University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Teachers’ Assumptions on the Importance of Executive Function: A Gap Analysis
Evaluation Study
by
Christine Elizabeth Demetre

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Christine Elizabeth Demetre 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christine Elizabeth Demetre certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Patricia Tobey
Lawrence Picus
Darline Robles, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This study applied the gap analysis framework to improve and identify the root causes of the
performance of a non-profit international school by increasing teachers’ knowledge, skills, and
motivation to meet the organization’s goal of supporting the development and implementation of
teaching executive functions (EFs) in the core curriculum. This study employed document
analysis and semi-structured interviews of Grade 5 teachers. Data were used to validate and
inform possible solutions for the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Findings
from this study indicate 12 influences on the problem of practice. Research-based solutions were
recommended to close the knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps. These
recommendations included targeted professional development and training for teachers on how
to explicitly teach 11 EF skills and use performance-based measures to assess students’ EF in the
classroom. In addition, recommendations were made to the organization to foster PLC meetings
centered around students’ EF weaknesses and time to learn, create, discuss, collaborate, observe,
and teach students not meeting benchmark standards. This study concluded with a training
program using the new world Kirkpatrick model was used to implement the solutions proposed
through the study.

v
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been written if it were not for the love, encouragement,
and support from friends, colleagues, and family around the world.
Firstly, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Darline Robles, for her
unwavering encouragement, support, and feedback throughout the writing process. During
periods of doubt, frustration, and imposter syndrome, Darline’s motivation and patience were
unparalleled. Thank you to my other two dissertation committee members, Dr. Lawrence Picus
and Dr. Patricia Tobey. I appreciate your guidance, insight, and expertise in helping me on this
journey.
Secondly, a special thank you goes out to the 22 members of our USC cohort. The past 3
years of disrupting the status quo with thought-provoking conversations and discussions were
eye-opening and remarkable as my worldview changed in this endeavor. Each of you is an
inspiring scholar and practitioner whom I am honored to know and work alongside.
Next, I would like to thank all of my USC professors for pushing me to think deeply,
critically, and self-reflect daily on this journey. I had to get out of my comfort zone and question
policies, systems, and practices. I learned so much about myself and the world through
discussions, readings, and writing papers. Your guiding light and feedback through facilitation
encouraged me to look at each problem from different perspectives and lenses.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my colleagues, friends, and sisters around the
globe, near and far, who checked in on me these past 3 years of uncertainty. Thank you for
believing in me when I wanted to give up or felt stuck in a rut. At times, I did not see the light at
the end of the tunnel, but you encouraged me to keep going on this journey. A hug, coffee, and
catch-up encouraged me to focus on the bigger picture and continue to write. I am grateful for

vi
technology in the form of texts, videos, and phone calls of encouragement, love, and support. I
am reminded that writing a dissertation is like walking a marathon to the finish line, not running
a marathon solo. It not only takes a village to raise a child but loved ones around the world to
help one educator fight on. Thank you for helping me walk this marathon together with you hand
in hand. This dissertation is dedicated to my supportive, beautiful friends, family, and colleagues
who lent me their frontal lobes and helped me internalize and execute my own executive
function skills to complete this feat.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission....................................................................................3
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................................4
Related Literature.................................................................................................................6
Importance of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................8
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ..........................................................10
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal .........................................12
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................13
Methodological Framework ...............................................................................................14
Definitions..........................................................................................................................14
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature..........................................................................................16
Historical Perspective ........................................................................................................18
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................34
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................36
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................60
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ..............................................................70
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................71
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................72
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................73

viii
Trustworthiness of Data .....................................................................................................74
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................74
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................75
Chapter Four: Results or Findings .................................................................................................76
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................77
Determination of Assets and Needs ...................................................................................78
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.....................................................................79
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .....................................................................87
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ..................................................................91
Additional Findings ...........................................................................................................97
Summary of Validated Influences ......................................................................................98
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ........................................................................101
Organizational Context and Mission................................................................................101
Organizational Goal .........................................................................................................102
Description of Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................102
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..............................................................................103
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences ...103
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan .............................................................. 118
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ....................................................................120
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................132
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................133
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................133
References ....................................................................................................................................135
Appendix B: Recruitment Email ..................................................................................................159
Appendix C: Information Sheet ...................................................................................................161

ix
Appendix D: Interview Protocol Questions for Grade 5 Teachers at One World Academy ........163
Appendix H: Pre-Survey Questions Before the Training ............................................................169
Appendix I: Evaluation Tool to Be Used Immediately Following Training ................................172
Appendix J: Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After Training ..............................................174
Appendix K: Examples of Applying Assessment Levels to Use of Executive Skill Strategy .....176
Appendix M: Score Sheet for Independent Work Time ...............................................................179
Appendix N: Designing Interventions .........................................................................................181
Appendix P: Progress Monitoring Response to Intervention ......................................................185

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals 12
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on an Elementary Teacher’s Ability to
Learn Executive Function, Tools, and Strategies 47
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Teacher’s Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal 52
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve
the Performance Goal 58
Table 5: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment 64
Table 6: Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 67
Table 7: Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment 68
Table 8: Participating Stakeholders 78
Table 9: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 98
Table 10: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 99
Table 11: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 99
Table 12: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 104
Table 13: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 111
Table 14: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 114
Table 15: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 121
Table 16: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 122
Table 17: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 124
Table 18: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. 128
Table 19: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 129
Appendix E: Qualitative Research Documents Analysis Protocol 166
Table H1: Before Training Survey Questions 169
Table I1: After-Training Evaluation Tool 172

xi
Table J1: Delayed Evaluation Tool 174
Table K1: Assessment Levels 176
Table K2: Teacher Talk for Math Activity 177
Appendix L: Cornell Method Note-Taking Strategy 178
Appendix O: Intervention Planning Form 183
Table P1: Monitoring Sheet 185

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................35
Figure 2: A Model of the Gap Analysis Framework ......................................................................61
Appendix A: Iterative Universal Design for Learning Classroom Implementation Cycle ..........158
Appendix F: Questionnaire for Parents and Teachers ..................................................................167

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Being able to focus, work and hold multiple sources of information in the brain, filter
distractions, and change gears is like having an air traffic control system at a busy airport to
direct the arrivals and departures of many planes on multiple runways (National Scientific
Council on the Developing Child [NSCDC], 2020). In the brain, the air traffic control
mechanism is called executive function. The term “executive skills” refers to the brain-based
skills that are required for students to execute or perform tasks (Dawson & Guare, 2009) and
builds students’ foundation of how to learn (Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). Executive function (EF)
is a broad term describing the range of skills required for purposeful, goal-directed activity,
socially appropriate conduct, and independent regulation (Denckla, 1994; Meltzer, 2018).
Executive function is often defined as “getting your act together” (Meltzer, 2018, p. 8) or the
“CEO of the brain” (McCloskey et al., 2008, p. 11). McCloskey (2008) adds that EF are
“directive capacities responsible for a person’s ability to engage in purposeful, organized,
strategic, self-regulated, goal-directed processes of perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and actions”
(p. 15). Executive function requires students to focus, follow complicated instructions, plan,
respond to change, and control impulses (Meltzer, 2010). Students may also be referred to as
smart but scattered (Dawson & Guare, 2009). Blair (2002) described EF as “brain processes that
drive one’s ability [to] focus, solve problems, organize oneself, remember information, learn
from mistakes, and manage impulses, all of which helps students learn efficiently and develop
important social skills” (p. 113).
Academic success depends on a student's ability to plan, organize, and prioritize
materials and information, shift approaches flexibly, monitor progress, and reflect on learning
processes (Meltzer, 2018). It is imperative to provide students with tools to help them learn
2

before teaching them academic content (Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). Executive function
processes are not taught systematically in schools and are not a focus within the core curriculum.
Students are often not explicitly taught how they think and learn (Meltzer, 2018; Strosnider &
Sharpe, 2019). In school, students are expected to manage their materials, turn in assignments on
time, study for tests, focus their attention for long periods, and manage their emotions and
friendships, all of which use EFs.
Students with EF deficits in school can manifest academic difficulties that can be viewed
as behavioral problems. Executive function weaknesses are problematic for both special and
general education students. Executive function deficits present as disorganization, forgetfulness,
laziness, or procrastination (Dawson & Guare, 2009). Students with EF weaknesses struggle with
shifting between activities and may persevere on one task until they complete it regardless of
whether the class is moving on, resulting in missing out on new information (Otero et al., 2014).
These students also have difficulty prioritizing time, engage in off-task behavior, and need
frequent prompts or cues to stay on task (Otero et al., 2014).
Students in today's classroom often have problems paying attention, managing emotions,
completing tasks, and communicating wants and needs. They are often labeled as being
intelligent but scattered as they may lack brain-based skills needed to plan and direct activities
and regulate their behavior (Dawson & Guare, 2009). Executive function processes develop
throughout childhood and adolescence and play a central role in students' cognitive functioning,
behavior, emotional control, and social interaction (Anderson, 2002). Often what predicts
achievement test scores and grades during early elementary grades is controlling and sustaining
attention as well as participating in classroom activities (Alexander et al., 1993; Duncan et al.,
2007). Effective EF performance has been strongly correlated with increased productivity,
3

strengthened self-esteem, higher income, improved job satisfaction, and enhanced decision-
making consistency, yet K–12 general education typically does not address EF scaffolds
(Vasquez & Marino, 2020).
Executive function has been widely recognized among researchers in cognitive
neuroscience, developmental psychology, educational psychology, and other disciplines, while
classroom teachers do not use the terminology across school settings (Morgan-Borkowsky,
2012). Research has suggested an important role for EFs in learning but noted that there is little
to no awareness among general education teachers on how weaknesses in EF relate to academic
success (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014). Teachers' ability to understand, teach and help students
achieve success depends on their ability to understand the importance of EF (Rapoport et al.,
2016). Explicit instruction of EF skills is critical in engaging students in relevant and high-
quality learning that is transferable across life domains. Structured and scaffolded instruction that
supports EF is beneficial to student learning (Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). As a result, the
purpose of this study was to examine the absence of explicit instruction of EF in the core
curriculum.
Organizational Context and Mission
The One World Academy (OWA, a pseudonym used to protect the identity of the
organization in this study) is a non-profit international school located in southeast Asia that
provides personalized learning for Pre-K to 12th-grade students. To maintain anonymity, the
school’s name has been changed, and the website has not been provided. The school is organized
into four divisions. The early learning center enrolls preschool children aged 3 to 5. The
elementary school enrolls kindergarten to Grade 5, the middle school Grades 6 to 8, and the high
school Grades 9 through 12. In the 2020–2021 school year, OWA served nearly 4,000 students
4

from an estimated 55 countries, with 50% holding a U.S. passport. The remaining 50% represent
over 60 countries, mostly Asian countries. The school follows an American curriculum based on
Common Core standards with Advanced Placement classes and advanced topic courses.
The organization's mission is to prepare and motivate students for a rapidly changing
world by instilling critical thinking skills, a global perspective, and a respect for core values of
honesty, loyalty, perseverance, and compassion (as stated on the school website). Students will
have success for today and be prepared for tomorrow. There are over 400 teachers employed at
OWA from a variety of countries. Approximately 60% of teachers are from the United States,
while 40% come from South America, Europe, Asia, Canada, Australia, and South Africa.
Nearly 80% of teachers hold master’s degrees, 5% hold doctorates, and the remaining have
bachelor's degrees. The average age of teachers employed at OWA is 44.
The One World Academy (OWA) employed a new superintendent in 2019. The school’s
board asked the superintendent to develop a new strategic plan to help the school achieve its
vision. During the 2020–2021 school year, the school board and superintendent shared a new
strategic plan focusing on two main goals related to this study: deepen the focus on social-
emotional learning and wellness and promote consistency of high-quality teaching in every
classroom to support the learning needs of each student
Organizational Performance Goal
By the year 2027, OWA seeks to innovate all levels of education by using a strategic plan
(as cited by the organization’s website). The school intends to instill learning aspirations in all
students, increase coaching and feedback for teachers on their professional practice, enrich
students with a cross-cultural perspective, and design innovative programs to meet student needs
and interests. More broadly, OWA intends to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, so all
5

students feel valued and included. The approach has taken shape in the past year as the new
superintendent implemented separate focus groups for students, parents, and teachers to ensure
all voices are heard.
More importantly, the school plans to strengthen the focus on social-emotional learning
and wellness by reviewing its current social and emotional curriculum, Responsive Classroom,
and advisory classes. The organization stated that social-emotional well-being is critical to
student resilience and success. In April 2021, an annual anonymous screening survey was sent
out to all students in Grades 3 to 12 to better understand their social and emotional experiences
and benchmark results against 17,000 other U.S. schools. Additionally, data will be collected
around student belonging, school safety, engagement, positive student-teacher relationships,
cultural awareness and action, and diversity and inclusion. As part of OWA’s goal, it will meet
the social-emotional needs of 100% of its students by May 2023, resulting in students’ ability to
show EF processes in prioritizing, organizing, using working memory, shifting, and self-
monitoring their work. Students who understand their cognitive and motivational processes
improve academic performance by implementing strategies that address EF processes (Meltzer,
2010).
This performance goal was developed through a support services review by the K–12
core team cross-divisional faculty representatives. The team consisted of divisional principals,
learning support (LS) teachers, English language teachers, speech and language pathologists,
instructional coaches, psychologists, counselors, and a teaching and learning leader. The goal
was based on 12 months of peer-reviewed research and literature, parent focus groups, student
focus groups, teacher focus groups, classroom observation learning walks, surveys of perception
6

and practice, and internal auditing of documents. The superintendent and assistant superintendent
approved the goal.
Related Literature
The construct of executive functioning is an area that has gained attention over the past
decade due to more research on how EF impacts individuals from birth to adulthood (Baggetta &
Alexander, 2016). The topic is important as success in EF skills builds early development of
cognitive and social capacities (Meltzer, 2010; Rapoport et al., 2016). There is a plethora of
articles and books on executive functioning; however, there is little research on teachers’
knowledge, perception, and motivation to teach EF (Garcia et al., 2019). As more students
struggle with self-regulation, attention, and focus, there are no clear guidelines for addressing
these deficits (Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). As Meltzer (2010) stated, “classroom teachers need to
teach strategies that address EF processes systematically in order to help students understand
how they think and how they learn” (p. 3). There is relatively little research on teacher pre-
service training that addresses teacher education in EF and their skills to teach EF trajectories
during their preparation programs (Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017). Corcoran and O’Flaherty
(2017) noted that teachers need explicit strategies for instruction in cognitive regulation and
assisting students in monitoring and regulating their learning, yet schools do not teach these
skills (Flook et al., 2015). The gap in the research creates an inherent need to examine teachers’
knowledge about the topic.
Teachers’ perceptions of students’ abilities can substantially alter students’ educational
experiences. Studies show that teachers’ biased perceptions of students’ academic skills are
associated with students’ academic achievement (Jussim, 1989; Kuklinksi & Weinstein, 2001;
Ready & Chu, 2015) and might contribute to academic achievement gaps (Bates & Glick, 2013;
7

van den Bergh et al., 2010). In addition, it is widely recognized that there are persistent racial
disparities in school disciplinary actions such as suspensions. Similarly, boys, African
Americans, and English language learner students are consistently overidentified for special
education services (Entwistle & Alexander, 1988; Waitoller et al., 2010). Consequently, if
teachers’ perceptions of students’ EFs are consistently associated with their background, then
teachers’ perceptions of self-regulated behavior may contribute to disparities based on gender,
ethnicity, and language in grade retention, referrals for school discipline, and special education
(Garcia et al., 2019).
On average, 13% of students with a disability attend U.S. schools (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019). The current 13 eligibility categories typically used to classify
students with disabilities educationally do not categorize executive dysfunction as a disability
(Otero et al., 2014). The purpose of assessing executive skills is not to diagnose but to
understand the executive skills impacting school performance to overcome challenges (Dawson
& Guare, 2018). School-based teams should assess students in all domains of functioning and
psychological processes, such as attention, memory, and EF, as part of comprehensive
evaluations (Otero et al., 2014; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019).
Today’s classroom also consists of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and mental health issues (generalized anxiety
disorder, depression, eating disorders, addictive behaviors, post-traumatic stress disorder, social
anxiety disorder, etc.). Many students come to school with EF weaknesses related to their
disability or mental health weaknesses. Students who exhibit difficulties in EF may struggle
academically, behaviorally, and socially to keep up with their peers by their inability to achieve
good grades and friendships and cope with the stress and pressures of school, family, and friends
8

(Meltzer, 2010; Zelazo et al., 2017). Executive function weaknesses are found in students with
disabilities and mental health issues and in neurotypical students who find focusing, managing
materials, transitions, multi-step directions, and being independent challenging (Diamond, 2011).
Executive functions are important to every aspect of life. Diamond (2013) posited that
EFs can impair many mental disorders, including addictions (Baler & Volkow, 2006), conduct
disorders (Fairchild et al., 2009), obsessive-compulsive disorder (Penades et al., 2007), and
schizophrenia (Barch, 2005). Poorer EFs are associated with lower quality of physical health,
such as obesity, overeating, and substance abuse (Crescioni et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2011;
Riggs et al., 2010). Executive functions are more important for school readiness than are IQ or
entry-level reading or mathematics (Blair & Razza, 2007; Morrison et al., 2010). Executive
functions predict both mathematics and reading competence throughout the school years
(Duncan et al., 2007; Gathercole et al., 2004). Children with ADHD typically experience about a
30% delay in developing specific self-regulation capacities (McCloskey et al., 2009).
Importance of the Evaluation
As part of OWA’s strategic plan, a goal is to deepen the focus on social-emotional
learning and wellness while supporting each student’s learning needs by May 2027. As a result
of this focus, every student will feel included and valued by the school promoting diversity,
equity, and inclusion. By June 2023, 100% of OWA’s teachers will explicitly teach EF skills via
the core and social-emotional curricula to all students, resulting in all children using strategies to
problem solve life at home and school when facing challenges or pursuing a goal. Social-
emotional learning focuses on the whole child developing non-academic skills that incorporate
restorative justice practices to engage students interpersonally and emotionally to resolve conflict
rather than traditional consequences such as suspension and detention (Takabori, 2021).
9

Takabori (2021) explained that the three components of social-emotional learning are teaching
cognitive skills, emotional competencies, and social and interpersonal skills. The author defined
cognitive skills as EFs that include working memory, attention control and flexibility, inhibition,
and planning that guide learning and growth. Emotional competencies incorporate one’s ability
to cope with frustration, recognize and manage emotions, and understand others’ perspectives
and emotions. Social and interpersonal skills enable one to read social cues, navigate social
situations, cooperate with others, and demonstrate compassion and empathy (Takabori, 2021).
Within each division of early childhood, elementary school, middle school, and high
school are meetings dedicated to problem solving social and emotional problems and behavior
problems of students within the collective responsibility of a small professional learning
community (PLC). Student needs, abilities, and preferences (SNAP) meetings are monthly
interdisciplinary meetings of a small group of four to six teachers to discuss how behaviors and
social-emotional problems affect students' academic work. The meetings consist of the deputy
principal, four to six classroom teachers, the speech and language pathologist, the grade-level
counselor, and two LS teachers in the grade level. Each classroom teacher brings three to four
students to the team and has two minutes to describe these students’ strengths, needs, and
behaviors that impact their learning. Next, the team asks the classroom teacher follow-up
questions to clarify information. Teachers are expected to fill out the SNAP document before the
meeting with the students' pictures and at least one Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (CASEL) standard to guide the inquiry of the students' social and emotional
needs. The CASEL standards incorporate five interrelated competencies of self-awareness, self-
management, responsible decision making, social awareness, and relationship skills that impact
the classroom, schools, families, caregivers, and communities. Lastly, teachers offer collective
10

feedback and strategies to each other to help each student presented in the meeting. Teachers are
expected to develop an action plan to help the students achieve the desired behavior or social
skill.
In Grade 5, SNAP data revealed an increase in behaviors related to attention, focus,
organization, and self-regulation. On average, 20% of students in a classroom exhibit deficits in
EF. Teachers do not name the fact that the problems may be related to EF and may not know
about the importance of EF in the context of learning. This problem impacts OWA as the
information regarding EF is housed in the reports that school psychologists create after
evaluations. Teachers may not have the knowledge, professional development (PD), or training
on EF or how to explicitly teach these skills in conjunction with the core curriculum and
supplemental social-emotional curriculum. Discussing a student’s character flaws leads to deficit
mindsets in teachers and a lack of focus on the child's needs (Dawson & Guare, 2018).
Contrastingly, formal evaluations indicate that the child is, in fact, smart but has weaknesses in
EF skills. To be prepared for the 21st century, learners need to quickly and flexibly adapt to
changed circumstances, consider what to do next, resist temptations, stay focused, and meet
novel, unanticipated challenges (Diamond, 2013). Addressing EF through the classroom
teacher’s interventions would result in fewer referrals for learning support and behavior to the
dean or principal at OWA.
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
The elementary classroom teachers at OWA are the primary stakeholder group for this
study. The classroom teachers are responsible for teaching all core subjects (reading, writing,
mathematics, social studies, and science) and most social-emotional learning. Each grade level
consists of 14 classroom teachers, one instructional coach, two LS teachers, one speech and
11

language pathologist, one counselor, and one psychologist who will work collaboratively to meet
students' academic, social, and behavioral needs. This team of professionals works closely with
small PLC teams of four to six classroom teachers to help solve students’ needs and problems.
The assistant principal oversees core curriculum development and professional learning
experiences and ensures all teachers use the same common language for social-emotional
learning during morning meetings. The counselor, LS teachers, and speech and language
pathologist may model and teach specific lessons on EF, zones of regulation, anti-bullying, and
social communication expectations. This helps teachers model, reinforce, and implement specific
strategies and skills in EF and ultimately teaches students how to learn. When students learn EF
skills and strategies, they thrive academically, behaviorally, and socially at school and in the
community. Additionally, parents would benefit from learning EF skills and strategies at
monthly parent focus group meetings. Students would be able to transfer the skills learned at
school to their homes and vice versa. Table 1 presents the organizational mission, global goal,
and stakeholder performance goals.

