primary schools (Education Counts, 2017). From within the Auckland Region, a random-stratified sample distribution method was applied. The database was filtered to select full primary and primary schools from the Auckland Education Region. The Auckland schools were then sorted into 10 groups by decile rating, and a computer randomization function applied to each group. Sorting by decile grouping was to stratify the sample and attempt to reach a sample of respondents working in a diverse range of settings. There was no intention to run sub-analyses by decile. Email invitations to participate in the study were sent to the school principals of the first 10 randomized schools from each decile group for whom an email address was provided on the Ministry of Education database. This resulted in 100 school principals receiving an email inviting them to forward the invitation to their staff. The voluntary, anonymous nature of participation in the study, along with information about the research and the compulsory ethics statement was included in the email invitation (see Appendix A). Follow up emails were sent after two weeks, and again after three weeks, reminding principals that the survey was nearing its closure date and requesting participation. The survey was open initially for four weeks. Due to low response rates, (6 after four weeks), a second tier of email invites to the next 10 schools on the randomized lists, (or all remaining schools if less than 10), were sent out, with the survey remaining open for a further 3 weeks. Follow up emails were sent to the second tier of schools on each subsequent Monday. Due to the nature of the sampling method used, it is not possible to report the number of potential participants, only the number of schools approached, which was 151, and from which 38 teachers chose to participate. Data Analysis The web-based survey tool Survey Monkey collected survey responses automatically. Once the survey was closed, data was exported to the researcher’s personal database. The data was then analysed, depending on whether it was quantitative or qualitative, as described below. Quantitative data analysis. An Excel raw data grid was created to count occurrences of selected variables from lists and ranking matrices in the questionnaire responses. The percentage of respondents answering each question was stated in order to address the issue of skip responses. A coding system then determined which data 21 went into which category. Descriptive statistics were then calculated to highlight any trends, patterns or contradictions within the population sample (see Table 1). Qualitative data analysis. The raw response data from the open-ended questions was first compiled onto an Excel spreadsheet. A first screening of the responses was carried out for familiarization with the content. Thematic analysis was subsequently applied to the text content using a 7-step comparison method (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) to identify emerging patterns and themes, and which is outlined in Table 1. In the event of comments relating to more than one category, the comments were separated and the appropriate parts placed in the respective category. The number of comments in each category was therefore potentially greater than the total number of responses. Salient quotes that illustrated key themes were noted, as were comments that conflicted with key themes or the majority view. Table 1. Summary of LeCompte and Preissle’s 7-step thematic analysis framework Step Description of analytical process Step 1 Perceiving Noting your first impressions and what captures your attention. Step 2 Comparing Looking for any similarities, seeing if there are things that go together, and whether certain themes carry through different parts. Step 3 Contrasting Looking for things that differ from other things, things that don’t go together, and things that don’t fit your emerging categories. Step 4 Aggregating Looking for emerging groupings, and questioning why they go together and what labels they could be ascribed. Step 5 Ordering Looking for any pattern or order within the group. Assessing if any themes are stronger more important than others, and if there are categories and sub-categories. Step 6 Establishing linkages and relationships Establishing how the categories relate to one another, relate to the literature, and relate to everyday practices. Step 7 Speculating Proposing a tentative explanation or theory, explaining its significance, and suggesting what other research needs to be done. Data Interpretation The researcher and supervision team discussed the research data from the survey. The questionnaire was designed to specifically address the three research 22 questions. Therefore the response data were carefully considered in terms of what information it provided to address the research questions. Quantitative data was used to track trends and patterns, and qualitative data used to substantiate or contradict them. The qualitative data also provided richer information and further insight into the subject. Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative data provided an indication of teachers’ knowledge, value and current practice as regards EFs in NZ primary schools. Ethics Prior to conducting the research, a MUHEC screening questionnaire was completed and as a result, a low risk ethics application was submitted and approved. The guiding principle of informed consent was addressed by providing all participants with written information detailing data collection processes, the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any stage. Participation in the survey was therefore deemed to be giving informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality of the participants and their schools was preserved at all times as no identifying information was requested. Ethical guidelines for the storage and disposal of data were followed. Risk of harm to participants was viewed as minimal but was nonetheless considered and addressed through keeping the survey brief, and using sensitively phrased questions that had been piloted prior to use. Furthermore, there were no covert or deceptive elements within the survey. Cultural and social sensitivity was addressed through inviting teachers to describe their own perspectives, and by emphasizing that there were no right or wrong answers. Conclusion The methodology used in this mixed methods study has been described in full and allows for replication of the study. An online questionnaire developed by the researcher, comprising 21 questions across five sections, was distributed to a random- stratified sample of Year 1-6 primary school teachers in the Auckland Educational Region. Procedures to ensure credibility and validity of the survey were completed and ethical approval was granted. Data were analysed in relation to the three research questions. 23 Chapter Four Results Survey responses were received from 38 respondents, however, 14 of these were incomplete surveys that had no information other than demographic information. Participants who only responded to demographic questions were removed from the data set, as they did not provide information to address the research questions. The data from the remaining 24 complete surveys were analysed and the findings are discussed below. Demographic Information Table 2 presents demographic information about the teachers who participated in the survey. Table 2. Demographic data of teachers Demographic item % of sample Highest qualification held by teacher Doctorate degree 0 Masters degree 17 Bachelors degree 57 Post graduate diploma 22 Diploma 3 Teaching qualification held by teacher Diploma 13 Bachelors degree 50 Post graduate certificate in education 13 Post graduate diploma in education 25 Teacher's experience with studying psychology No experience of studying psychology 42 Holds a degree in psychology 0 Studied psychology through initial teaching training 35 Studied psychology through short courses or professional development 12 Studied psychology informally or through personal interest 12 Years of teaching experience 1 to 3 years 5 4 to 10 years 23 11 years or more 73 Year group taught by teacher Year 1 17 Year 2 4 Year 3 4 Year 4 8 Year 5 0 Year 6 17 Other 50 24 Decile rating of teacher's school Decile 1-3 0 Decile 4 16 Decile 5 5 Decile 6 5 Decile 7 26 Decile 8 11 Decile 9 5 Decile 10 32 Note. N=24. Percentage might not sum to 100 because of rounding. Analysis of the demographic data indicated that the majority of participants were experienced teachers with either 4 to 10 years teaching experience (23%) or more than 11 years teaching experience (73%). A bachelor’s degree in teaching was held by 50% of teachers, and a postgraduate qualification held by 38% of teachers. None of the teachers had a formal qualification in psychology, and 42% responded that they had never studied psychology. Of the teachers that had undertaken some form of study of psychology, 35% had done so as part of their initial teacher training, 12% had attended short courses or professional development, and 12% had studied informally due to personal interest. The distribution of teachers across year levels was not uniform, with Year 1 (17%) and Year 6 (17%) the most commonly taught year levels. Half of the teachers (50%) indicated that they did not specifically teach one of the 6 year-group options. The reasons given included: teaching across all year groups, teaching composite classes, or not currently engaging in classroom teaching due to holding a specialist or management role. The majority of teacher responses (74%) came from teachers from schools in the upper decile ranges (7-10). There were 5 responses from teachers in schools in the decile ranges 4-6, and no responses from teachers in schools in decile ranges 1-3. Research Question One: What are New Zealand Primary School Teachers’ Knowledge and Understanding of Executive Functions? To explore what teachers know abut EFs, participants were asked to describe their knowledge and understanding of EFs in their own words. Out of 24 respondents, 21 respondents provided a description and three chose to skip the question. Overall, many of the themes and keywords that emerged related directly to EFs, although no respondents gave a description that accurately covered all three of the core skills that comprise EFs (inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility). One respondent indicated a degree of knowledge and understanding of the three facets of 25 EFs but included other non-EFs skills in their description too. The majority of respondents cited terms related to one or two of the core skills of EFs. Terms falling into the category of inhibition, such as staying on-task, persistence, ignoring