Role of Executive Function in the Effectiveness of Different Instructional Approaches for Preschoolers’ Science Learning

• In Event: Poster Session 13
  In Poster Session: PS 13 Topic - Attention, Learning, Memory

Abstract

Executive function (EF) skills— higher-order neurocognitive skills such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control —predict school readiness and academic achievement (Allan et al., 2014; Blair & Razza, 2007). However, there is little support for a causal relation between EF and academic outcomes (Jacob & Parkinson, 2015) and more research is needed to determine how EF relates to learning by examining different aspects of the learning environment such as instructional approaches. In education, there is a debate on how much instructional support students should receive, which has resulted in the dichotomy between direct instruction and discovery learning. Theoretically, these approaches have different cognitive demands, with discovery learning placing higher demands on working memory (Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998). However, little research has been done to examine whether individual differences in EF moderate the effectiveness of these different instructional approaches for young students’ learning. In the current study, we tested this question for preschoolers’ learning of sinking and floating.
Typically developing 4-5-year-olds (N=93; Mage=58.5 months, SD=5.6 months) participated individually at their childcare facility. First, we assessed children’s prior knowledge about sinking and floating and their EF skills. Children’s sinking and floating knowledge was measured using an assessment created for the current study. To measure EF, children completed the Minnesota Executive Function Scale, Backward Word Span, and the Statue Task. Next, children were randomly assigned to a Direct Instruction, Discovery Learning, or Control group. Children in the instructional conditions received three one-on-one lessons focused on material kind as a proxy for density with a researcher that lasted about 25 minutes. The instructional groups only differed in how the instructor talked about material kind. In the Direct Instruction condition, children were explicitly told about material kind whereas children in the Discovery Learning condition were asked open-ended questions to try to get them to discover or focus on material kind. Finally, all children completed the sinking and floating assessment again and standardized IQ and academic achievement tests during a post-test session.
Results showed that children in the Direct Instruction group learned more after instruction than children in the Discovery Learning and Control groups, controlling for age in months, days between pre- and post-test sessions, verbal and non-verbal IQ, and SES (Figure 1). EF was not a significant predictor of children’s learning after the intervention. However, exploratory analyses revealed a trend for an interaction between EF and Prior Knowledge to predict children’s learning when collapsed across instructional groups. Children with lower prior knowledge about sinking and floating tended to learn more if they had higher EF skills (Figure 2). Individual differences in EF did not moderate the effectiveness of the different instructional approaches for children’s learning.
These findings suggest the relation between EF and learning may be more complex and depend on factors such as prior knowledge. Continuing to build upon these findings will help us better understand how we can create instructional materials and interventions that consider the child’s EF level to enhance learning.

Authors

• Amanda Grenell, Indiana University - Bloomington
  Presenting Author

• Jasmine R. Ernst, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
  Non-Presenting Author

• Stephanie M Carlson, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
  Non-Presenting Author