12

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational mission
The mission of the One World Academy is to prepare and motivate students for a rapidly
changing world by instilling critical thinking skills, a global perspective, and a respect for
core values of honesty, loyalty, perseverance, and compassion. Students will have success
for today and be prepared for tomorrow.
Organizational performance goal
By June 2023, One World Academy will explicitly teach EF skills within the core curriculum
and social-emotional curriculum to all students.
Stakeholder goal: All teachers in Grade 5 at One World Academy will apply their knowledge
of EF to fully implement skills and strategies with students by the end of the school year.
Administrators Teacher Students Parents
By April 2022, One
World Academy
will conduct an
anonymous
screening survey to
determine if the
school is meeting
students’ social and
emotional needs to
provide baseline
data for the next
school year.
By August 2023,
One World
Academy
teachers will
receive baseline
data, attend EF
training, and
develop an
action plan to
address EF
deficits of
students based
on the survey
from last school
year.
By June 2023, One
World Academy
students in Grades
4–5 will be able to
identify EF strategies
and skills that will be
demonstrated in the
classroom through
their behavior,
social, emotional,
and academic skills.
By December 2023,
parents of One
World Academy will
attend a parent focus
group with
counselors and
administrators to
learn EF skills and
strategies to use at
home with their
child(ren).

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
Classroom teachers were the primary focus of the study because they spend an average of
5.5 hours a day with students and have the most influence on shaping students academically,
behaviorally, and socially. The stakeholder goal is that all teachers in Grades 4 and 5 at OWA
will apply their knowledge of EF to fully implement skills and strategies with students by the end
13

of the school year. The goal was not only to meet the needs of students who have deficits in EF
but also of students who are high achievers, as they may benefit from strategies for organization,
time management, and resisting impulses. If teachers did not meet this goal, they would continue
to teach to the status quo and not meet all learners’ needs. They would continue to teach
academic subjects in isolation and spend 20 minutes or less a day on social and emotional skills.
Teachers would not meet students’ social and emotional EF needs, which are strong indicators of
future success. Teachers would continue to bring up challenging students in SNAP meetings and
ask the counselor, LS teachers, the dean, and speech and language pathologists to pull students
out of the classroom for small group or one-on-one support. The stakeholder goal empowers
teachers to explicitly teach EF skills, ultimately determines students’ outcomes for success, and
improves learning.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences impacting the successful implementation of explicit
instruction of EF skills and strategies within the core curriculum, so all students know how to set
and achieve goals, self-monitor their performance, solve problems independently, learn from
their mistakes, and use time wisely. A complete gap analysis would include more stakeholders;
however, the focus of analysis in this study was Grade 5 classroom teachers. The analysis began
by listing assumed influences and validated causes. As such, the questions that guide this study
are the following:
1. What is the current status of the teacher’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources with regard to teaching executive function within the core curriculum?
14

2. What are the recommendations for organizational influences in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
This study aimed to use the gap analysis framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008)
to improve OWA’s performance by increasing teachers’ knowledge, skills, and motivation to
meet the organization’s goals. The gap analysis framework is a systematic analytical method that
helps the user clarify organizational goals and identify gaps of missing entities. The gaps
between the actual performance level and the preferred performance level within an organization
form the conceptual framework used in this study. The methodological framework used was
qualitative. The data sources were interviews of Grade 5 general education teachers and
documents.
Definitions
• ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder involves delays or inadequacies in an
individual’s development of the capacity for EF (Brown, 2006).
• Inhibition or self-control: the aspect of inhibitory control that involves resisting
temptations and not acting impulsively or prematurely (Diamond, 2013).
• Prefrontal cortex: the part of the brain most involved in the development of EF skills,
while developing the skills further develops the prefrontal cortex (Sulla, 2018).
• Shifting or cognitive flexibility: changing perspectives or approaches to a problem,
flexibly adjusting to new demands, rules, or priorities, switching between tasks
(Diamond, 2013).
• Working memory: holding information in mind and mentally working with it; relating
one thing to another, using information to solve a problem (Diamond, 2013).
15

Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the importance of EF. The
chapter introduces the initial concepts of the gap analysis and the organization’s mission, goals,
and stakeholders. Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature on the scope of the
study. Topics surrounding EF include how it impacts students’ academic, behavior, and social
performance in the classroom. As a promising practice, teachers' roles with regard to
implementation are examined. Chapter Three details the assumed causes and rationale of the
study and the methodology for the choice of participants and data collection and analysis
procedures. Chapter Four describes the data and results of their analysis. Chapter Five provides
recommendations for evaluating and implementing teaching EF skills, strategies, and
interventions.

16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Executive function (EF) is an extensive topic that has gained traction over the last decade
due to more research focused on how delays in these skills affect individuals across varied
domains in their life (McCloskey et al., 2008). At the same time, there is debate about what
constitutes EF, and there is a need for a common language to understand its psychological and
theoretical mechanisms (Banich, 2009; Braver et al., 2010; Baggetta & Alexander, 2016).
Currently, there is no current agreement on what defines the construct or which abilities should
be included or excluded in the definition (Dawson & Guare, 2012; Meltzer, 2018; Packwood et
al., 2011; Zelazo et al., 2017).
Researchers have proposed numerous theories and models without any one theory
receiving complete acceptance in the field (Barkley, 2020). This disagreement is confounded by
difficulties with EF components, measuring EFs in isolation, inconsistent research methods and
assessments, and a lack of empirical studies considering developmental trends in childhood (Best
& Miller, 2010; Martin & Failows, 2010). Despite these limitations, most theorists agree that the
term represents higher-order processes that control and coordinate complex cognition and
behavior (Anderson, 2008). Understanding the role of EF in learning and performance is central
to academic achievement (Cartwright, 2015; Gilmore & Cragg, 2014; Sulla, 2018), which
involves controlling one's actions and thoughts (Baggetta & Alexander, 2016) and is highly
predictive of academic, behavioral, and social functioning (Shaul & Schwartz, 2014). As stated
in Chapter One, EF is defined as
directive capacities that are responsible for a person’s ability to engage in purposeful,
organized, strategic, self-regulated goal-directed processing of perceptions, emotions,
thoughts, and actions” (McCloskey et al., 2008, p. 15). Executive function is an umbrella
17

term for the neurologically-based skills involving mental control and self-regulation.
(Cooper-Kahn & Dietzel, 2008, p. 10).
Meltzer (2018) defined EF as "getting your act together" or the "how" and "when" functions of
everyday life (p. 8).
Educational research on EF skills lays the foundation for understanding the need to
develop EF skills throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (Dawson & Guare, 2018).
There is a range of theoretical and conceptual approaches to understanding EF processes in the
context of neurology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and education (Meltzer,
2018). Research surrounding teacher knowledge, motivations, and responses to organizational
structures to what and how to teach, can inhibit the success of implementing the most well-
designed plan (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, it is vital to understand the specific cognitive
processes of EF in terms of goal setting, planning, organizing, self-regulation, and emotional
control to strengthen students' deficits and teacher knowledge in this area. Very little research has
focused on teacher perceptions of EFs (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014; Rapoport et al., 2016) or their
knowledge, motivation, and organizational impediments to teaching EF explicitly.
In this chapter, I will review the development of EF, conceptual frameworks, and how EF
impacts different aspects of students’ academic performance, social-emotional outcomes, and
behavior. I will also review the role of the teacher, followed by an explanation of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that overview Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework.
The next section will discuss the influences of EF on the problem of practice in various
contexts and settings, including the historical perspective, foundations, development,
assessments, and interventions.
18

Historical Perspective
Although there has been a significant increase in research on executive functioning in
recent years in both the medical field and education, both fields agree that the role of EF affects
the frontal lobes of the human brain. Information became widely available in the 18th and 19th
centuries in the neuropsychology of patients with brain-related injuries (Benton & Sivan, 2007),
specifically in the prefrontal cortex, whose primary role is to regulate one’s thoughts and
behaviors (Best & Miller, 2010; Miyake & Friedman, 2012). Medical advancements in research
and technology increased knowledge of the importance of the frontal lobes for complex
cognition in the brain in both EF and dysfunction (Meltzer, 2018). In adult patients with brain
injuries, difficulty was displayed in inhibition, personality changes, poor decision making, and
attention/memory deficits (Mashour et al., 2005). Advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as
functional magnetic resonance imagining and event-related protentional, help assess the neural
response underlying EF (Best & Miller, 2010). Patients with prefrontal cortex damage can have
EF deficits yet normal IQ (Stuss & Benson, 1984). The frontal lobes direct behaviors that guide
behavior to make future decisions, control emotions with external and internal constraints, and
fine-tune based on feedback (Dawson & Guare, 2009).
Multiple EFs in different regions of the brain govern our conscious perceptions, feelings,
thoughts, and actions, responsible for a particular aspect of the overall self-regulation processes
(McCloskey et al., 2009). Executive functions are best viewed as a set of independent but
coordinated processes that cue the use of other mental capacities such as reasoning, language,
and visuospatial representation (Stuss & Alexander, 2000). The executive functioning literature
research includes multiple discussions of planning, organizing, interference control, self-
monitoring, sequencing, maintenance of behavior, attention, the flexibility of thought, and
19

feedback and anticipation (Anderson, 2002; Denckla, 1994). Several conceptual frameworks and
theories for the organization of EF have been proposed over the years (Best & Miller, 2010).
Generally, all the theories share two components involving cognitive processes that guide other
processes or behaviors, and they are in some way related to the frontal lobes of the brain
(McCloskey et al., 2009). Studies show that the prefrontal cortex develops skills of EF.
Correspondingly developing EF skills further develops the prefrontal cortex because it grows
after birth into adolescence and does not fully mature until the mid-twenties (Sulla, 2018).
Executive function skills are innate at birth and have the potential to develop over time with
increased practice and strengthened attention in all areas through experiences at birth, childhood,
adolescence, and adulthood (Dawson & Guare, 2009; Meltzer, 2018; Sulla, 2018).
Current scientific literature laid the foundation for EF in many domains and is now
widely used in the educational realm. Executive function is associated with disabilities such as
autism, attention deficit disorder (ADD), and ADHD. This research has found that the skills that
comprise EF are the keys to academic achievement for all students (Sulla, 2018). Executive
function skills are necessary for classroom instruction through targeted experiences, and teachers
can contribute to the growth of the prefrontal cortex and EF skills by incorporating deliberate
activities, structures, and strategies into the learning environment (Sulla, 2018).
Development of Executive Function
A challenge in the literature is the lack of universally accepted independent components
concerning the development and trajectory of EFs. Executive function skills are neurocognitive
skills required to engage in goal-directed control of emotion, action, and thought, which
strengthens through neural circuits when activated (Zelazo et al., 2017). Executive function
begins with three levels of analysis, from neural processes (neural pathways) to the
20

neurocognitive skills (ways of using attention) to behavioral consequences of attentional control
(goal-directed problem solving) using self-directed speech to reflect on a situation (Zelazo et al.,
2017).
At birth, EFs develop as an infant interacts with the environment. Parts of the brain have
high plasticity (often called sensitive periods), which allows for a constant enhancement of
neuronal functions in the prefrontal cortex that continually adapts to its environmental influences
(Meltzer, 2018). In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift from focusing on adolescence
with EF to early school years to younger students (Miller et al., 2012). The literature suggests
sensitive periods of growth in EFs happen during birth to age 2, 7 to 9, and 16 to 19 years
compared to other times in childhood (Banich, 2009). Because of the increased plasticity and
environmental demands that occur throughout these ages, preschool and teenage development
are frequently targeted as critical stages (Zelazo et al., 2017).
Typical developmental performance tasks help parents, educators, and caregivers
understand the tasks and responsibilities that children of different ages are expected to do with
prompts or adult supervision. Dawson and Guare (2009) suggested that at around 12 to 24
months, children begin to think flexibly and use their working memory, motion control,
attention, and task initiation. Also, goal persistence beings to develop through play. At
approximately ages 2 to 4, children use their working memory and have sustained attention and
goal persistence for two- to three-step tasks with supervision. At this age, children can inhibit
behaviors (not touch a hot stove, run into the street, bite, or push). They can perform simple
chores and self-help tasks with reminders (get dressed, brush teeth, clear dishes; Dawson &
Guare, 2009). From 5 to 8 years old, children can execute simple two to three tasks, tidy
bedroom or playroom, bring papers to and from school, complete homework assignments for a
21

maximum of 20 minutes, and inhibit behaviors (follow safety rules, raise hand before speaking,
keep hands to self).
Around 8 to 11 years of age, children complete more complex tasks, sustain attention,
extend working memory, read chapter books, develop goal persistence for projects, keep track of
the daily changing schedule, inhibit (behave when the teacher is out of the classroom, refrain
from rude comments, temper tantrums, and bad manners), and increase flexibility. From ages 11
to 14, children use working memory for more complex tasks and solve multi-step word
problems. They use critical thinking and impulse control in environments with established rules.
At approximately ages 14 to 18, teens use emotional regulation, response inhibition, sustained
attention, metacognition, organization, planning, persisting, initiating, and completing tasks.
Around ages 18 to 20, adults refine metacognition, plan, organize, use emotional regulation,
maintain multiple schedules, and meet performance expectations for friends, job, school, and
family. From 20 years on, adults sustain attention in the face of distraction, maintain multiple
schedules, plan and set goals, including the ability and forethought to seek out tools for EF
(calendars, planners, to-do lists, organization strategies), and minimize distractions.
Prominent Theories
Several theories and models define and explain EF and dysfunction in adults and
children. The theories are typically divided into unitary (single-dimensional construct) and
multidimensional (number of distinct and separate components or processes) models of EF (Best
et al., 2009). Firstly, EFs are complex skills that are impure by nature (Hunter & Sparrow, 2012).
Secondly, there is no agreement on how EFs should be measured in research, which makes it
difficult to compare results and makes the reproduction of findings challenging (Martin &
22