distractions, self-regulation, and managing self, were the most frequently cited terms. Many respondents used terms relating to cognitive flexibility, such as reflective learning, ability to focus, and flexible thinking. Terms related to working memory, such as planning, self-guidance, and organization, were less frequently cited in the responses, although three respondents cited the actual term ‘working memory’ as part of their description of EFs. Other categories to emerge from analysis of the responses were student agency, learning style, non-EF cognitive skills (such as processing speed), growth mindset, independence, learning goals, social-emotional maturity, and positive behaviour. In order to examine the depth of teachers’ knowledge and understanding of each of the specific core EFs, the teachers were subsequently provided with a brief description of each EF, then asked to share examples of skills students with well- developed EFs would exhibit, in their own words. Table 3 shows key skills that the literature describes as being indicative of students demonstrating successful executive functions, separated into each of the three core components of working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibition. The frequency of responses from the teachers that aligned with these skills is indicated alongside the skills. For working memory, teachers were provided with the information that working memory is generally ‘the ability to hold and manipulate information in your mind’. The kind of specific examples the literature gives that demonstrate working memory skills include reasoning and problem solving, completing multi-step instructions, mental calculation, reading comprehension, writing composition, following game rules, and creative thinking (Diamond, 2014; McClelland & Tominey, 2014). As seen in Table 3, reasoning and problem solving, the application of retained information, and reading comprehension were the most commonly cited examples of working memory by teachers. Conversely, teachers gave skills such as maths and creative thinking as an example only once. The responses from the teachers also included a number of examples of non-working memory skills such as confidence, assessment success, inference, processing speed, risk taking, listening skills, and references to long term memory. 26 Table 3. Examples of skills demonstrated by students with successful executive functions Skills Frequency mentioned (n) Working memory: Reasoning & problem solving 8 Applying retained information 6 Reading comprehension 6 Remembering instructions/procedures 4 Writing skills 2 Maths skills 2 Creative thinking 1 Mental reordering 1 Cognitive flexibility: Flexible thinking 9 Task switching 8 Attentional flexibility 8 Multi-step problem solving 6 Empathy 3 Attention 2 Games, thematic play 0 Inhibition: Task completion, staying on-task, sustained application 9 Screening out distractions 8 Overriding impulses or habits 2 Choosing how to behave or react 2 Self-control 2 Suppressing irrelevant information 1 Waiting your turn 0 Resisting temptation 0 Note. N= 24. For cognitive flexibility, teachers were provided with the information that cognitive flexibility is generally ‘the ability to switch attention between tasks and to flexibly switch perspectives’. Further examples from the literature about cognitive flexibility skills include attention, task switching, attentional flexibility, reconceptualization of problems, engagement in games and thematic play, problem solving, and empathy (Diamond, 2014; Dias & Seabra, 2017). Just under half of the respondents included a few of the aforementioned skills, as seen in Table 3. A large selection of other skills that do not align with the literature definition of cognitive flexibility were also mentioned and included confidence, persistence, calm temperament, applying prior knowledge, peer tutoring, time management, sociability, comprehension, active listening, disregarding extraneous inputs, ignoring distractions, group work, and reflective learning. Inhibition was described to the teachers as ‘the ability to sustain focus and ignore distraction’. The kinds of skills demonstrated by students with good inhibition 27 include choosing how to react or behave, waiting for their turn, resisting temptation, overriding impulses or habits, screening out distractions or irrelevant information, and self control (Diamond, 2014; Diamond & Ling, 2016; Gibb et al., 2015). The range of examples of skills provided by the teachers was wide and included both a number of inhibition skills that align with the literature, as shown in Table 3, and a range of other, non-inhibition skills. One respondent encapsulated the construct of inhibition particularly accurately with the description that the student ‘may choose to work alone to assure their own quality control’, indicating awareness of goal-directed, controlled behaviour and an ability to ignore distractions and remain on-task. Other skills cited by teachers that do not relate directly to inhibition included meeting targets, ability to share thinking, self-management, thinking at a deeper level, relating prior knowledge to new ideas, taking risks with their learning, and challenging themselves. Several temperaments were also described including calm, confident, positive, and determined. Overall, the results indicated that approximately half of respondents mentioned examples