Failows, 2010). Thirdly, assumptions about how adults experience EF weaknesses show
variability in children compared to adults (Barkley, 2011).
Barkley’s Model
Barkley (2012) conceptualized an original model developed in 1997 and updated in 2012
and 2015. Barkley’s theory focuses on behavioral self-regulation in conjunction with ADHD.
Barkley argues that inhibition should be considered hierarchically above other components of EF
and self-regulation. The newest model is based on the importance of language in human
development. Barkley argued ADHD is an impairment in the development of EF in the ability to
inhibit action. Barkley’s model includes four domains of EF: working memory, self-regulation of
affect/motivation/arousal, internationalization of speech, and reconstruction. All four of these
domains control motor output, syntax, and fluency.
Brown’s Model
Brown (2006) conceptualized EFs with ADHD with two conflicting views on how both
are related. One view posited that students diagnosed with ADHD suffer from significant
impairments of executive function, while the other claimed ADHD is a developmental
impairment of EF. As stated before, theorists have divergent understandings of the nature of EFs
and how they should be assessed. Brown discovered EF impairs ADHD because clusters of
symptoms appear together. Brown’s model includes six categories of EF involving a cluster of
functions or actions known as activation (organizing, prioritizing, and activating work), focus
(focusing on sustaining and shifting attention on tasks), effort (regulating alertness, sustaining
effort, and processing speed), emotion (managing frustration and regulating emotions), energy
(utilizing working memory and accessing recall), and action (monitoring and self-regulating
action). Brown noted ADHD is a problem with the chemistry of the brain’s executive
23

management system. Individuals with ADHD tend to suffer multiple impairments within these
clusters, leading to procrastination, slow processing and response time, difficulty remembering
facts or learning, impulsivity, poor social judgement, difficulty transitioning, losing things, being
easily sidetracked, and difficulty in problem-solving.
McCloskey’s Model
McCloskey et al., (2009) and colleagues devised a hierarchical model of five tiers that
work together to produce higher-order cognition and behavior. Each component of the model
represents the interconnectedness of EF, and students move between tiers as they progress
through development. Executive functions begin with self-activation, self-regulation, self-control
(self-realization and self-determination), self-generation, and trans-self-integration. Within self-
regulation are four domains: emotion, perception, action, and cognition. These domains work
together through the engagement of sensory information to produce 23 specific self-regulation
behaviors that interact with each other.
Dawson and Guare’s Model
Dawson and Guare (2009) have developed a model that includes 11 skills: response
inhibition, working memory, emotional control, sustained attention, task initiation,
planning/prioritization, organization, time management, goal-directed persistence, flexibility, and
metacognition. The skills are organized into thinking skills (cognition) and doing skills
(behavior). Executive function skills can be organized developmentally and functionally to help
students think differently or behave differently. Executive function skills involving cognition are
working memory, planning/prioritization, organization, time management, and metacognition.
Those that involve behavior are response inhibition, emotional control, sustained attention, task
initiation, goal-directed persistence, and metacognition. Determining whether the student needs
24

help in thinking or doing skills helps direct goals and interventions for the specific EF skill.
Setting expectations that match the appropriate developmental age of the child, as opposed to
chronological age, results in meeting the child at their level of support. The literature presents
several EF frameworks, but Dawson and Guare’s model is the most comprehensive and
applicable to educators.
Foundational Executive Function
Researchers often disagree on the underlying constructs of EF for being varied,
numerous, and a lack of validity. Some researchers consider the foundations of EF are response
inhibition, working memory, and set shifting (Serpell & Esposito, 2016), while others note EF
consists of updating, shifting, and inhibition (Baddeley, 1986; Barkley 2011; Best & Miller,
2010; Miyake & Friedman, 2012; van der Ven et al., 2013). The three most frequently studied
components in education are working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility (Diamond,
2013; Greenberg et al., 2007; NSCDC, 2020; Rothbart et al., 2006). These skills begin to develop
during infancy and predict school readiness in academic and social-emotional domains (Goble et
al., 2019).
Working memory is the ability to hold and manipulate information without external aids
or signals for short periods (Alloway et al., 2006; Best & Miller, 2010; NSCDC, 2020). Working
memory is critical to bringing conceptual knowledge and perceptual input together and applying
it at a later time (Diamond, 2013). Inhibitory control involves controlling one’s attention,
behavior, thoughts, and emotions while suppressing attention to other stimuli (NSCDC, 2020).
Students can choose to ignore particular stimuli and attend to others based on a goal or intention
(Diamond, 2013). Tasks that require working memory or inhibition likely place demands on both
types of processes, making it difficult to measure one or the other. Lastly, cognitive flexibility
25

requires both working memory and inhibition to change approaches to a problem and flexibly
adjust to new demands, perspectives, or priorities (Diamond, 2013). All three functions work
together to produce competent executive functioning (NSCDC, 2020).
Executive Functions Impact on Academic Subjects
Students’ skills, attitudes, and behaviors contributing to academic competence fall into
one of two domains: academic skills or academic enablers (DiPerna & Elliott, 2002). DiPerna
and Elliot (2002) found that academic skill domains include language-based skills (reading and
writing), mathematics, and critical thinking, while enablers include interpersonal skills,
motivation, study skills, and engagement. Students in elementary school with deficits in EF may
experience academic difficulties as classroom tasks become more cognitively demanding
(Banich, 2009). Students with working memory deficits may have difficulty comprehending text,
following multi-step instructions, or effectively using strategies to solve mathematics or science
problems (Bull & Scerif, 2001). Cognitive flexibility deficits are thought to reduce children’s
ability to shift their attention across learning tasks (Morgan et al., 2018). Inhibitory control
deficits are believed to interfere with students’ ability to ignore or disregard irrelevant
information, control impulses, or disruptive behaviors (Berry, 2012). School achievement data is
often focused on quantitative outcomes such as standardized test scores and grades often falling
on the teacher’s ability to deliver and manage subject content. EF skills are not specific to an
academic subject, rather how the brain thinks, manages emotions, and relates to others is as
equally as influential as academic performance and quantitative outcomes (Brain Futures, 2019).
Reading
Deficits in working memory contribute to deficits in word recognition and reading
comprehension. Approximately 80% of people with a learning disability have dyslexia (difficulty
26

with reading words), which affects 10% to 12% of the population (Parkosadze et al., 2019).
Weaknesses with dyslexia result in the phonologic component of language making it difficult to
decode written words (Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014). Neural deficits related to dyslexia weaken
visual attention, affecting visual information processing, word analysis, and attention
(Parkosadze et al., 2019).
In upper elementary grades, students transition from learning to read to reading to learn.
Reading comprehension is a cognitive process that draws on extracting and constructing meaning
through interaction and involvement in written language (Snow, 2002), relying on two
dimensions of EF: inhibitory control and attention shifting (Kieffer et al., 2013). While most
studies have focused on weak working memory storage aiding in comprehension difficulties,
Kieffer and colleagues found inhibitory control and attention shifting made significant
contributions to word reading, language comprehension, processing speed, and phonological
awareness. They found readers needed to make accurate inferences, synthesize information,
suppress irrelevant information, and inhibit inappropriate inferences. Barkley (2011) proposed
the primary weaknesses in inhibitory control lead to secondary difficulties in executive processes
of internalized speech. Attention shifting (flexibly and efficiently moving from an old cognitive
set to a new one) becomes evident when shifting attention between actions such as rereading,
skimming, and searching for information.
Writing
This area has received less focus in the research; however, EF plays a smaller role in
younger grades and increases in working memory and skill shifting as the demands of writing
increase with age. Developmentally, writing tasks are different as children progress in
elementary school. The developmental model of writing includes transcription skills, oral
27

language skills, and EF (Berninger & Winn, 2006; Drijbooms et al., 2016), all within the
working memory capacity. If students lack transcription skills (handwriting fluency and word
spelling), they are constrained in content generation and writing fluency (Drijbooms et al., 2016).
Executive function may refer to cognitive processes of planning, translating, reviewing, and
revising that manage self-regulation of the writing process, or from low-level EF (inhibition,
updating, shifting) that scaffold to high-level EF (reasoning, problem-solving, planning)
(Berninger & Richards, 2002; Drijbooms et al., 2016). Furthermore, research shows that oral
grammar and inhibition and planning were longitudinally related to syntactic complexity of
writers in a study of fourth graders (Drijbooms et al., 2016).
Mathematics
Student's ability to use their inhibition and working memory skills is a strong predictor of
mathematics abilities (Bull & Scerif, 2001; Cantin et al., 2016; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole,
2006), especially during the preschool years (Welsh et al., 2010). “Mathematics is inherently
effortful and makes explicit demands on EF abilities” (Blair & Razza, 2007, p. 659). The
problem-solving process requires children to represent information in working memory, shift
attention appropriately between problem elements, and inhibit a tendency to respond impulsively
(Blair & Razza, 2007; Cantin et al., 2016). Visual-spatial skills (using one’s eyes for learning
how visual patterns are seen and used) and visual-spatial working memory (visual representation
of patterns, images, and sequences) are related to children’s early counting ability and
mathematics ability (Bull et al., 2008; Fuchs et al., 2006). Research shows that children with
poor inhibition (Bull & Scerif, 2001) and working memory (Alloway et al., 2009; Bull & Scerif,
2001) demonstrate lower mathematics ability.
28

Executive Function Difficulties
Executive function skills are malleable, meaning they can change over time and are
influenced by both positive and negative experiences. Poor EF skills are linked to stress, poverty,
and disadvantage are associated with worse EF skills (Zelazo et al., 2017). Multiple components
of EF have helped to better define the type of executive impairments related to a variety of
clinical diseases in the clinical domain (Friedman et al., 2008). According to Searle (2013), EFs
are at the foundation of all academic and behavioral issues. Students with EF difficulties do not
want to stand out from their peers; being different from other students in a classroom can lead to
bullying and poor self-esteem (Mugge et al., 2016). Expectations in schools are often that EF
development must be at a specific level for all same-age students (McCloskey et al., 2009).
McCloskey and colleagues stated that negative consequences might be applied if the student is
not performing to the expected standards; however, there are natural variations in the maturation
of brain functions, and students may have natural delays in the development of EF capacities
(McCloskey et al., 2009).
Executive Functions Impact on Social-Emotional Skills
In the last decade, schools around the world have emphasized students’ social-emotional
competence. These abilities are believed to enable children to adapt and integrate their behaviors,
actions, and emotions in order to manage social tasks that are important for their development.
(Riggs et al., 2006; Weissberg et al., 1989). Teachers and other educators are expected to teach
the areas of inhibition of behavioral impulses, regulation of feelings, perceptions of the
perspectives of others, correct identification of problems, and positive solutions (Zins et al.,
2000). According to longitudinal studies of school-aged children, emotional knowledge
modulates correlations between verbal mental age and social competence (Martins et al., 2014;
29

Mostow et al., 2002), underlying a relationship between prosocial behaviors (sharing,
comforting, and helping) can affect social and emotional growth (Hughes & Ensor, 2010).
Successful children understand emotional cues and are more likely to develop appropriate social
skills and prosocial responses when developing interpersonal relationships (de Rosnay et al.,
2008) and set shifting (understanding embedded rules of emotional categories; Martins et al.,
2014).
Executive Functions Impact on Attention
Various authors have argued that ADHD is better viewed in terms of EF deficits than the
traditional method of inattentive, hyperactive, and impulsive symptoms. Given the severity of
impairment experienced by students with ADHD, support is required to accommodate delays and
create self-determination, increase self-confidence, and provide developmentally appropriate
support for students in inhibitory control, behavioral and emotional regulation, and
metacognitive problem-solving flexibility (Barkley, 2020). Teachers are often the first source of
referral for children with ADHD as they provide direct feedback on the treatment progress
(Sciutto et al., 2015). Sciutto and colleagues found teachers’ knowledge and misconceptions of
ADHD play an influential role throughout the help-seeking process. Their cross-national study
found teachers who have more exposure to students with ADHD documented higher levels of
knowledge, and prior training (reading professional articles and attending ADHD training and
workshops) may lead to greater confidence in the consistent implementation of behavior
management or pedagogical strategies (Anderson et al., 2013).
Students with ADHD often experience serious academic difficulties and are around two-
thirds standard deviation below their peers in reading, writing, mathematics, and spelling
(Frazier et al., 2007) due to problems with organization, being prepared, writing down
30

assignments, turning in assignments on time, (Gureasko-Moore et al., 2007) and are inconsistent
and careless in their schoolwork (Hinshaw, 2002). Around 50% of students diagnosed with
ADHD receive special education services under learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, or
other health impaired categories (Schnoes et al., 2006). Executive function deficits are a primary
characteristic of ADHD in current theoretical models (Barkley, 2020; Brown, 2006) and
negatively impact strategic planning, goal setting, and persistence (Johnson & Reid, 2011).
Teachers need to teach EF strategies directly linked to the curriculum, teach systematically and
explicitly, and support scaffolding through the collaborative practice of monitoring performance
towards the progress of goals (Johnson & Reid, 2011).
Executive Functions Impact on Communication
Communication is an important part of a child’s development and involves reading,
writing, speaking, and listening skills. Students with speech-language impairments have varying
EF deficits, such as inhibition, working memory, and emotional control, and display higher
levels of impulsivity, inattention, and processing of auditory information. Students with ASD
generally have weaknesses in social communication and receive speech and language therapy. A
recent study conducted by Iarocci et al. (2017) found evidence that exposure to a second
language is not associated with an adverse impact on the communication and cognitive skills of
children with ASD. Functional communication and EFs are usually impaired in children with
ASD; therefore, merely exposing children to a second language would not impact difficulties but
possibly reduce weaknesses compared to children with ASD who were not exposed to a second
language (Iarocci et al., 2017). Other investigations of adaptive skills (performing daily activities
for personal and social sufficiency) in children with ASD have found consistent, differential
impairments, particularly in socialization (Gilotty et al., 2002). Gilotty et al., (2002) and
31

researchers found task initiation was under-emphasized in EF studies and its relationship to
adaptive behavior. Similarly, Torrington Eaton and Ratner (2016) found working memory was
imperative for speech sound and phonological development to allow one form of speech sound
categories to further develop. Working memory aids in storage capacity and the ability to
mentally manipulate sounds in isolation from adults’ speech targets (Torrington Eaton & Ratner,
2016). The importance of communication is essential for students with ASD and speech-related
weaknesses who have difficulty with EF deficits.
Executive Functions Impact on Behavior
Externalizing behavior problems, such as aggression, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and
inattention in childhood, can have a detrimental impact on children’s development and success
(Goble et al., 2019). Researchers consistently find that teacher-child relationships are an
important factor for children with externalizing behavior problems, and the role of the teacher
aids in the development of EF skills (Berry, 2012; De Wilde et al., 2015; Goble et al., 2019;
McKinnon & Blair, 2019). Theories of effective teaching in early childhood suggest teachers
should provide responsive interactions to promote the development of EF skills through
emotional, organizational, and instructional supports. (Downer et al., 2010).
Graziano et al. (2015) found teachers may have a positive relationship with a child who
struggles behaviorally and academically but may need more support and resources to establish
high expectations for the child’s EF skills. Furthermore, McGrath and Van Bergen (2019) found
evidence that teachers’ emotional competence may facilitate close relationships with disruptive
students by teaching perspective-taking, empathy, and emotion regulation. Emotion regulation is
important given that teachers’ emotions and instructional behavior strongly influence students’
emotions (Becker et al., 2014). Teacher education programs should focus on proactive and
32

reactive classroom management strategies and understanding teachers’ emotional competence for
effective classroom management (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2019), which will increase students’
EF skills.
Assessments
Advanced research in psychology has contributed to specific batteries to identifying brain
dysfunction (Miller, 2013). Current neuropsychological assessment and developmental trends
can assess the relationship between cognitive strengths and weaknesses in students (Hunter &
Sparrow, 2012; Miller, 2013). Per Toplak et al. (2012),
In contrast to traditional performance-based EF tasks, in which children solve problems
in highly structured settings where the demands are clear and distractions are limited,
behavior ratings of EF assess how children are able to interpret competing information
that is relevant and distracting, and flexibly shift from one activity to the next across
different contexts within their everyday activities. (p. 138)
Most EF tests were originally developed to assess adults with schizophrenia and brain
damage (Barkley & Fischer, 2011). Assessments have been validated in adult populations and
extended to include children of younger ages (Anderson, 2002). To assess EF, a test needs to be
novel, complex, and involve the integration of information across contexts and age ranges;
however, what may be complex for one person may be simple or routine for another (McCloskey
et al., 2009).
Executive function affects academic progress and adaptive functioning and should
include family and school interviews as well as qualitative observation (Anderson, 2002).
Individual tasks commonly used to measure EF are the Wisconsin Cord Sorting Task, the Stroop
Color and Word Test, go/no-go tasks, tower tasks, trail-making tests, and clock drawings (Toplak
33

et al., 2012). Behavioral inventories include the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive
Function (Gioia et al., 2010); D-KES (Delis et al., 2001), Behavioral Assessment of the
Dysexutive Syndrome-Dysexutive Questionnaire (Toplak et al., 2012), and the Brown Attention-
Deficit Disorder Scales (Brown, 2011). Performance-based and rating measures of EF assess
different aspects of EF and capture different cognitive levels of analysis with different types of
information in the context of clinical assessment (Toplak et al., 2012).
Interventions
Executive function skills can be enhanced and can improve at any age with many
different approaches, tools, strategies, and interventions with support from parents and educators.
Repeated practice is key and improves EF. Many researchers have found success in increasing
EF through computerized training programs, treatments outside the school setting, strategy
instruction, curriculum, mindfulness, physical activities, and games to increase inhibition,
working memory, and planning (Otero et al., 2014). Traditional martial arts emphasize self-
control, inhibitory control, and character development. Diamond and Lee (2011) found greater
gains in tae-kwon-do training than in regular physical education classes, and students’ EFs
improved in perseverance. Foundations of Learning and Responsive Classroom (social-
emotional learning) promote positive classroom behavior in elementary settings (Brock et al.,
2017).
Very few empirical studies examined teacher perceptions of EF, their motivation to teach
EF, and organizational enactments to help students learn these life skills. Education focuses on
measurable behavioral outcomes with little attention to processes (Corcoran & O’Flaherty,
2017). Relatively little research in teacher education currently addresses EF. What research exists
tends to focus on describing the teacher’s experience rather than looking at the skills teachers
34

need to use those experiences (Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017). Corcoran and O’Flaherty revealed
that researchers know very little about the skill levels of veteran teachers, beginning teachers, or
EF trajectories during teacher preparation. One of the primary reasons teachers burn out from the
profession is behavior management (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2019); therefore, learning and
teaching EF is monumental for new and experienced teachers.
Conceptual Framework
This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, which diagnoses the human
causes behind performance gaps in organizations and identifies potential gaps between current
performance and performance goals, providing leaders the information necessary to create
targeted solutions to increase performance. The factors impacting stakeholder performance can
be grouped into three categories: knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences.
The knowledge that a stakeholder requires to achieve a performance goal can be attributed to one
of four knowledge types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). Motivation consists of three components: active choice, persistence, and mental
effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Lastly, organizational influences, such as material
resources, work-related processes, and culture, can impact stakeholders’ performance. The KMO
gap analysis examined potential influences on the problem of practice and connected questions
to the conceptual framework.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was used to analyze the KMO influences on
elementary teachers as they provide classroom instruction and interventions to all students who
may need support in EF weaknesses. The first section of this literature review addresses the
knowledge and skills necessary for this stakeholder group to meet its goal. Section two reviews
the assumed motivational influences on elementary teachers’ practice. The final section explores
35

organizational influences on the stakeholder group achieving their goal. This study looks at the
perceived KMO implications of integrating EF into the curriculum from elementary school
teachers’ perspectives. The effect of the assumed KMO influences on elementary teachers
providing direct instruction of EF skills was investigated through the methodology discussed in
Chapter Three.
Figure 1 represents this study’s conceptual framework. The figure illustrates several
KMO influences that impact teachers’ ability to teach EF in conjunction with the core
curriculum. Bidirectional arrows illustrate how these influences interact to support this goal. In
this concept map, the outcome is for students to have academic, behavioral, and social growth
and success as teachers directly impact their learning.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

36

Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The literature review on teaching EF skills to all students revealed that educators must
have sustained KMO support to embrace students’ foundational skills for learning and
adaptations across various contexts. As mentioned before, EF is essential to school readiness and
early school achievement (Blair, 2002; Blair & Raver, 2015). In 2013, the Obama
Administration began the BRAIN Initiative, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
focused on brain health, brain development, and EF research. Since then, universities, including
Harvard and Johns Hopkins, have launched programs focusing on how neuroscience affects
educational practices (Cartwright, 2015). Wolfe (2010) explained, “The more we understand the
brain, the better we’ll be able to design instruction to match how it learns best” (p. 49).
Additionally, Willis (2011) shared that teachers who understand how the brain turns input into
long-term memory and memory into transferable knowledge will be better equipped to help all
students learn and achieve their fullest potential. Understanding how educators’ knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences support their knowledge and pedagogy is integral to
reaching the stakeholder’s performance goals. The next section explores and discusses the
assumed KMO influences and the implications for EF on student learning and achievement.
Knowledge and Skills
Mayer (2011) posited that learning is a change in knowledge attributable to three main
parts: (a) learning involves a change in the learner, (b) what is changed is the learner’s
knowledge, and (c) the cause of the change is the learner’s experience. From a cognitive view,
knowledge is inferred from behavior and changes the learner’s performance. Mayer (2011)
argued that “learning always involves change, is long-lasting, and can be observed through facts,
procedures, concepts, strategies, and beliefs” (p. 14). The author added that conceptual
37

knowledge focuses on categories, schemas, models, or principles. Procedural knowledge is
backed by the knowledge of how to do something. Lastly, metacognitive knowledge can be
defined by the awareness of one’s cognitive processes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Rueda,
2011). This section reviews the literature relevant to the knowledge- and skill-related influences
that may explain the gaps in educators’ understanding of implementing EF skills and strategies
into daily pedagogical practice.
Declarative Factual Knowledge Influences
According to Rueda (2011), knowledge is the goal of learning combined with cognitive
processes of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) noted four specific knowledge types: factual, procedural,
conceptual, and metacognitive, that shape learning. Factual or declarative knowledge refers to
the discrete, concrete knowledge within a discipline, while conceptual knowledge is about
complex things working together or organized forms of knowledge. “Education researchers and
practitioners assert that explicit, systematic integration of executive function—more broadly
social and emotional learning (SEL)—in teacher education programs is at the forefront of efforts
to revitalize teacher education” (Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017, p. 168). The current focus in
schools is on teacher quality and standardized test scores, which marginalizes SEL in most
teacher education programs (Bridgeland et al., 2013; Fleming & Bay, 2004). Education is
moving in the opposite direction with little attention to the processes of how students learn, while
the focus is on what students learn (Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017). When educators are unaware
of their knowledge and skill gaps, they must develop more than declarative knowledge to assess
problems and meet performance objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008).
38

To begin, teachers need to know and understand what EF is. Dawson and Guare (2009)
based EF on 11 skills: response inhibition (think before you act), working memory (holding
information in memory while performing complex tasks), emotional control (manage emotions
to achieve goals), sustained attention (paying attention in spite of distractibility, fatigue, or
boredom), task initiation (begin projects without procrastination in a timely manner),
planning/prioritization (reach a goal or complete a task in order to make decisions on what is
important and what is unimportant) , organization (maintain systems to keep track of information
or materials), time management (estimate time, how to allocate it, how to stay within deadlines),
goal-directed persistence (have a goal, follow through to the completion of the goal and resist
distractions or competing interests), flexibility (revise plans despite obstacles, setbacks, new
information or mistakes), and metacognition (bird’s eye view of yourself in a situation including
self-monitoring and self-evaluating). These skills can be organized into two categories:
developmentally (the order in which they develop in students) and functionally (what they help
the child to do). Teachers at all grade levels identified response inhibition as a skill lacking in
many of their learners (Dawson & Guare, 2009). Therefore, educators need to know how to teach
students to pause, reflect, and suppress an automatic inappropriate response. Teachers can model
and guide students through their thought processes and use positive reinforcement when the skill
is utilized.
The 11 skills can be divided into two dimensions of executive skills involving thinking
and doing. Thinking skills involve cognition processes linked to working memory,
planning/prioritization, organization, time management, and metacognition. Executive skills
requiring doing or behavior consist of response inhibition, emotional control, sustained attention,
task initiation, goal-directed persistence, and flexibility. Thinking skills embrace selecting and
39

achieving a goal to develop solutions to problems using resources to help guide the student.
Behaviors guide students’ actions that help students develop EF through repetition and practice
(Dawson & Guare, 2009).
Several principles must be considered when seeking to improve students’ EF
development (Diamond & Lee, 2011; Walk et al., 2018). To notice progress, EFs must be
challenged regularly. Individualized curricula and programs are essential for providing each
student with an appropriate challenge. If the training program for EFs is more general, there is a
better chance of getting students to generalize or transfer knowledge cognitively, socially, and
behaviorally through their abilities. Programs, such as a fully integrated curriculum, should
address many EF components and self-regulatory abilities. Repetition of EF weaknesses is
critical for improvement and should be practiced and addressed throughout the day. Teachers
need basic knowledge, further education, and professional support in promoting students' EFs.
Understanding a learner’s emotional and social development should incorporate activities that
bring joy and build confidence. Interventions, strategies, and skills should be taught as early as
possible, as development and rapid improvement start in the preschool years (Diamond & Lee,
2011; Walk et al., 2018).
The ability to understand and oversee cognitive processes is one of the essential
competencies of a teacher (Anderson, 2002). Teachers must be knowledgeable about varied
strategies and be explicit about teaching them to develop students’ EF (Corcoran & O’Flaherty,
2017; Meltzer, 2010; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019; Zelazo et al., 2017). Teachers have a role in
students becoming lifelong learners; therefore, it is incumbent on teacher preparation programs
to include content on EF processes to better prepare teachers with the knowledge of cognitive
processing and regulation (Baker, 2008; Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017).
40

Procedural Knowledge Influences
Procedural knowledge is thought to be required for an individual to know how to do
something, which refers to the methods of inquiry, very specific or finite skills, techniques, and
methodologies required to accomplish specific tasks (Rueda, 2011). Recent research indicates EF
skills can be modified by experience, experience-based improvements are transferable to
academic domains (mathematics and reading), and these changes occur in classrooms under
training (Baggetta & Alexander, 2016; Diamond et al., 2007; Holmes et al., 2009; Röthlisberger
et al., 2011; Zelazo et al., 2017). Holmes et al. (2009) examined improvements in working
memory ability that can be enhanced using adaptive computerized training tasks administered in
school for 35 minutes a day over 5 to 7 weeks and were sustained over 6 months in mathematical
reasoning. Barker et al. (2014) studied 70 6- and 7-year-olds’ ability to relate self-directed
executive functioning to their goal-directed actions and found students who spent time in less-
structured activities where they had opportunities to practice self-directed executive functioning
led to self-directed control. These results imply that teachers should offer support for structured
activities and give more time to students on less-structured activities with additional time to carry
out goal-directed actions for students to use internal cues and reminders independently.
Transference of skills from guided practice to independent practice helps with self-directed
executive functioning (Barker et al., 2014; Dawson & Guare, 2018; Meltzer, 2010; Strosnider &
Sharpe, 2019)
Teachers should know how to create a culture of strategy use in the classroom to help
students learn a broad range of strategies and systems. The Research Institute for Learning and
Development recommends teachers use direct and explicit explanations of key concepts, and
vocabulary should be provided so students can access information. They should model the steps
41

involved in learning specific strategies. They can use think-alouds to show students how to think
about or approach a problem. They should break down information into manageable chunks or
steps. They should discuss background information to scaffold new concepts for all students to
have the same level of understanding. The goal of a strategy used should be clear to both the
teacher and the students (teachers should teach memory strategies and test-taking strategies).
Teachers should assess whether the goals are being met regularly (track the number of times
students use a strategy in class). Teachers should assess whether students are using strategies
regularly and effectively.
Executive Function Strengths and Weaknesses. Teachers need to assess students’
strengths and weaknesses in their EF repertoire, teach specific skills, and progress monitor
strategies based on student performance. Teachers should utilize various tools to assess students’
EF strengths and weaknesses using formal assessments and informal rating scales (Dawson &
Guare, 2018). Questionnaires may be preferable if the primary presenting problem is a student’s
poor planning or organizing skills in general, but performance-based assessments may be
preferable if the primary presenting problem is deficiencies in working memory or other
specialized EF skills (Zelazo et al., 2017). Teachers should differentiate instruction to match
instruction to all student’s needs and levels of understanding, including modifying the process of
instruction or other aspects of the learning environment (Zelazo et al., 2017). “Students who
receive differentiated or individualized instruction show greater rates of academic improvement
through the use of smaller, flexible learning groups rather than whole-class instruction” (Connor
et al., 2011, p.193). Teachers can use EF assessments with typically developing children as an
index of healthy neurocognitive development and a predictor of social and academic success to
identify EF strengths and weaknesses in learners (Zelazo et al., 2017).
42

Once the EF weakness has been identified, Dawson and Guare (2018) examined three
ways teachers can manage executive skills: modifying the environment, teaching the skill, and
using incentives. The authors suggest teachers modify the environment by explicitly changing
the physical or social environment, modifying tasks, and providing cues (verbal, visual, or
physical) to the student. Furthermore, teaching the skill involves defining the problem behaviors,
setting a goal, establishing a procedure to achieve the goal, supervising the learner following the
procedure, and evaluating or modifying the procedure if necessary. Moreover, using incentives
includes “grandma’s law” (working before playing), giving specific praise, and offering a menu
of rewards to the student (Dawson & Guare, 2018, p. 121).
Teachers should teach EF processes embedded in reading, writing, mathematics, and all
content areas. To help students with memory strategies for mathematic computation and
reasoning, Meltzer (2010) contends that rhymes, visual representations, visual-kinesthetic
strategies, and crazy phrases help students with mathematic fact fluency. For formulas and
procedures, strategies include songs, stories, acronyms, and strategy notebooks. When working
with word problems, teachers should teach students to underline direction words, number the
steps in the problem, and underline the question. Acronyms such as CUPS, KNOW, or RAPS
help students recall key steps to solve word problems (Meltzer, 2010).
Progress Monitoring Strategies and Interventions. Critical to the implementation of
Response to Intervention or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is teacher knowledge of
key features of the framework, including the differences between interventions at each tier,
universal screenings (types of assessments used and when they are administered), and the nature
of how to teach the 11 sub-skills within the EF. Students’ EF relates to the quality of
relationships between students and teachers, which means that students’ externalizing behavior
43

problems, verbal intelligence, and academic achievement are associated with the quality of
teacher and student relationships (McKinnon & Blair, 2018). A 48-month study sample examined
the relationship quality of teachers from kindergarten to second grade with low socioeconomic
status and found evidence that children had less conflict and were closer to their teacher than
children who did not receive support.
Dawson and Guare (2018) recommended linking executive skills using the MTSS
framework by providing interventions and strategies at the universal level or during whole-class
instruction, targeted level with small groups, and intensive level with 1:1 support. The authors
suggested determining the behavior of concern and noting the responsibility of the school, coach,
teacher, parents, and student, known as the problem-solving team. The problem-solving team is
responsible for designing and implementing an intervention, and strategies include the behavior
goal, exact nature of the intervention, time for intervention implementation, the criterion for
success, and the measurement procedure (Dawson & Guare, 2018).
Psychologists and educators have incorporated self-talk as an intervention for academic
and social problems designed to improve self-regulation and self-management for students to
monitor their weaknesses (Dawson & Guare, 2018). Ylvisaker and Feeney (2008) developed five
basic steps for students to label with goal, obstacle, plan, do and review. Step 1 includes naming
the goal to accomplish and knowing what it will look like when it is completed. Step 2 includes
explaining why the goal might be difficult. Step 3 includes the steps to solve the problem. Step 4
is following the plan. The last step reviews the problem, noting what could improve the plan.
Metacognitive Knowledge
According to Wilson and Conyers (2016), metacognition refers to knowledge about and
regulation of one’s thinking by taking a step back and observing one’s thinking is often called a
44

reflective process. The authors emphasize the “language of learning,” referring to metacognition
and cognitive assets to think about their thinking and the skill of being able to think with the goal
of improving learning and taking advantage of brain plasticity (Wilson & Conyers, 2016, p. 23).
Improving teacher learning includes both cognitive and metacognitive strategies that involve
understanding why, how, when, and where, reflecting on one’s teaching approach and outcomes
of classroom practice (Dawson & Guare, 2018; Meltzer, 2010; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019;
Wilson & Conyers, 2016). This type of knowledge centers around self-awareness, and educators
need to be critically self-reflective of how their knowledge, biases, assumptions, beliefs, values,
and experiences contribute to strengths and areas for improvement.
Critical self-reflection is foundational to developing metacognitive processes that
influence teachers' biases, assumptions, experiences, and beliefs of how this shapes their
worldview. “Teachers who lack strong socio-emotional skills may be less competent at managing
emotions in challenging situations” (Neuenschwander et al., 2017, p. 881). Neuenschwander and
colleagues found that teachers may also be less effective at managing their classrooms, which
decreases classroom climate and leads to emotional fatigue. Teachers need to critically be self-
aware and examine how their social and emotional competence affects their perception of their
job-related stress and students’ EF weaknesses. Researchers studied 171 classrooms among 33
teachers in 14 different schools and found that teacher stress was linearly related to the change in
students’ EF from fall to spring, especially in interactions with students at low-poverty schools.
Students attending low-poverty schools demonstrated larger gains in EF when their teachers
reported lower stress levels. However, the opposite was true with low teacher stress at high-
poverty schools. Neither teacher depression, education, nor experience significantly correlated
with students’ EF (Neuenschwander et al., 2017).
45

Educators can create a learning profile for each student’s strengths and challenges by
including input from the teacher, student, and parents or guardians (Dawson & Guare, 2009,
2018; Meltzer, 2010; Vasquez and Marino, 2021). This strategy allows teachers to use all voices
before visualizing the instruction and assessment barriers to proactively address EF skills.
Vasquez and Marino (2021) found that analyzing barriers before initiating instruction is crucial
to gathering baseline data to inform future instructional practices. They consider potential
barriers, and the physical, social and emotional, cultural, and cognitive domains must be
examined first. Educators should proactively scaffold the learning process once barriers are
identified to maximize students’ abilities using a gradual release model of most support to
independence. Teachers should give the most support to students with significant EF weaknesses
by providing explicit structure, modeling, and progress monitoring with immediate corrective
feedback using explicit instruction during the inquiry process using Socratic questioning, EF
prompts, and think-aloud strategies to apply with individual or group work, assessment, or
demonstration of the skills. Vasquez and Marino (2021) and Dawson and Guare (2018) found a
three-level model of teacher-directed, student supported, and student directing consistent with EF
coaching. An EF coach can build a relationship on mutual respect and a growth mindset using
think-aloud protocols visible to students by asking the following four questions: What learning
goal am I trying to accomplish? What resources do I need to accomplish the goal? What do I
know about this topic? What strategies have I used in the past or do I need to be successful?
Educators should self-reflect on their EF pedagogy and evidence-based strategies that
enhance learning for all students. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework is a set
of guidelines for creating and implementing effective instructional strategies that give all
students an equal opportunity to succeed by proactively circumventing barriers to learning
46

(Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019; Vasquez & Marino, 2021). See Appendix A for further details. Three
principles guide UDL: (a) multiple means of engagement (motivate, sustain attention, build
choice, which includes the why of learning); (b) multiple means of representation (multiple
formats including hands-on activities, audio, or visual stimuli, which includes the what of
learning); and (c) multiple means of action and expression (multiple means of showing what
students know, which includes the how of learning; CAST, 2018; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019).
Within the three principles are four interconnected components: goals, methods,
materials, and assessments. These components help teachers create expert learners who can
assess their learning needs, monitor their progress, and regulate their interest, effort, and
persistence (CAST, 2018; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). There has been a paradigm shift in
instructional delivery as the traditional one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and learning has
succeeded with UDL guidelines and considerations (Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). Educators
should review UDL guidelines and checkpoints that further explain each tenet to learn to be more
accessible to all students through flexible learning engagements (CAST, 2018). Table 2 presents
the summary of assumed knowledge influences.

47

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on an Elementary Teacher’s Ability to Learn
Executive Function, Tools, and Strategies
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Declarative factual
Teachers will know and understand what
EF is.
Bridgeland et al., 2013; Corcoran & O’Flaherty,
2017; Fleming & Bay, 2004Keenan et al.,
2020; Meltzer, 2010; Walk et al., 2018;
Dawson & Guare, 2009, 2018
Procedural
Teachers will explain how to identify
students’ EF areas of strengths and
weaknesses.
Connor et al., 2011; Dawson & Guare, 2009,
2018; Meltzer, 2010; Röthlisberger et al.,
2011; Zelazo et al., 2017
Teachers will be able to target EF
weaknesses and teach specific skills and
strategies to students.
Dawson & Guare, 2009, 2012, 2018; Meltzer,
2010
Teachers will be able to monitor the
progress of EF interventions and adjust
teaching strategies according to students’
needs.
Dawson & Guare, 2009, 2012, 2018; Meltzer,
2010; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019
Metacognitive
Teachers will be able to self-reflect on the
effectiveness of strategies and
interventions to plan next steps.
Dawson & Guare, 2018; Meltzer, 2010;
Neuenschwander et al., 2017; Strosnider &
Sharpe, 2019; Wilson & Conyers, 2016
Teachers will be able to self-reflect on the
effectiveness of the physical and social
environment settings that reduce
distractions and stress related to EF.
CAST, 2018; Dawson & Guare, 2018;
Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019; Vasquez &
Marino, 2021

48

The following section provides details on motivational influences for this study.
Motivation
Motivation is influenced by both internal (beliefs and perceptions) and external factors
(environmental and sociocultural) that inspire the activation and continuation of goal-directed
behavior (Rueda, 2011; Schunk, 2020). To accomplish something, one must be motivated
(Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) described motivation as inherently cultural and is developed from
the beliefs of others through interaction in a variety of social settings through a social cognitive
perspective, which describes how perceptions of themselves and others impact their environment
(Bandura, 1986). Clark and Estes (2008) argued that motivation results from our experiences and
beliefs about ourselves, our coworkers, and our likelihood of being effective. The authors noted
motivation as a root motive influencing all human behavior, a desire to be effective in our lives.
It is imperative to note that knowing how to do something does not mean a person will
want to do it or be willing to do it (Rueda, 2011). Motivational issues impact teachers. Schunk et
al. (2009) added three common indicators related to motivational factors: active choice,
persistence, and effort. Active choice is defined as choosing one activity over another, while
persistence refers to the commitment to pursue an activity over time in the face of distraction.
Effort applies to the mental work needed to generate new learning and knowledge. These three
factors can enhance or impede an educator's ability to learn and implement EF strategies. There
are several dimensions of motivation, and this research examined self-efficacy.
Rueda (2011) stipulated that performance goals incorporate characteristics like relative
ability, ego-involved ability, ability-focused, and extrinsic motivation. Within the realm of EF,
Sosic-Vasic (2015) linked teachers’ positive autonomy-supportive teaching or controlling
behavior with their students’ motivation style. Executive function tasks require students to react
49

to errors when they occur, minimizing future errors when students learn from their mistakes
(Sosic-Vasic et al., 2015). Furthermore, autonomously acting teachers are less defensive and
ego-protective, which leads them to openly acknowledge criticism and personal shortcomings.
Autonomy and motivation are interconnected; therefore, intrinsic motivation increases attention
in performance monitoring during EF tasks and improves the reaction to one’s errors. External
regulation is associated with decreased attention and error receptivity, resulting in higher error
rates (Sosic-Vasic et al., 2015).
Value
In the literature on motivation, task value refers to the importance one attaches to a task
and considers four important dimensions: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost
value (Rueda, 2011; Schunk, 2020). According to Schunk (2020), attainment value is the
importance of doing well on the task, dependent on self-worth to fulfill achievement, and
intrinsic value is the satisfaction one receives from a task. Utility value is how useful one
believes a task is for achieving a future goal, and cost value is the perceived negative aspect of
engaging in the task. The higher an individual values an activity, the more likely they will
persist, choose and engage in it. According to Rapoport et al. (2016), there is no certainty that the
teaching practices reported align with actual classroom practices. Respondents tended to respond
desirably, which is “the tendency of people to present a favorable image of themselves on
questionnaires” (Van de Mortel, 2008, p. 41). In particular, teachers reported that addressing EF
in reading and arithmetic classes would be “the right thing to do,” which may align their beliefs
about the contribution of EF and their teaching practices with EF (Rapoport et al., 2016, p. 10).
When teachers explicitly teach students how and why it is important to set learning goals,
research shows that academic performance gains range from 16% to 41% (Marzano, 2007).
50

Setting specific and challenging goals furthers learning by providing students with benchmarks
to measure their progress and motivate them to exert the effort to accomplish their goals by
learning their cognitive assets (Wilson & Conyers, 2016). To introduce cognitive assets of clear
systemic planning, Wilson and Conyers (2016) suggested teachers emphasize the first step to
achieving important goals, define clear intent, achieve big goals using small steps, introduce the
five-step process, give students a choice in learning, model clear intent, and planning and check
in on plan development and a schedule. Dawson and Guare (2009) further explained that
teachers should create routines and schedules so that students know ahead of time what will
happen and when, build in choice to give the student some control, practice difficult steps that
increase demand gradually, and use negotiation to help students with learning a new skill.
Effective strategies for students with ADHD are directly and explicitly teaching the steps in the
strategy, providing students with information on the value of the strategy, and continuing until
the student has mastered the strategy and can use it independently (Brown, 2006; Johnson &
Reid, 2011).
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (2000) posited the social cognitive theory to explain the agency individuals have
to shape and create their environments. Bandura described that beliefs the individual holds
regarding their abilities to learn and perform activities are causally connected to the level of
effort and persistence expended on a given activity, expectancies for success, goal attainment,
and the amount of stress felt during difficult situations (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). When
individuals feel self-efficacious, they are more likely to choose a challenging task, expend the
mental effort to complete the activity, and engage in self-regulatory strategies in planning for the
next activity (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006; Schunk, 2020).
51

Research has shown associations between self-efficacy and teacher job performance, job
satisfaction, relationships, and student outcomes (Gibbs & Powell, 2012; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). A positive sense of teaching self-efficacy may increase the likelihood that
teachers attribute a student’s learning difficulties to limitations in their own instruction, as
opposed to weaknesses of the student, and thus adjust their teaching, which in turn enhances
student learning (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Guo et al., 2010; La Paro et al., 2019). Guo et al.
(2010) found that notable levels of teacher self-efficacy coupled with higher levels of classroom
emotional support were associated with gains in preschoolers’ vocabulary knowledge over an
academic year. This finding appears to contribute to effective instruction and positive student
outcomes (Guo et al., 2010). Table 3 presents the summary of assumed motivation influences.