of skills directly related to EFs, but that there were many examples of non- related skills given too. There was an absence of examples given about certain specific skills across all three EFs. Having elicited teachers’ existing knowledge and understanding of EFs, the survey then explored whether teachers had come across information about EFs prior to participation in the survey, and if so, where. Overall, the skills associated with EFs were reported to be familiar to many of the teachers (76%), with only 23% of the teachers responding that they hadn’t encountered information about EFs before. Of the teachers that had encountered information about EFs, responses indicated that teachers were exposed to information through both informal and formal means. Informal means, such as professional conversations or personal reading and research were more common than formal means such as through undergraduate or postgraduate study, training, or professional development, as shown in Figure 2. 28 Figure 2. Description of where teachers have previously encountered information about executive functions. The term ‘executive functions’ was reported to be less familiar to many of the teachers than the set of skills themselves, with only 27% of the teachers responding that they use the term ‘executive functions’. Some teachers indicated that they did not have a term for this set of skills (27%). Of the remaining teachers, 45% reported that they used an alternative term, such as student agency, life-long learning skills, independent learning, and one teacher elaborated that ‘this terminology is not widely used in our pedagogical language, it’s more a psychology term….’. Research Question Two: What Value do New Zealand Primary School Teachers Place on Executive Functions? To examine the value teachers’ ascribe to EFs, the survey sought to compare teachers’ ratings of the importance of EF skills compared with other learning skills prevalent in the primary school context. Teachers were asked to rate a set of learning skills by how important they consider them to be on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from not important through to extremely important). The learning skills in the list belonged to one of four categories of skills: ‘executive functions’, ‘social-emotional skills’ ‘domain specific skills’, and ‘other skills’. The categories were not defined to the teachers and the skills were randomized within the list. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Information sources about executive functions Re sp on se s Formal Informal 29 Mean importance ratings of the range of learning skills are given in Figure 3, and grouped into their sub-categories. Figure 3. Mean importance ratings of learning skills from teacher questionnaire. Note. Rating scale: 0 = ‘not important’, 1 = ‘somewhat important, 2 = ‘important’, 3 = ‘very important’, 4 = ‘extremely important’. All teachers’ responses on the rating scale fell between ‘important’, and ‘extremely important’. There were no responses indicating a skill was ‘not important’ or ‘somewhat important’. Therefore the teachers’ rated all skills as important for learning, with just 0.58 mean difference between the highest and lowest rated skills. The results also indicated that teachers ascribe relatively equal importance to skills from across all of the four categories (executive functions, socio-emotional skills, domain specific skills, and ‘other’ skills), with domain specific skills and spatial skills rated slightly less important overall. The individual skill rated as most important overall was having good verbal skills, which belonged in the ‘social-emotional skills’ category. Having explored the value teachers place on a range of both EF and non-EF skills, the survey next sought to explore the value teachers place on a range of 18 specific EF skills. The skills were divided into the three categories of working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility and a 5-point Likert rating scale was again used. Key EF Social-emotional Domain speciNic Other 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 M ea n im po rt an ce r at in g Learning skills grouped by category 30 Overall, teachers’ valued each of the EF skills categories as equally important, with a difference in mean importance rating between the highest and lowest scoring skills categories of just 0.16, as illustrated in Figure 4. Working memory skills scored highest with an overall mean importance rating of 3.22, followed by cognitive flexibility skills with a rating of 3.17, and thirdly inhibition skills with a rating of 3.06. Figure 4. The importance teachers assigned a series of 6 skills in each of the three categories: working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. Note. Rating scale: 0 = ‘not important’, 1 = ‘somewhat important, 2 = ‘important’, 3 = ‘very important’, 4 = ‘extremely important’. Of the individual skills across the three skills categories, ‘considering alternatives in a problem’ (working memory) and ‘seeing things from a different perspective or angle’ (cognitive flexibility) both received the highest rating of importance of the 18 skills, as can be seen in Table 4. ‘Delay gratification’ (inhibition) was rated as the least important skill overall. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 2 3 4 M ea n im po rt an ce r at in g Working memory Inhibition Cognitive