52

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Teacher’s Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Value
Teachers need to have intrinsic interests
and personal relevance in
implementing EF tools, strategies,
skills, and interventions.
DiBenedetto, 2016; Rueda, 2011; Schunk et al.,
2009; Schunk & Schunk, 2020; Zrinka Sosic-
Vasic et al., 2015
Self-efficacy
Teachers must believe they are capable
of providing direct instruction of EF
tools, strategies, skills, and
interventions to improve student
achievement.
Bandura, 2000; Elliot et al., 2017; Gibbs &
Powell, 2012; Kennan et al., 2021; LaParo et
al., 2020; Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011; Schunk,
2020; Sosic-Vasic et al., 2015; Tschannen-
Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001
Teachers need to believe they are capable
of learning and teaching EF through
direct instruction.
Elliot et al., 2017; Goddard & Goddard, 2001;
Guo et al., 2010; Kennan et al., 2021; Poulou et
al., 2019; Walk et al., 2018

The next section focuses on organization-related influences specific to achieving the
teachers’ stakeholder goal.
Organization
The final element that impacts performance is the organization, which is separated into
four domains: cultural setting, cultural model, policies and procedures, and resources. Leaders
must consider when reflecting upon the influences of stakeholder performance is that of the
organization itself (Clark & Estes, 2008). All organizations are complex, living, dynamic entities
made up of multiple, interdependent parts tasked with working together to accomplish broader
organizational goals (Rueda, 2011; Thacker et al., 2009). The complex systems and the influence
53

organizations exert over their stakeholders are pervasive. For example, organizational processes
and the availability of resources often inhibit highly motivated stakeholders, who possess top-
notch knowledge and skills from achieving their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Organizations develop their own culture, and this culture acts as a filter moderating the activities
taking place (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Perrow (1973)
claimed definitions evolved further, stipulating that organizations are cooperative systems and
not the products of mechanical engineering, to a foundational definition of organizations as open
systems emphasizing people rather than machines. Therefore, attention to organizational
constructs and promising practices is beneficial for all organizations.
General Theory
This study is steeped in an organizational model that applies the KMO analytic gap
conceptual framework advanced by Clark and Estes (2008). Clark and Estes explored
organizations that need to be goal-driven with performance or work goal systems tied to an
organization’s business goal. Without clear and specific performance goals, people tend to focus
on tasks that advance their careers instead of helping the organization achieve its goals Clark &
Estes, 2008). The researchers also define the performance or work goals as a description of tasks
and objectives which teams and individuals must accomplish based on specific times and criteria
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Schneider et al. (1996) focused on organizations and culture with the offering that culture
is an abstraction, yet the forces created in organizational situations derived from culture are
powerful because they operate outside one’s awareness. To fully understand what goes on inside
an organization, it is important to understand its macro and micro contexts that interplay
subcultures (operator, engineer/design, and executive; Schein, 2004). Schein (2004) explained
54

that the subcultures aligned toward shared organizational goals are operated in one or more
macro cultures, such as ethnic groups and other larger cultural units. The author noted within
organizations, micro-cultures evolve in small groups with common shared tasks and histories
(Schein, 2004).
Culture is a way to describe the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes
learned as people develop over time in families and work environments (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Rueda (2011) argued that culture should not be seen as static or monolithic but as a dynamic
process jointly created and recreated by individuals negotiating in their daily lives. Schein (2004)
claimed that culture implies rituals, climate, values, and behaviors that tie together and intersect
into a coherent whole; this patterning is the essence of culture. Clark and Estes (2008) described
an organizational culture in our conscious and unconscious understanding of who we are, what
we value, and how we do what we do as an organization. They suggest organizational culture is
the most important ‘work process’ in all organizations because this dictates how we work
together to accomplish our job in interactive ways.
Cultural Setting
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) conceptualized culture as composed of discrete units of
analysis named cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural settings are where culture exists
and is created when two or more members of a community come together to accomplish an
activity they value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In various cultural settings, organizational
structures and policies can hinder improved performance and meeting goals even when people
are knowledgeable and motivated to achieve the goals (Rueda, 2011). Bergen and van Veen
(2004) stated that PLCs should create a culture of collective learning and collegial collaboration
in which working, learning, and innovating are the norm.
55

Cultural Models
Within cultural models, researchers refer to the “shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works or out to work” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47).
These models have shared ways of understanding, thinking, and archiving organizational
knowledge and are highly contextualized. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) explained that
cultural models are often invisible and unnoticed by those who hold them and are helpful in
thinking about what is customary and normal in schools and organizations. McCloskey et al.
(2009) emphasized teachers need to be in an organization whose beliefs support EF skills
strategies and interventions. Historically, teachers who attribute student deficits to character
flaws or consciously chosen states of mind such as laziness, lack of motivation, apathy,
irresponsibility, or stubbornness need to understand that these behaviors are rooted in brain
function. Furthermore, changing the brain functions is not likely within the consciously
controlled skill set of the student (Dawson & Guare, 2009; McCloskey et al., 2009). Teachers
need to avoid negative personal attributions and understand the nature of the EF problems should
lead to clear statements indicating behaviors that can be changed through intervention, with the
ultimate goal being changing the behavior from negative to positive (Dawson & Guare, 2009;
McCloskey et al., 2009; Meltzer, 2010)
Each team member needs to believe that the entire team can cooperate and collaborate to
contribute to the common ambition of the organization (Bandura, 2000; Castelijns et al., 2013;
Huijboom et al., 2019). Professional development is more effective when teachers collaborate
and activities are integrated into daily practice (Huijboom et al., 2019). High-quality teaching has
been linked to student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Harris & Sass, 2011), and PLCs
are recognized as improving the quality of teaching and contributing to sustainable progress in
56

student learning (Harris & Sass, 2011; Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). An effective PLC
requires the collaborative efforts of administrators and teams of teachers, and the degree of trust
within the school’s collaborative culture significantly affects PLC effectiveness (Bryk &
Schneider, 2004; Forsyth et al., 2006; Hallam et al., 2015).
Policies, Processes, and Procedures
Policies refer to the rules or standards that organizations operate, while procedures are the
processes that inform members of the organization about how they are to enact the policies
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The policies and practices enacted and interpreted by the individuals in
the organization’s various cultural settings (Rueda, 2011) are aligned with policies and
procedures within the cultural model for organizations to run smoothly and efficiently (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Moreover, the alignment of policies and procedures to OWA’s cultural model
should be investigated to understand its role in the organization’s success.
Educators need time in PLC meetings to collaboratively discuss students’ academic,
behavioral, and social-emotional needs. The MTSS is an equitable framework for improving
students’ learning through differentiated instruction and interventions tailored to students who
are not meeting benchmark standards (Choi et al., 2019; Hall, 2018). Organizations should
include components of MTSS in their cultural setting to enhance the process of prevention,
identification, and intervention through data-driven collaboration (Choi et al., 2019; Sugai &
Horner, 2009) and endorse UDL instructional strategies for learning through differentiated
content, processes, and product (CAST, 2018; Hall, 2018). Organizations should create a culture
of shared vision and professional support with regular meetings, clear action plans, allocation of
staff responsibilities and resources, and ongoing monitoring of overall MTSS and UDL
effectiveness using PLC data (Choi et al., 2019).
57

Resources
The organization supports policies and procedures with time, resources, and tangible
materials to achieve process goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Clark and Estes (2008),
materials must be readily available for people to do their jobs effectively and ensure resources
align with organizational priorities. Since OWA promotes promising practices, it can be assumed
that the necessary resources are readily available to adequately support teachers in providing
quality education.
A key component to any successful MTSS framework is the creation of an individualized
academic or behavioral support plan that is followed by regular progress monitoring (Choi et al.,
2019). Teachers need time within their PLCs to learn about EF for students with learning,
attention, social, and behavioral difficulties and to develop strategies to enhance the learning
environment and instructional methods and materials (Meltzer, 2010). Academic performance
often depends on the knowledge of and willingness to use strategies in the classroom (Dawson &
Guare, 2009; Meltzer, 2010; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019), and teachers need time to learn
strategies that support working memory, task initiation, cognitive flexibility, inhibiting, and
social and emotional supports. Table 4 presents the summary of assumed organization influences.

58

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Cultural settings
Teachers need to be part of an
organization that implements
policies, processes, and
procedures promoting values of
teaching EF embedded in the
core curriculum.
Castelijns et al., 2013; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001;
Rueda, 2011
Cultural models
OWA must provide professional
learning opportunities to
collaborate among elementary
teachers for them to learn EF
skills, strategies, and
interventions.
Bandura, 2000 Bryk & Schneider, 2004; Castelijns et
al., 2013; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Dawson &
Guare, 2009; DuFour, 2004; Forsyth et al., 2006;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Hallam et al., 2015;
Harris & Sass, 2011; Huijboom et al., 2001;
McCloskey et al., 2009; Meltzer, 2010; Rueda,
2011; Stoll et al., 2011; Vescio et al., 2008;
Policies, processes, and procedures
Teachers need to be part of an
organization that provides MTSS
for teachers to learn how to meet
the needs of all learners who
need foundational EF skills.
CAST, 2018; Choi et al., 2019; Hall, 2018; Sugai &
Horner, 2009
Resources
OWA needs to provide teachers
time to learn about EF within
their PLCs.
Choi et al., 2019; Dawson & Guare, 2009; Meltzer,
2010; Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019

This chapter provided a general literature review of scholarly works and seminal research
with a particular focus on integrating EF in the core curriculum to provide teachers with the
59

tools, strategies, and interventions. Sections also addressed the trends followed by Clark and
Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis conceptual framework and its influences on educators’
pedagogical lens.
60

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to evaluate OWA’s performance related to a larger
problem of practice: EF processes are not taught systematically with explicit instruction and are
not a focus in the core curriculum. Students do not receive explicit instruction on how they think
and learn. While a complete study would focus on administrators, teachers, parents, and students,
this study focused on teachers as the primary stakeholder group. This study consisted of
interviews with Grade 5 teachers at OWA. The analysis focused on the teachers’ assets in KMO
resources. As such, the questions that guided the promising practice study are the following:
1. What is the current status of teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources with regard to teaching executive function within the core curriculum?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational influences in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The gap analysis framework was developed by Clark and Estes (2008) to diagnose
performance gaps in an organization and evaluate the effectiveness of the solutions implemented.
After the evaluation, the organization can decide whether it met the organizational goal and can
develop new goals or if it requires a new round of analysis with the same goal if the solution
implementation did not have desired results. Clark and Estes (2008) recommended using the
stakeholder groups of administrators, teachers, parents, and students to help identify potential
barriers and solutions. For this study, I adapted that framework and focused on evaluating
teachers and their teaching practice. Figure 2 maps this process.

61

Figure 2
A Model of the Gap Analysis Framework

Note. From Turning Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions, by R. E. Clark and F. Estes, 2008, Information Age Publishing. Copyright 2008 by
Information Age Publishing.

The gap analysis framework calls for identifying organizations’ performance gaps and
conducting a gap analysis. Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework serves to examine the teachers’
knowledge and skills of implementing EF in the core curriculum, their motivation, and
organizational barriers to achieving the performance goal. It was assumed that the teachers had
enough knowledge and skills to learn EF skills and strategies, had high self-efficacy to
implement EF processes, and were motivated to learn about EF through PD in PLCs. Teachers’
perceptions of EF as an important task and beliefs in themselves as change agents will enhance
student learning and achievement through the organizational goal. It was also assumed that if
62

teachers are treated fairly and respectfully and are recognized for their contributions, they would
be motivated to add EF skills and strategies to the core curriculum. Organizational barriers to
achieving the performance goals can be categorized into policies, processes, procedures, and
resources. Sufficient resources include time, money, and support in leadership, such as valuing
the importance of EF processes in the core curriculum and arranging appropriate PD for teachers
to develop the necessary knowledge and skills that would lead to motivation to achieve the
performance goal.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework helps identify whether all employees have adequate
KMO support to achieve their performance goals. All three critical factors must be in place as
facilitators and aligned for successful goal achievement. The researchers suggest the first step in
the gap analysis is to identify key, measurable goals within the organization. The organizational
goal must be concrete (clear, easily understandable, and measurable), challenging (doable), and
current (short-term daily or weekly goals are more motivating than longer-term monthly or
annual goals). The second step is for stakeholders to determine the current progress toward
meeting the goal. Step 3 is to identify the performance goal, which is the gaps between the
current achievement and the goal. The fourth step is to analyze the performance gap to determine
the KMO causes preventing stakeholders from meeting the performance goal. Step 5 is to
identify appropriate solutions for the KMO gaps. The sixth step is to implement the solutions
developed. Step 7 is to evaluate the effectiveness of those solutions. After the evaluation, the
organization can decide whether the organizational goal was met and new goals can be
developed or if it needs a new round of analysis with the same goal. If the solution
implementation does not have the desired outcome, another analysis is needed to determine how
to meet the performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
63

Assessment of Performance Influences
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis process begins by identifying the root causes of
performance gaps by analyzing the contributing KMO factors. In relation to this evaluation
study, it is important to examine these KMO factors to determine if OWA teachers have the
KMO support to accomplish their performance goal. The information gathered through this
analysis was used to develop an evaluation plan with recommended solutions to narrow the
performance gap.
Knowledge Assessment
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis process includes examining the knowledge and
skills of the people involved in the organization towards the desired goal. Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) outlined four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. Each of these types was analyzed to determine the specific knowledge influences
affecting OWA’s stakeholders’ understanding of the purpose of implementing and teaching EF
within the core curriculum. The evaluation plan addresses these influences.
In this study, three knowledge domains were assessed using interviews and document
analysis. The first influence was declarative knowledge, which is the most foundational of the
four types related to understanding EF. Grade 5 teachers were asked to draw on their procedural
knowledge with the understanding of identifying strengths and weaknesses and monitor
interventions within the 11 EF skills. Lastly, metacognitive questions were asked to understand
how interviewees process information and use their self-awareness of their learning. A document
analysis of the PLC meeting named SNAP triangulated the data and confirmed the interviewees’
knowledge claims. The answers to interview questions were examined through their reflections
64

on teaching, implementing, modeling, and reinforcing EF skills in the core curriculum. Table 5
presents the summary of knowledge influences and methods for assessing them.

Table 5
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed organization
influences
Interview item Document
Declarative
Successful teachers know
and understand what EF
is.
If someone was to ask you what executive
function is, what would you say to them?

Procedural
Successful teachers explain
how to identify students’
EF areas of strengths and
weaknesses.
How do you identify students' areas of
strength and weakness in executive
function?

Successful teachers target
EF weaknesses and teach
specific skills and
strategies to students.
Please describe how you would target and
teach specific skills and strategies to
students in the areas of organization, time
management, resisting impulses,
planning ahead, staying focused,
following through on tasks, learning from
mistakes, emotion control, solving
problems, and being resourceful? Choose
one.
SNAP notes

SEL curriculum

PLC agenda notes
Successful teachers
monitor the progress of
EF interventions and
adjust teaching strategies
according to students’
needs.
Can you describe the steps you follow
when implementing an EF intervention?
SNAP notes

SEL curriculum

PLC agenda notes
Metacognitive
Successful teachers self-
reflect on the
effectiveness of
How often, if at all, do you self-reflect on
the effectiveness of strategies and
SNAP notes

SEL curriculum
65

Assumed organization
influences
Interview item Document
strategies and
interventions to plan the
next steps.
interventions you implement for students
who have EF deficits?

PLC agenda notes
Successful teachers self-
reflect on the
effectiveness of the
physical and social
environment settings that
reduce distractions and
stress related to EF.
What physical or social environmental
adjustments have you made to be more
supportive of a student’s executive
function weaknesses?

Probe: seating arrangement, desk
arrangement, placement of work
materials, homework collections bins,
how the teacher navigates the classroom,
modifying the tasks, or changing the way
adults interact with students with
prompts, reminders, metacognitive
questions, specific praise for effort,
reinforcing the use of executive skills,
model thought process.

Motivation Assessment
Motivation is characterized by active choice, persistence, and mental effort to increase
performance through effective knowledge, skills, and work processes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Firstly, active choice is observed when a choice is made to actively pursue a goal. Persistence is
the factor that keeps a person engaged in working towards the goal despite distractions. Finally,
mental effort determines how much cognitive investment a person is willing to put into a task to
achieve a goal. People are motivated to work hard when they have a social partnership to
collaborate with to achieve a goal (Mayer, 2011). Constructs related to value and self-efficacy
influence these motivational indicators. This section reviews the assessment of value and self-
66

efficacy to identify OWA teachers’ motivational influences to teach and implement EF
promising practices.
The importance one attaches to a task determines if one values it (Rueda, 2011). There
are three types of value: interest, skill, and utility (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The
importance one attaches to a task determines if one values it or not (Rueda, 2011). Interest value
refers to an individual's intrinsic motivation to increase their expertise through skill mastery or
task completion. When demonstrating specialized skills, motivation helps to complete a task
from skill value. The third type of value is utility value, which describes when an individual is
motivated by the benefits of task completion. Variables that influence value include perceived
importance, enjoyment, intrinsic interest, usefulness, and the perceived cost of the activity in
terms of time or effort associated with a task (Rueda, 2011). To assess if teachers value EF, they
were asked to describe EF’s role in the core curriculum, daily lessons, and various subjects.
Another motivational influence indicator is self-efficacy. Bandura (2000) explained using
social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is defined as the confidence one has in one’s ability to
complete a task. Self-efficacy is related to motivation; people who feel confident in their abilities
to complete a task are more likely to attempt it. Research on motivation found many performance
gaps caused by a lack of motivation, not deficits in knowledge and skills (Clark & Estes, 2008).
To assess how these motivational factors influence teachers explicitly teaching EF, interviews
sought to determine if they value and have self-efficacy in teaching EF in practice. Table 6
presents the summary of motivation influences and the methods for assessing them.

67

Table 6
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed organization influences Interview item
Value
Successful teachers have intrinsic interests and
personal relevance in implementing EF
tools, strategies, skills, and interventions.
What is the importance, if any, of teaching
EF in your classroom?
Self-efficacy
Successful teachers believe they are capable of
providing direct instruction on EF tools,
strategies, skills, and interventions to
improve student achievement.
Tell me about a time you felt confident
providing EF support to a student
behaviorally, academically, or socially?

Probe: Can you provide a specific example of
a time that demonstrates why you feel this
way about your ability to provide support
to your students?
Successful teachers believe they are capable of
learning and teaching EF through direct
instruction.
How do you feel about your ability to teach
EF through direct instruction?

Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
An organization’s problems and performance gaps can also have root causes related to
organizational factors such as inefficient and ineffective material resources, organizational
cultural models, cultural settings, policies, processes, and procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Therefore, a comprehensive gap analysis plan includes assessing the organizational factors
contributing to the problem. When organizational barriers are due to material resources, the
organization can implement technical solutions to address the gap. However, when these barriers
have root causes tied to organizational culture, an in-depth analysis is needed to better
understand the cultural setting and models that influence the overall culture (Bolman & Deal,
68

2017; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Effective work processes, policies, and procedures are
needed to support the performance goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This study assessed the organizational influences of resources, policies, processes, and
procedures and the cultural setting and model that influence teachers’ ability to meet their
stakeholder goal. To assess the cultural setting, I asked the interviewees what barriers prevented
them from teaching EF. To assess the cultural model, I asked them what supports were in place
to teach EF in their daily lessons. I also asked them to discuss their ideal PD on EF to learn and
understand the thinking and doing skills related to EF. To assess policies, processes, and
procedures, I asked the interviewees how they implemented different interventions within the
MTSS framework to meet the needs of students identified in each tier of support. I asked them
how they collaborated and utilized time in their PLCs to implement strategies and interventions.
Additionally, analysis of documents such as SNAP meeting notes, PLC agendas, and SEL
curriculum identified organizational supports or barriers. Table 7 presents the summary of
organizational influences and the methods for assessing them.

Table 7
Summary of Organization Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed organization
influences
Interview item Document
Cultural Setting
Successful teachers are a part
of an organization that
implements policies,
processes, and procedures
promoting values of
teaching EF embedded in
the core curriculum.
What barriers or impediments
do you have to teaching EF
skills to your students?

SNAP notes
SEL curriculum
PLC agenda notes
69

Assumed organization
influences
Interview item Document
Cultural model
Successful teachers are
provided with professional
learning opportunities to
collaborate with elementary
teachers for them to learn
EF skills, strategies, and
interventions.
Describe what you think the
ideal PD at OWA on EF
would be for teachers?
SNAP notes
SEL curriculum
PLC agenda notes
Policies, processes, and procedures
Successful teachers are a part
of an organization that
provides MTSS for
teachers to learn how to
meet the needs of all
learners who need
foundational EF skills.
What kind of support would
you give a student who
needed a Tier 2 level of
support in EF?
Probe: What kind of support
would you give a student
who needed a Tier 3 level
of support in EF?
SNAP notes
SEL curriculum
PLC agenda notes
Resources
Successful teachers are given
time to learn about EF
within their PLCs.
How much time is allotted to
learn about EF skills,
strategies, and interventions
at your weekly PLC
meetings?
Probe: How much time do
you spend collaborating on
the effectiveness of EF
skills, strategies, and
interventions?
Probe: What would you say
are some positive elements
to SNAP meetings?
Probe: What would you say
are some negative elements
to SNAP meetings?
SNAP notes
SEL curriculum
PLC agenda notes

70

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group focus for this study is the Grade 5 elementary teachers at OWA
because they are responsible for curriculum and instruction for students academically,
behaviorally, and socially. Purposeful sampling was used, as these teachers could provide the
information necessary for this study. Currently, there are 14 Grade 5 classroom teachers
employed at OWA. Twelve have been classroom teachers for 1 or more years and were invited
to participate. Ten agreed to participate. I calculated the importance of having sufficient
experience teaching at OWA in their current grade level for at least 1 year. Furthermore, the
researcher wanted to ensure the participants were familiar with the grade-level curriculum, SEL
curriculum, SNAP meetings, and PLC meetings and agendas.
Sampling
This study used a purposeful sample that was convenient, small, and inductive to gather
in-depth data to the point of saturation or redundancy in information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
within the OWA context from Grade 5 teachers. This site allowed for the convenience of
collecting and analyzing data relevant to this study’s primary purpose (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). In a qualitative study, the researcher intends to “discover, understand, and gain insight
and therefore, must select a sample from which the most can be learned,” also known as a
purposeful sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). It is imperative to gain perspective and
insight into specific Grade 5 teachers who directly acknowledge EF deficits in students, teach EF
daily, and move students from weaknesses to skill strengths. Due to their small number, I asked
all 12 Grade 5 experienced teachers to participate in the study. The sampling criteria for
interviews were Grade 5 teachers who have taught for at least a year.
71

Recruitment
For this study, the sampling strategy sought to recruit participants by invitation, and
Appendix B provides a sample email. I contacted all Grade 5 teachers who met both criteria for
participation in an interview. At the time of recruitment, I informed teachers with a detailed
information sheet regarding the interview (Appendix C) and interview questions (Appendix D) to
ensure participants' understanding of the study, their rights, and confidentiality. I contacted
teachers via email with details about the study and the consent form.
Instrumentation
The instruments for this study were interview and document analysis protocols. The
interview protocol asked questions about the teacher's KMO resources available at OWA. The
documents for analysis included SNAP monthly meeting notes, SEL curriculum, PLC agendas,
and notes from Grade 5 bi-weekly meetings.
Interview Protocol Design
I conducted semi-structured informal interviews with teachers as the primary
stakeholders. The interviews consisted of three sections: KMO resources supported in Chapter
Two. I asked open-ended and probing questions to understand interviewees’ perspectives and
KMO influences concerning explicit teaching practices and monitoring students' progress. The
domains of knowledge were their perspectives, experiences, and opinions about EF skills,
strategies, interventions, and monitoring progress. I asked questions related to strengths and
weaknesses identifiable in students, and I asked teachers to self-reflect on their classrooms’
physical and social settings that promote or inhibit student learning. The second section on
motivation was divided into two subsections: the participant’s perceived value of having intrinsic
interests and the personal relevance of implementing EF tools, strategies, skills, and
72

interventions. The second subsection asked about their perceived self-efficacy and capabilities of
providing direct instruction to improve student achievement. Additionally, I asked teachers if
they believe in their capabilities of learning and monitoring students' progress related to EF. The
third section of organizational resources explored the interviewees’ perspectives on OWA’s
cultural setting, cultural model, policies, processes, procedures, and resources.
Document Analysis Design
To triangulate the data from interviews and documents related to the curriculum, OWA
was asked to monitor students’ progress and teachers’ collaboration. Documents provided for the
study were analyzed with the KMO influences supported in Chapter Two. The SEL curriculum
and PLC and SNAP meeting agendas were requested for analysis. Appendix E provides the
document analysis protocol.
Data Collection
Following the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board’s approval, I
solicited participants for interviews via email.
Interviews
Previous sections outlined the interview recruitment procedures. To access participants'
approval, the deputy superintendent at OWA approved the research on Grade 5 classroom
teachers in March 2021. The face-to-face interviews were recorded for transcription purposes
and took less than an hour to complete. As COVID-19 safe distancing measures restricted access
to participants, interviews may be conducted using the Zoom application. I removed identifying
information from all interview transcripts to maintain the participants’ confidentiality. I was non-
threatening, non-judgmental, sensitive, and respectful before, during, and after the interviews.
73

This attitude is recommended for interviewers to build rapport with participants (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Document Analysis
I asked teachers and counselors to voluntarily grant access to various documents to aid in
the information gleaned from the interviews. I requested the following documents for analysis:
SNAP dashboard of agendas and meeting notes, SEL curriculum pacing guide and lessons, and
grade five PLC agendas and meeting notes in an electronic format. I used a document and coding
sheet (Appendix D) to connect with each KMO influence and research question the document
addresses. Before analyzing documents, I protected the identities of students and teachers by
deleting identifiable information and the document’s location (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Data Analysis
For interviews, Lochmiller and Lester (2017) recommended using inductive analysis to
find the patterns, themes, and categories that come from the data. The researchers recommended
using an iterative process to analyze qualitative data by collecting the data, reducing the data
(coding), displaying the data, and grounding the data with conclusions (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). The authors suggest that the first step in analyzing the data is listening and relistening to
audio recordings to gain familiarity with the data before the transcription process. Next,
interviews were transcribed and coded through an analysis of codes using frameworks of EF
outlined in Chapter Two. I began by using open coding or looking at all the possible frameworks
in the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As new frameworks emerged, they were also coded.
Lastly, I used analytical coding to further group related ideas from the initial open coding
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
74

Documents, policies, systems, and procedures were identified and analyzed to confirm
this study's knowledge and organizational influences. The knowledge influences were coded
using the declarative, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive domains. The organizational
influences were coded using the cultural setting, cultural model, policies, processes, procedures,
and resource domains.
Trustworthiness of Data
To maintain this study’s credibility and trustworthiness, I applied triangulation of
methods and data in data collection and analysis. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined
triangulation as using three or more data collection procedures and information from multiple
sources to confirm emerging findings. The authors emphasized the importance of checking data
interpretations with individuals interviewed, asking peers to comment on emerging findings, and
clarifying researcher biases and assumptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used three data
sources to crystallize credibility in this study: documents and interviews with more than three
participants. I clarified questions with participants to ensure a correct understanding of
information. I also explained my role and bias to all participants to maintain transparency as a
staff member at OWA. The study’s findings were made available before publication.
Role of Investigator
I am a staff member at OWA, and my role in this study was to conduct a problem-solving
evaluation to improve OWA’s performance. It was essential to consider the relationship power
dynamic at play between the participants and me, including issues of reciprocity (Glesne, 2011).
I did not hold an evaluative position for the participants involved in the study. I maintained
professional competence, integrity, respect for individuals’ rights, diversity, and social
responsibility that guide research practices (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). I stressed the
75

importance of interviews not being evaluative and remaining confidential to protect the
information gathered and the anonymity of participants’ answers to build trust. My reflexivity
and positionality were of utmost importance. I noted her personal bias, values, assumptions,
beliefs, and positionality as an actively informed member of the OWA community. I made her
role transparent to the participants in the research study designed to do no harm and void
exploitation. Exploitation involves questions of power and control of participation and deception
that could take the form of either omission or commission (Glesne, 2011).
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study were narrowly applicable to the practice of teachers whose
experiences are associated with EF at OWA. A study at other international schools may not
obtain similar results. There may have been personal bias from the research participants and me
regarding protecting ourselves or protecting the school. Some participants may have censored
themselves for fear of losing their positions, fear that I would share information, or may have
wanted to please me by telling me what I wanted to hear. Based on the interviews, the findings
may only apply to the participants and not all teachers at the organization.

76

Chapter Four: Results or Findings
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which OWA was meeting its
organizational goal of providing explicit EF skill instruction through the core curriculum and the
social-emotional curriculum. This chapter presents the results and findings related to assumed
causes under KMO influences. Applying the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the
results are organized by influences regarding KMO elements related to achieving this goal.
Interviews and document analysis yielded qualitative data to understand the KMO needs and
assets of classroom teachers in Grade 5 regarding the organizational goal. I did not conduct
surveys or observations. Interviews were the main source of determining needs and assets.
Document analysis followed to allow further assessment, evidence, and validation of the needs
and assets.
The assumed knowledge influences include the interviewees’ declarative, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge pertaining to EF. The assumed knowledge influence is that they should
have the factual knowledge of what EF is and should know the 11 skills involving cognition and
behavior. The assumed procedural influence is that teachers can identify students’ strengths and
weaknesses and target and teach specific skills and strategies to their students with respect to
implementing EF interventions. The assumed metacognitive knowledge influence is that OWA
fifth-grade teachers should know how to adjust their physical and social environment to
strengthen EF weaknesses.
The assumed motivation influences are that OWA fifth-grade teachers value and have
self-efficacy toward teaching EF. They should value teaching EF and have confidence in their
ability to provide behavioral, academic, and social support to students through direct instruction.
77

In addition, the teachers should feel comfortable with critical self-reflection on their teacher
practices teaching EF throughout the day in conjunction with the core curriculum.
The assumed organizational influences are categorized under resources, cultural models,
and cultural settings. In terms of organizational resources, OWA fifth-grade teachers should have
professional learning of declarative and procedural knowledge around EF skills and strategies.
The OWA cultural model should direct its fifth-grade teachers that promote the organization's
espoused values that EF is necessary and important for teachers to learn and teach. The cultural
setting should allow and encourage fifth-grade teachers to practice self-reflection regularly in
their PLC to ensure learning and instruction are highly responsive to students’ EF strengths and
weaknesses. The results and findings of interviews and document analysis will be organized by
the categories of the assumed causes, which are in knowledge, motivation, and organization.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study were the Grade 5 classroom teachers, a total of 14
stakeholders, as they engage students in learning for the longest period during the school day.
Twelve teachers received an email (Appendix B) requesting their participation in an interview. I
am not the participants’ supervisor, and no feelings of coercion were determined. The
participation target was 12 teachers, and 10 teachers volunteered to be interviewed, meeting the
study's goal. As outlined in Table 8, Grade 5 teachers were represented in the study. Each
stakeholder was assigned a pseudonym for their name, and demographic information was not
collected to ensure anonymity. Table 8 presents the participants’ longevity in teaching Grade 5 at
OWA.

78

Table 8
Participating Stakeholders
Participant Years taught at OWA
Julia 10
Gary 7
Carrie 2
Simon 8
Heather 7
Margaret 16
Stewart 6
Erin 2
Joshua 6
Brittany 6

Determination of Assets and Needs
At the time of this study, OWA employed 14 Grade 5 teachers, and 12 teachers met the
criteria of having taught at least 1 year and having experience teaching the core curriculum of
mathematics, reading, writing, science, and social studies. Out of the 12 eligible participants, 10
teachers were willing to participate in the study. I conducted interviews with all 10 participants,
making the data score 10 out of 10 participants. If a minimum of eight participants’ answers
coincided, it was determined that this knowledge type was an asset of at least 80% on all
questions answered. This high data point was determined as teachers have high expectations for
their students. In return, teachers should have high expectations for each other and meet all
learners’ academic, social, and behavioral needs. If participants scored seven or lower, it was
determined that this was an area of need for OWA on all questions answered. Triangulation of
79

data was determined through document analysis and interviews. All participants were willing to
be interviewed, all 13 questions were asked, and participants answered all questions.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
In this study, the results and findings are reported using the three knowledge domains
assessed through interviews and document analysis. The first influence is declarative knowledge,
which is the most foundational of the four types related to understanding the basic foundations of
EF. Grade 5 teachers were asked to draw on their procedural knowledge with the understanding
of identifying EF strengths and weaknesses and progress monitor interventions within the 11 EF
skills. Lastly, I asked metacognitive questions to understand how teachers use self-reflection to
guide their instruction and themselves in their teaching practice. A document analysis of the PLC
meeting notes named SNAP was used to triangulate the data and confirm the interviewees’
knowledge claims. Teachers' answers to interview questions were examined through their
reflections on teaching, implementing, modeling, and reinforcing EF skills within the core
curriculum. Semi-structured interviews took place in March of 2022 with 10 Grade 5 teachers.
Additional data were collected with document review, which occurred in March of 2022. The
assumed influences and conceptual framework (presented in Chapter Two) were grounded in
evidence from the research literature base and reconceptualized based upon the researcher’s
experiential knowledge at OWA.
Factual Knowledge
Factual or declarative knowledge draws on interviewees' understanding of 11 EF skills,
including response inhibition, emotional control, task initiation, organization, goal-directed
persistence, metacognition, working memory, sustained attention, planning/prioritization, time
80

management, and flexibility. The factual knowledge influence examined was that successful
teachers need to know and understand what EF is.
Interview Findings
Ten participants knew and could speak to a few general aspects of EF. Gary stated, “It is
the ability to be organized and a productive person.” Stewart added, “It is the ability to read the
room, be organized, and survival skills,” while Carrie said, “It is the ability to focus your
attention and juggle multiple tasks.” Brittany hypothesized that “EF is the discrete skills people
need to live a successful life and to organize themselves in and out, whether they are at school or
at work.” Heather asserted, “It is the ability to function in a classroom, be organized with
materials, and self-articulate verbally with oral expression.” Joshua pointed out that “EF is self-
management tools needed to learn how to learn.” While all 10 participants added some insight
into EF skills components, they each noted organization is an important part of EF and impacts
students the most. Based on participant responses, this influence is a need for OWA. Less than
80% of teachers could name a general definition or different components of EF.
Document Analysis
No documents were analyzed.
Summary
The assumed influence is that Grade 5 teachers should have the factual knowledge of
what EF is and understand EF skills. Based on participants’ responses, this is determined to be an
area of need. Interview results indicate all participants had little to some understanding of EF,
but only two could give a comprehensive definition. Common understandings of EF include
organization, emotion management, and completing tasks. In conclusion, less than 80% of
81

participants interviewed gave a comprehensive understanding of EF; therefore, this influence is
determined to be an area of need for OWA.
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1: Successful Teachers Will Explain How to Identify Students’ EF Areas of
Strengths and Weaknesses
Interview Findings. All 10 participants named observations as the first and foremost
way to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses in EF. Four participants noted anecdotal
records as a way to record if students can follow the routine and directions. Three participants
discussed using parent feedback to glean information on students’ EF strengths and weaknesses.
Two participants stated using surveys or questionnaires from the book Smart but Scattered by
having students self-assess their strengths and weaknesses. Brittany listed utilizing “report cards,
reading previous teacher’s notes, and observing student’s emotional control, disruptions,
impulsivity or if they cry over homework.” Joshua pointed out “giving students age-appropriate
tasks and seeing if they can follow through.” Erin stated, “noticing if students can manage their
time and rate themselves during a lesson.” Carrie said, “noticing a student’s handwriting and
noting if students are high, medium, or low in academic areas.” Three participants named
noticing a student’s cubicle or desk as a way of identifying if a student is organized.
Document Analysis. No documents were analyzed.
Summary. The assumed influence is that OWA fifth-grade teachers should know how to
identify students’ strengths and weaknesses in all EF areas was determined to be a need.
Interview results indicate five teachers know a few EF skills and could name organization,
impulse control, emotional control, and time management using observations, anecdotal records,
and student surveys. As a result, zero teachers could identify other areas of EF that include
82

identifying working memory, metacognition, sustained attention, task initiation, goal-directed
persistence, and flexibility in the classroom. Hence, this influence is determined to be a need for
teachers because less than 80% of teachers could explain how to identify students’ EF strengths
and weaknesses in all areas.
Influence 2: Successful Teachers Will Target EF Weaknesses and Teach Specific Skills and
Strategies to Students
Interview Findings. All participants named many weaknesses in EF. Specifically, they
teach skills and strategies, including areas of organization, solving problems, controlling
emotions, staying focused, and following through on tasks. Two participants said using the
application SeeSaw or the platform Google Classroom to teach students to learn from mistakes
and plan ahead. Two participants utilize morning meetings to teach and target specific EF
weaknesses to students. Heather stated, “using picture books, modeling, acting out, and asking
students for possible solutions and outcomes” helps her teach EF. Brittany explained her
classroom structure as
Teaching routines and procedures helps build predictability, being repetitive, and
repetition leads to mastery of skills. … Teaching restorative justice practices by asking
students if they want the teacher to help solve their problem or themselves helps give
students agency and independence of their problems.
Gary added, “The root of all problems is self-awareness. … Giving students cues or
reminders helps.” Stewart mentioned, “Having conversations with kids using constant reminders
can help. I am not a believer in behavior charts, and those do not work in fifth grade. Positives
like rewards help, but punishment is not that beneficial.” Simon gave examples such as “using
83

timers, games, and purposeful movement breaks.” He added, “creating a culture of feedback
from multiple perspectives and being vulnerable creates a culture of trust, safety, and fun.”
Document Analysis. The 2020–2021 school year PLC agenda for Grade 5 showed
evidence of lessons promoting social and emotional engagement, with lessons focusing on
emotional control and solving problems. The SNAP data provided three meetings throughout the
school year where teachers come together within their small PLC to discuss students’ behavior
and social and emotional weaknesses in the classroom. The SEL curriculum, Second Step, is
housed in the counseling office and used by the counselor. Another curriculum binder is housed
in the fifth-grade LS classroom. Second Step has 22 lessons to help students develop empathy
and skills for learning, emotion management, and problem solving skills. The counselor teaches
10 out of 22 lessons throughout the school year to all Grade 5 students. Teachers have access to
the curriculum; however, whether homeroom teachers access these materials from the counselor
or LS classroom is unknown. This assumed influence is a need.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers target EF weaknesses and teach specific
skills and strategies to students was determined to be a need from interviews and document
analysis. Teachers need to know all 11 skills within their instructional practice and should teach
all skills explicitly to students throughout the school year to varying degrees. Interview results
indicate teachers target and teach some EF skills. Each teacher named at least four ways they
target and teach EF weaknesses in their classroom. When probed further for specific ways they
teach EF strategies, teachers could name verbal and physical reminders or cues, incentives,
goals, timers, and having students repeat back information. These examples confirm that all 10
teachers can teach and target some specific EF weaknesses to students, but not all 11 EF skills to
84

students. Teachers should be able to scaffold instruction and teach all 11 EF skills to students
and monitor their progress towards meeting EF goals.
Influence 3: Successful Teachers Will Monitor the Progress of EF Interventions and Adjust
Teaching Strategies According to Students’ Needs
Interview Findings. Three teachers stated they would seek help from LS professionals or
the psychologist to help with EF strategies and interventions. Three teachers mentioned using a
behavior chart or behavior plan to help monitor students’ behaviors, such as interruptions or
following the school rules. Brittany said, “Using inner-thinking journals to help get to the bottom
of feelings.” She further explained that “having students write out what is happening and name
strategies is a way for students to feel safe between the teacher, themselves, and sometimes
parents.” Simon stated, “Modeling the final product by using choices and adapting classwork
helps improve skills.” Carrie mentioned, “Using a homework monitor to help with packing up at
the end of the day and checking in to see if students completed their homework each day.” Five
teachers used checklists and checked in with students on their progress towards an assignment.
This influence was determined as a need as teachers could not discuss steps to monitor students’
progress in cognition or behavior areas, as only 50% of the participants knew some areas of EF.
Document Analysis. The PLC yearly agenda had seven documents attached to meeting
minutes to help teachers monitor students’ progress in reading. Documents included how to
monitor students' progress in writing and mathematics with specific skills and strategies. The
SEL curriculum outlines specific social and emotional lessons but does not have specific tools to
monitor students’ progress. SNAP meeting minutes indicate teachers should name two to three
students in their classroom presenting a social-emotional weakness or behavior problem and link
the problem with a social-emotional learning standard. The document had a column to write the
85

intervention used, an action plan, and a review of progress. The Grade 5 counselor, not the
classroom teacher follows up with most students' behavior or social problems. It is unclear if
teachers follow up and how often they monitor their students' progress. The assumed influence is
determined as a need.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know EF strategies that support students
and monitor students’ progress was determined to be a need. Half of the interview participants
did not know and could not give examples of strategies of half of the EF skills, which did not
meet the 80% criteria. Further document analysis of digital teacher resources provided progress
monitoring documents but did not include tools for all subject areas, behavior, social, thinking
skills, or doing skills.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 1: Successful Teachers Will Be Able to Self-Reflect the Effectiveness of Strategies
and Interventions to Plan Next Steps
Interview Findings. Out of the 10 interviewees, five stated they self-reflect daily. The
other five used words such as rarely, not often, only during SNAP meetings (three times per
year), or once a week. Carrie described self-reflection as
It is a big problem. In my classroom, maybe two officially diagnosed kids have like either
ADD or ADHD. There are probably at least five additional kids that are undiagnosed. So,
I do feel like I am constantly trying to wrap my brain around ways that I can support
these kids. It almost feels like a moment-to-moment basis.
Brittany commented on her self-reflection:
My success as a teacher is reflected in their successes as a student. So, if the child is not
doing what they need to be doing, then it is a reflection of me. It is not their fault. I am
86

the adult in the room and in charge. It is my job to facilitate learning for them, and find
out why, and help them find the path.
Overall, the general finding is that teachers lack daily self-reflection, which makes this
area of influence a need.
Document Analysis. The SNAP meeting minutes have a column indicating a review of
progress where teachers write in their reflections three times per school year. The PLC agenda
notes have academic self-reflections in reading. Writing, mathematics, social studies, and science
did not have self-reflection tools. The school provides social and emotional data days three times
per year where teachers reflect on student survey data school-wide and in their classrooms.
Students answer questions related to how they feel about their teacher’s practice. The SEL
curriculum does not provide tools for self-reflection for teachers. Based on the documents, this
area is determined to be a need for OWA.
Summary. This type of knowledge is centered around self-awareness, and educators
need to be continuously critically self-reflective. Only half of the interviewees self-reflect on the
effectiveness of EF strategies and interventions. This area was determined to be an area of need
as school leaders need to prioritize self-reflection of EF skills, strategies, interventions, and next
steps for students academically, behaviorally, and socially.
Influence 2: Successful Teachers Will Be Able to Self-Reflect on the Effectiveness of the
Physical and Social Environment Settings That Reduce Distractions and Stress Related to EF
Interview Findings. Eight teachers named proximity control as a way to have students
closer to the whiteboard or Smartboard or near the teacher. Carrie said, “Movement breaks such
as allowing students to take a walk for a few minutes during a lesson.” Margaret stated, “Using
flexible seating such as a gliding rocker, balance ball, and stretch bands on every desk helps
87

students with no core strength.” She explained, “Allowing students to pick their seats and the
teacher picking seating arrangements helps give students choices.” Brittany commented,
“Teaching with predictability. Starting lessons on time and finishing on time models punctuality.
I let students know of schedule changes or changes in routine ahead of time.” Julie said, “Using
peers as role models to help partner students who need extra support in EF.” Eight out of 10
interviewees named at least five physical or social environmental adjustments in their classroom
that support students' EF weaknesses.
Document Analysis. No documents were analyzed.
Summary. The assumed influence is that teachers should self-reflect on the effectiveness
of the physical and social environment within their classroom to reduce distractions and stress
related to EF. Based on interviews, all 10 teachers could name multiple ways they have been
supportive of students’ weaknesses in EF. COVID-19 is a factor that helped teachers change
their classrooms’ social and physical spaces. This influence was determined to be an asset at
OWA, as all interviewees adjusted their physical and social space during the 2020–2021 school
year to meet the needs of their students.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Value
The value influence examined in this study was that successful teachers need to have
intrinsic interests and personal relevance in implementing EF tools, strategies, skills, and
interventions.
Interview Findings
Nine of 10 teachers stated that it is important to teach EF. Heather stated, “We take for
granted the invisible curriculum. We almost expect kids to be able to do all these EFs. We need
88

to explicitly teach this because you don’t know what you don’t know until someone tells you.”
Gary stated the importance of teaching EF in his classroom as
It is important on a personalized basis. It would not really be important for me to
necessarily teach whole-class lessons to everyone because it would really miss the mark
for a lot of them. These lessons should be taught more one-to-one.
Brittany stated, “I cannot teach without it. Executive function may be a new popular term, but it
is really strong teacher or learning practice. It is essential.” Joshua commented, “It is huge. The
subtle nuances to maintain friendships. It is doing the right thing at the right time in the right
order.” Stewart added, “It is a life skill for 21st-century skills and will help students as they go to
middle school. It teaches independence and responsibility.”
Document Analysis
No documents were analyzed.
Summary
The assumed influence is that teachers should value EF and teach it in their classrooms.
Interview results indicate nine out of 10 participants value EF and spoke about the importance of
EF. Teachers shared their experiences, biases, and assumptions related to the importance of
teaching EF skills and strategies. Therefore, this influence is determined to be an asset, as 90%
of participants said they value EF.
89

Self-Efficacy
Influence 1: Successful Teachers Must Believe They Are Capable of Providing Direct
Instruction of EF Tools, Strategies, Skills, and Interventions to Improve Student Achievement
Interview Findings. I asked participants to recount a time they felt confident in teaching
EF through direct instruction with specific examples. Joshua commented on a time he felt
confident providing EF through direct instruction as
I feel confident in making connections to sports with one particular student to help build
our relationship. The student always said, “I cannot get my homework done because I do
not have a mom.” I explained that there are many students who have a single parent in
their house, and they do their homework. Now that we talk in person and email on the
weekends about sports, he does his homework, but sometimes does not follow through.
Simon said, “I think when EF is rooted in an area of my strength, then I am confident. If I have
to teach an area of weakness that is also my weakness, to be honest, I am not as confident with
helping that student.” In addition, Gary recalled, “I found out one of my students had ADHD and
was self-conscious about it. I connected with him personally to turn the negative into a positive
by labeling ADHD as his superpower.”
Document Analysis. No documents were analyzed.
Summary. The assumed influence that participants teach EF skills, strategies, tools, and
interventions through direct instruction to improve student achievement is determined to be a
need. Five teachers told about a time they successfully built a relationship with a student but did
not recount a time they provided direct instruction using an EF skill or strategy. This influence is
considered an area of need because 50% of the teachers interviewed could recall a time they felt
confident in providing EF support for a student and name the EF skill. Half of the teachers talked
90

about building a relationship with a challenging student and connecting with them personally
rather than naming a specific EF skill.
Influence 2: Successful Teachers Must Believe They Are Capable of Learning and Teaching
EF Through Direct Instruction
Interview Findings. Four teachers were not confident or somewhat confident in teaching
and learning EF through direct instruction. Simon mentioned, “I am not certified to properly
teach SEL and EF. We need a professional expert.” Stewart stated, “I do not explicitly teach it. I
think kids learn this stuff through games and activities.” Three teachers mentioned they have the
book Smart but Scattered in their classroom and use resources from the book. Erin discussed her
belief in being capable of learning and teaching EF as
The school’s focus is on racing ahead with academics. We always focus on the what of
teaching and what needs to be covered. We do not focus on the how and what strategies
kids need. I have the knowledge to teach these skills, but I am not applying my
knowledge in this current year or moment.
Julia said, “I use resources from the LS teacher. I use slides and resources from Smart but
Scattered and picture books to reinforce skills.” Carrie mentioned, “I need a lot of support. The
slide decks on Google Drive do not resonate with my students. It is not enough.” Joshua stated,
“This is easier to teach in a small group. When you teach EF skills to the whole class, kids know
who the lesson is aimed at indirectly. I teach EF skills through a conversation with a student, so
it is disguised.” Gary added, “I am picturing teaching this one-on-one.”
Document Analysis. No documents were analyzed.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers need to have confidence in learning
opportunities to directly teach specific EF skills was determined a need. Six teachers stated they
91

are confident in their ability to teach EF through direct instruction. The other four teachers were
not confident. All four teachers said that teaching EF skills and strategies to the whole class is
not what their students need. Less than 80% of teachers were confident in their ability to teach
EF skills and strategies. Therefore, this asset is determined to be a need for the school.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Cultural Setting
The cultural setting influence examined here was that successful teachers need to be part
of an organization that implements policies, processes, and procedures promoting the values of
teaching EF embedded in the core curriculum.
Interview Findings
Six teachers named time as the largest barrier or impediment to teaching EF. Gary
discussed impediments as
I have my own struggles with EF and barriers to effectively teach it. There is a lack of
common understanding and compassion among our colleagues. We may not understand
what a kid is really going through and think the kid is just disorganized. We need to find
the root cause.
Stewart said, “Not all kids need it. I have 18 students who do not need these skills. We do not
make EF a priority, and we make curriculum and learning aspirations a priority.”
Carrie listed the barriers to teaching EF at OWA:
Technology addiction is a barrier, the helper population, and parents are the biggest
barriers. Parents either give too much support to their child or not enough support. Our
students are driven by grades and assessments. There are no assessments or a grade we
give in EF.
92

Joshua considered, “COVID restrictions are the biggest barrier to knowing the developmental
range of EF skills.” Five teachers named the demands placed on the curriculum as the largest
barrier to teaching EF. Simon said, “We do not have the resources to teach EF. We do not have
an expert in EF and do not have parents on board. We have CASEL standards but do not
communicate with parents on EF.” Margaret mentioned, “There are too many standards to teach.
Executive function is not in our SEL curriculum, so I do not know it well. We react to problems
and are not proactive in teaching these skills.”
Document Analysis
The SEL curriculum has family engagement worksheets, videos, and daily lessons to
reinforce the 22 lessons in skills for learning, empathy, emotion management, and problem
solving. The Grade 5 school counselor teaches 10 out of the 22 lessons to each Grade 5 class in
40-minute lessons every 2 weeks. Teachers have access to the SEL curriculum; however, there is
one resource and 14 classroom teachers. It is unknown if teachers access the SEL curriculum
binder. Minutes from PLC meetings suggest no meetings were scheduled during the 2020–2021
school year addressing EF skills and strategies. There were meetings once a month discussing
SEL, an aspect of EF. SNAP meetings took place three times during the school year, and CASEL
standards were used to help drive interventions. CASEL standards include self-awareness, self-
management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. It is
unknown how often teachers use the data or refer back to the data.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to feel the school has a shared culture for
supporting students with EF was deemed an area of need for OWA. Based on interview and
document analysis data, less than 80% of teachers stated OWA does not have policies, practices,
93

or procedures in place that promote EF skills and strategies. There is some documentation of
lessons, resources, and meetings around behavior and SEL; however, it is unknown if teachers
access and use the resources available to explicitly teach EF in their classrooms. Based on the
findings and the document analysis, there is no evidence to suggest OWA promotes EF or uses
this terminology in meetings or lessons.
Cultural Models
The influence pertaining to cultural models was that OWA must provide professional
learning opportunities to collaborate among elementary teachers for them to learn EF skills,
strategies, and interventions.
Interview Findings
Six out of 10 participants confirmed that the school values professional learning and has
PD opportunities for them throughout the school year. Three teachers named the book Smart but
Scattered as a resource and have used this book as PD through a self-taught study. Erin stated,
“The ideal PD at OWA on EF would be learning about each skill, revisiting, reflecting, and
collaborating with teachers through a cycle throughout the year.” Six teachers brought in an
outside expert on EF would be helpful. Simon said professional learning opportunities would be
We need training for teachers on each skill, strategies, and feedback. We need a
consistent curriculum in place to use and learn from. We need to discuss, as a school and
grade level, what are the main EF weaknesses and how to specifically address them.
Julia associated the ideal PD with “someone coming to our large PLC and small PLC to teach us
the skills, observe us teaching the skills, and giving us feedback.” Joshua added, “What is EF and
what it is not with helpful examples in the classroom, society, and home. We need to define what
EF is as a school and have after-school PD with our teams to learn the inquiry process of EF.”
94

Stewart considered, “We don’t need a box curriculum as teacher personality plays a big role in
being adaptable, patient, and flexible.”
Document Analysis
The OWA uses Responsive Classroom, an evidence-based curriculum, to teach SEL
strategies through games, activities, and competencies during morning meetings. All teachers
attended a 4-day workshop to learn how to teach the curriculum from an outside expert. In Grade
5, teachers have allocated time to teach Responsive Classroom for 20 minutes each morning.
There is evidence from SNAP meetings and the Second Step curriculum that SEL competencies
are promoted and valued. These two curricula support EF through behavior and SEL games and
activities.
Summary
The assumed influence that teachers need to feel OWA has a shared culture for
supporting students with EF weaknesses was determined to be a need. Four out of 10 teachers
stated they had PD in SEL; however, zero participants had PD in specific EF skills. From a
previous question, three teachers named the book Smart but Scattered as a self-study for their PD
in EF. The analysis of documents supports PD in SEL and behavior management but does not
support all 11 EF skills.
Policies, Processes, and Procedures
The influence related to policies, processes, and procedures was that successful teachers
need to be part of an organization that provides MTSS for teachers to learn how to meet the
needs of all learners who need foundational EF skills.
95

Interview Findings
This influence was assessed by asking interview participants if the policies, processes,
and procedures at OWA support teachers in teaching foundational EF skills through MTSS. The
question asked, “What support would you give a student with Tier 2 or Tier 3 level of support in
EF?” All 10 teachers mentioned collaborating with the support team at school, including their
instructional assistant, speech pathologist, LS, psychologist, counselor, colleagues, and deputy
principal, to help students who may need Tier 2 or 3 levels of support. Carrie said, “Sometimes I
feel like I am at a loss. I know we follow Responsive Classroom, and I try to go through the
protocol, but it feels like this is not enough, and there is no accountability to EF. I support kids
through flexible seating and groupings.” Gary stated, “I do not feel comfortable supporting
students who need Tier 2 or 3 support. I would rely on the support team as collective knowledge
is better than one.” Stewart listed, “I rely on eight professionals to help me with one student.
Executive function is not enough to help a student with severe behavior problems, home issues,
physical issues, and social issues.” All 10 teachers talked about examples they would give to
students in organization and behavior but could not name other EF skills.
Document Analysis
The SNAP meeting notes have evidence that teachers meet three times per year to discuss
SEL-related issues that impact students’ social and emotional weaknesses and behavior
problems. Teachers collaborate, monitor the students' progress, and have an action step set in
place. PLC notes indicate there are some minutes in meetings dedicated to learning about SEL
strategies throughout the school year. The SEL curriculum does not provide different levels of
support or differentiation of lessons, but lessons created for all students at the same level.
96

Summary
The interviewees could not discuss different levels of support beyond flexible seating,
organization, or small group instruction that they would give to a student needing Tier 2 or Tier 3
level of support. All 10 participants stated they would rely on the team of professionals at OWA
to help give support to a student in need. Document analysis noted there are meetings about a
few EF skills throughout the school year, and there are some lessons that help teach and
reinforce EF skills. This influence was determined to be a need, as teachers and document
analysis could not name different levels of support a student would need for different EF skills.
Resources
The influence relating to resources was that OWA needs to provide teachers time to learn
about EF within their PLCs.
Interview Findings
Teachers were asked how much time was allotted to learn about EF skills, strategies, and
interventions at weekly PLC meetings. Six teachers said they have no time to learn EF skills and
strategies in their PLC. Simon stated, “Maybe 5 minutes. The rest of our time is for the
curriculum.” Carrie said, “People are drowning. The agenda of PLC meetings is top-down heavy
and scripted. We are not given time to collaborate on EF.” Heather affirmed, “Agendas are top-
down. Administration frequently has an agenda that prioritizes academics.” Joshua explained, “It
is informal, in the moment, and not prescribed. We discuss this as needed.” Brittany said, “We
do not use this terminology (EF). Our SNAP meetings are few and far between, but we touch
base on behavior weekly.”
97

Document Analysis
The PLC meeting notes indicate some small PLCs discuss some aspects of behavior or
SEL learning. Evidence suggests there have been meetings focused on analyzing student surveys
on SEL learning as a grade level. There is evidence in electronic communication that the
elementary school dean leads parent workshops two times a year in behavior strategies for
parents to use at home. The grade level schedule has 20 minutes included at the start of the day
for morning meetings. What teachers teach in morning meetings is up to their discretion.
Evidence suggests the schedule allows for an end-of-day meeting for at least 10 minutes.
Summary
The assumed influence was that teachers need to feel the school gives them time to learn
about EF foundations within their large and small PLCs. Documents suggest an average time of
five to 10 minutes is allotted to learning about some aspects of EF. Over half of the teachers said
they have zero time in their 1-hour-a-week meetings as a large PLC and one hour a week in
meetings with their small PLC to learn about EF. Given two hours a week in PLC meetings,
teachers could not name time given to focusing on EF skills and strategies. Less than 80% of
teachers said they make time to discuss EF within their PLC. Therefore, this is an area of need
for OWA.
Additional Findings
When I asked respondents if there was anything they would like to add or any more
information on this topic, each participant added they perceived EF to be an important topic.
Simon thought, “SEL needs to be nurtured more than academics.” Margaret added, “We need a
common language, dedicated time to teach these skills and to talk to parents about EF as well as
students about their weaknesses.” Carrie expressed, “The biggest concern is how we support
98

teachers with their own EF weaknesses and then help students with those weaknesses.” Julia
considered, “We need to learn strategies, PD, and time to learn about EF.” Erin listed, “We need
more SNAP meetings to hear suggestions from our colleagues.” Stewart suggested, “We do not
need to explicitly teach these skills, but they are important in life to live and breathe EF.” Out of
the 10 teachers interviewed, nine added their thoughts on the importance of learning more and
explicitly teaching these skills and strategies to students.
Summary of Validated Influences

Tables 9, 10, and 11 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as
assets or needs.

Table 9
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge influence Asset or need
Factual
Successful teachers know and understand what EF is. Need
Procedural
Successful teachers explain how to identify students’ EF areas of
strength and weakness.
Need
Successful teachers target EF weaknesses and teach specific skills and
strategies to students.
Need
Successful teachers monitor the progress of EF interventions and adjust
teaching strategies according to students’ needs.
Need
Metacognitive
Successful teachers self-reflect on the effectiveness of strategies and
interventions to plan next steps.
Need
Successful teachers self-reflect on the effectiveness of the physical and
social environment settings that reduce distractions and stress related
to EF.
Asset

99

Table 10
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed motivation influence Asset or need
value
Successful teachers need to have intrinsic interests and personal
relevance in implementing EF tools, strategies, skills, and
interventions.
Asset
Self-efficacy
Successful teachers must believe they are capable of providing direct
instruction of EF tools, strategies, skills, and interventions to improve
student achievement.
Need
Successful teachers must believe they are capable of learning and
teaching EF through direct instruction.
Need

Table 11
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed organization influence Asset or need
Cultural setting
Successful teachers need to be part of an organization that implements
policies, processes, and procedures promoting the values of teaching
EF embedded in the core curriculum.
Need
Cultural model
OWA must provide professional learning opportunities to collaborate
among elementary teachers for them to learn EF skills, strategies, and
interventions.
Need
Policies, processes, and procedures
Successful teachers need to be part of an organization that provides
MTSS for teachers to learn how to meet the needs of all learners who
need foundational EF skills.
Need
Resources
OWA needs to provide teachers time to learn about EF within their
PLCs.
Need

100

These findings inform the recommendations and solutions in Chapter Five to address the
gaps in KMO influences identified in Chapter Four. In this chapter, solutions will be
recommended based on evidence provided by the literature in Chapter Two. Chapter Five
provides the recommendations for OWA’s practice in the areas of KMO resources regarding EF.

101

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This evaluation study analyzed the KMO influences impacting OWA’s ability to reach its
organizational goal of explicitly teaching EF skills via the core curriculum and the social-
emotional curriculum. Applying the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this
qualitative study’s results validated KMO influences on the problem of practice. In this chapter,
the results and findings guide evidence-based solutions and recommendations. Next, the new
world Kirkpatrick model was utilized to create an implementation and evaluation plan for
recommended solutions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This model provides a
comprehensive blueprint of the four levels of evaluation for training consisting of reaction (Level
1), learning (Level 2), behavior (Level 3), and results (Level 4). Then, this chapter reassesses the
organizational context and mission, organizational goal, stakeholders, the purpose of the study,
and research questions. Lastly, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended using the
model in reverse order, and this order serves as the plan for this study.
Organizational Context and Mission
The OWA is a non-profit American international school located in southeast Asia,
serving a large population of Pre-K to 12th-grade students. The school is organized into an early
learning center, an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school. The school follows an
American curriculum based on Common Core standards. Its mission is to prepare and motivate
students for a rapidly changing world by instilling critical thinking skills, a global perspective,
and a respect for core values of honesty, loyalty, perseverance, and compassion (as stated on the
school website). The organization benchmarks against schools in the United States regarding
student achievement. To better understand students’ social-emotional well-being, the school
102

started a screening survey of students in Grades 3 to 12 to better understand their social and
emotional experiences and benchmark results against 17,000 other U.S. schools.
Organizational Goal
As part of OWA’s strategic plan, it will focus on deepening the focus on social-emotional
learning and wellness and promote consistency of high-quality teaching in every classroom to
support the learning needs of each student. The goal of OWA is to meet the social-emotional
needs of 100% of its students by providing explicit instruction of EF skills in the core and social-
emotional curricula. This will result in all children using strategies to problem solve life at home
and school when facing challenges or pursuing a goal. The organization stated that social-
emotional well-being is critical to resilience and student success. The school intends to instill
learning aspirations in all students, increase coaching and feedback for all teachers on their
professional practice, and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, so all students feel valued and
included. OWA is committed to reviewing its current social-emotional curriculum, Responsive
Classroom, and advisory classes. Students who understand their own cognitive and motivational
processes improve academic performance when they implement strategies that address EF
processes (Meltzer, 2010).
Description of Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete gap analysis would include more stakeholders; however, this stud focused on
Grade 5classroom teachers. These teachers are the primary stakeholders providing explicit
instruction of EF with the core and social-emotional curricula. They engage the students in
learning for the longest time each day. There are 14 Grade 5 teachers responsible for teaching the
core curriculum consisting of reading, writing, mathematics, social studies, and science as well
103

as social and emotional lessons through morning meetings. Ten of the teachers participated in the
study, with 60% identifying as female and 40% identifying as male.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which OWA is meeting its
organizational goal of impacting the successful implementation of explicit instruction of EF
skills and strategies within the core curriculum. As a result, all students will know how to
achieve goals, self-monitor their performance, plan ahead, resist impulses, stay in control of their
emotions, get organized, solve problems independently, learn from their mistakes, and use time
wisely. Questions used to guide the study were as follows:
1. What is the current status of the teacher’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources with regard to teaching executive function within the core curriculum?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational influences in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
The recommendations are presented and organized by the validated knowledge and
organizational influences determined as needs and gaps through data analysis. The study’s data,
outlined in Chapter Four, indicated gaps and needs in the knowledge areas of factual and
metacognitive. One area of metacognitive was named an asset. The motivation areas of value
were determined as an asset, while self-efficacy was determined to be a need. The organizational
influences were determined by a need in the areas of cultural setting; cultural model; policies,
processes, and procedures; and resources.
104

Knowledge Recommendations
The data validated six knowledge influences regarding the problem of practice: one
declarative, three procedural, and two metacognitive. Influences were validated as needs through
interviews and document analysis, while one metacognitive influence was determined as an
asset. Table 12 indicates a priority level for each validated influence in achieving the
organization’s goal and the research-based principles that support this recommendation.
Following the table, a discussion is provided for each influence, the associated principle, and the
specific recommendations based on supporting literature and evidence. Table 12 lists the causes,
priority, principle, and recommendations. Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high
priority cause and recommendation and the literature supporting the recommendation is
provided.

Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
(yes or
no)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Factual
Successful teachers
know and
understand what
EF is.

Need Yes Develop a definition
for EF skills,
developmental
milestones, and
understand cognition
and behavior skills
(Dawson & Guare,
2009).
Provide targeted
learning
opportunities that
both demonstrate
and ask teachers to
name the 11 EF
skills with examples.
Procedural
Successful teachers
explain how to
identify students’
EF areas of
Need Yes Utilize a variety of
tools to assess and
identify strengths
and weaknesses in
EF for teachers and
Provide formal
assessments,
informal rating
scales, semi-
structured
105

Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
(yes or
no)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
strengths and
weaknesses.
students (Dawson &
Guare, 2018).
interviews, and
questionnaires.
Successful teachers
target EF
weaknesses and
teach specific
skills and
strategies to
students.
Need Yes Experience-based
improvements
through a culture of
strategy use
(Dawson & Guare,
2009).
Use instruction models
and programs that
target each EF skill
and incorporate
strategies for each
skill.
Successful teachers
monitor the
progress of EF
interventions and
adjust teaching
strategies
according to
students’ needs.
Need Yes Linking EF skills
using the MTSS
framework to
provide targeted
interventions and
monitor the progress
(Dawson & Guare,
2018).
Provide targeted
training, sufficient
scaffolding,
systematic strategy
instruction, and
teach how, when,
and why specific
strategies can be
used with rubrics,
checklists, and
plans.
Metacognitive
Successful teachers
self-reflect on the
effectiveness of
strategies and
interventions to
plan next steps.
Need Yes Use metacognitive
strategies to self-
reflect on learning
with peers (Wilson
& Conyers, 2016).
Provide opportunities
to engage in guided
self-monitoring,
mindfulness, and
self-assessment of
teaching practices.
Successful teachers
self-reflect on the
effectiveness of
the physical and
social environment
settings that
reduce distractions
and stress related
to EF.
Asset Yes Self-reflect on
conditions and
situations external to
the student to reduce
negative effects on
weak EF skills
(Dawson & Guare,
2018).
Provide opportunities
for teachers to
engage in self-
monitoring their
physical and social
environment that
promote EF
processes.

106

Declarative Knowledge Solutions
Teachers need to know the terminology, a unified general definition for EF and definition
of each EF skill with examples, and the processes involved for explicitly teaching each skill.
These influences were identified as a high priority because this foundational knowledge must be
present to support all students in the classroom who present weaknesses in one or more of the 11
skills. Providing Grade 5 classroom teachers with targeted learning opportunities of EF
developmental milestones by age and task would support their learning. For example, students in
Grade 5 should be able to keep track of belongings, complete homework assignments for 1 hour
maximum, initiate and complete tasks that take up to 1 hour, and check their own work for
simple mistakes. Teachers must learn and demonstrate each of the 11 skills that can be divided
into cognition (thinking) and behavior (doing; Dawson & Guare, 2009) and explicitly teach each
skill through job aids outlining EF research-based strategies (Corcoran & O’Flaherty, 2017;
Meltzer, 2010, Strosnider & Sharpe, 2019). Teachers should learn parts of brain development
that affect each EF skill, including two influential areas of biology and experience that aid in
frontal lobe development in the prefrontal cortex (Dawson & Guare, 2009; Zelazo et al., 2017).
Teachers need to learn how EF develops in a constant back-and-forth and up-and-down manner
through developmental structures of inhibition, working memory, organizing things and spaces,
sequencing, strategy development, and self-monitor and assess for intentional output of social
competence and academic success (Meltzer, 2010).
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
Teachers need to know how to assess and identify students' areas of strengths and
weaknesses to create a personalized learning profile for each student in their classroom. Teachers
should use various tools using formal assessments and informal rating scales (Dawson & Guare,
107

2009). Teachers in Grade 5 should use the upper elementary questionnaire for students and the
executive skills questionnaire for both teachers and parents (Dawson & Guare, 2009). Teachers
need to utilize a semi-structured interview questionnaire to interview parents and students,
outlining student’s strengths and weaknesses in homework, long-term projects, problem solving,
studying for tests, home chores and responsibilities, organizational skills, work and leisure time,
and long-term goals (Dawson & Guare, 2018). Teachers must use the Getting to Know You
student inventory and Executive Skills Problem Checklist for elementary students to identify the
three most problematic concerns in the 11 EF areas (Dawson & Guare, 2018). These
questionnaires, inventories, checklists, and interviews take time but allow teachers the inquiry
knowledge of each EF skill to identify strengths and weaknesses in each student (see Appendix
F).
Teachers must use instruction models and programs such as the Kansas intervention
model, Benchmark model, self-regulated strategy development, the Drive to Thrive Program,
and the Success, Motivation, Awareness, Resilience, Talents & Strategies mentoring program
that address EF processes and principles (Meltzer, 2010). In addition, teachers require specific
effective strategy instruction through the following high-leverage teaching practices by linking
strategies to the curriculum; teaching in a structured, systematic way through scaffolding and
modeling; addressing students’ individual learning styles, motivation, and willingness to work
hard; opportunities to extend and generalize strategies to a range of novel tasks; and time to
practice and apply learning strategies (Meltzer, 2010).
Dawson and Guare (2018) recommended linking executive skills using the MTSS
framework by providing interventions and strategies at the classroom level (universal) for all
students designed to meet the needs of most students. When universal (Tier 1) support is
108

insufficient, the teacher needs to teach at a targeted level for 10%–15% (Tier 2) of students and
give an intensive level of support for 1%–7% (Tier 3) of students (Dawson & Guare, 2018). It is
helpful for teachers to provide external support such as cues, prompts, reminders, and step-by-
step instructions for students with weak executive skills to all students. Teachers can monitor
students’ progress through individualized education programs, 504 plans, accommodation plans,
instructional objectives, benchmarks, and goals through checklists, rubrics, and specific,
measurable, achievable, relevant, and timely goals (Dawson & Guare, 2018; Strosnider &
Sharpe, 2019). The authors suggested using a problem-solving team responsible for designing
and implementing EF interventions, including the behavioral goal, exact nature of the
intervention, length of time, criteria for success, and measurement procedure with ongoing
feedback to students and parents (Dawson & Guare, 2018). Peer tutoring programs, weekly
progress reports sent to parents, and both in-class and homework assignment modifications help
match students’ level of executive skill development (Dawson & Guare, 2018; Strosnider &
Sharpe, 2019). Modifying assignments include shortened assignments, built-in breaks, choice,
templates for structure, and close-ended tasks to help with deficits in EF skills.
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
Teachers need to self-reflect on the effectiveness of their teaching practices to support EF
weaknesses. Typically, intervention approaches focus on two different levels: student ability and
the environment (Dawson & Guare, 2009, 2012, 2018; Meltzer, 2018). Meltzer (2018) found the
learning environment and choice of instructional methods and materials play a significant role in
mediating the cyclical role between self-perception, emotion, self-regulation, goal setting, and
motivation. Meltzer (2018) found effective learning strategies help students bridge the gap
between weak EF processes and academic demands. When teachers self-reflect on how they
109

structure, model, and scaffold directions, assignments, school work, homework, routines,
transitions, schedules, prompts, and incentive systems, it is then that student learning improves
(Meltzer, 2018). Purposefully reflecting on one’s learning is at the heart of metacognition and is
necessary for cognitive flexibility (Wilson & Conyers, 2016). Therefore, teachers need built time
daily to practice mindfulness and self-reflection to adjust their teaching practices and strategies.
Teachers need to create a classroom environment that is conducive to all learning styles
and promotes EF processes. Dawson and Guare (2018) suggested that teachers should reduce
problems in the physical and social environment by changing the nature of tasks, the way cues
are provided, the seating arrangement, proximity control, and changing the way adults interact
with students. Ways to develop the executive skills and motivate the student to use the skill by
asking specific questions, prompts, and statements that promote executive skill development
(Dawson & Guare, 2018). For example, teachers could ask,
Is there something I can give you to hold to help you remember to raise your hand before
speaking? (response inhibition), What are some ways you could remember to solve this
math problem? (working memory), Would you like me to help you practice a relaxation
strategy before this test? (emotion control), Tell me three things you can do if you start
your math homework and realize you cannot remember exactly how to do the assignment
(flexibility). (p. 57)
Metacognitive awareness and effective strategy improve when teachers provide incentives to
make strategy use count (Meltzer, 2018). Giving students strategy reflection sheets for
homework, asking them to share a strategy daily, having each use a strategy notebook, and
creating a strategy wall helps create a classroom culture that promotes self-understanding and
maximizes teaching EF strategies in the context of the core curriculum (Meltzer, 2018).
110

Motivation Recommendations
The data from this study, outlined in Chapter Four, indicated one validated motivation
influence determined as a need and one asset on the problem of practice. Interviews and
document analysis indicate teachers value EF; however, they do not have the confidence to teach
each skill to students. Teachers must develop their confidence in EF processes and skills for the
organization to achieve its goal.
Table 13 lists the motivation causes, priority, principle, and recommendations. Following
the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and the
literature supporting the recommendation is provided.

111

Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation
influence
Priority
(high,
low)
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Value
Successful teachers need to
have intrinsic and
personal relevance in
implementing EF tools,
strategies, skills, and
interventions.
Low The higher an individual
values an activity, the
more likely they will
persist, choose, and
engage in the activity
(Schunk, 2020).
Show how learning and
training teachers how
to teach EF processes
in setting and
achieving learning
goals in the classroom.
Self-efficacy
Successful teachers must
believe they are capable
of providing direct
instruction of EF tools,
strategies, skills, and
interventions to improve
student achievement.
High High self-efficacy leads
to teacher job
performance,
satisfaction, and
student outcomes
(Gibbs & Powell,
2012)
Provide learning
opportunities for
teachers to learn tools,
strategies, skills, and
interventions in EF.
Successful teachers must
believe they are capable
of learning and teaching
EF through direct
instruction.
High Beliefs individuals have
regarding their ability
to learn and perform
tasks are connected to
their effort and
persistence (Bandura,
2000).
Create learning
engagement and
instructional practices
for teachers to learn,
practice, and receive
ongoing feedback.

Value Solutions
Teachers need intrinsic motivation and personal relevance to EF processes, tools, and
strategies in interventions themselves. It is when teachers can model how they motivate
themselves with relevant goals can students learn, practice, and collaborate with their peers in
this process (Wilson & Conyers, 2016). Schunk (2020) explained that when an individual values
an activity, they will persist, choose, and engage in the activity, which suggests that teachers can
use scripts to shape the acquisition of EF skills by defining problem-solving techniques by
112

modeling the process to students within the core curriculum. Teachers can model self-talk by
asking themselves, “What is my problem? What is my plan? What strategies and tools can I use?
Am I following my plan? How did I do?” (Dawson & Guare, 2018, p. 64). Teachers benefit from
embedding EF processes in conjunction with classroom assessments, including EF rating scales
and rubrics, and providing feedback to students after each summative and formative assessment
in each core subject area (Dawson & Guare, 2018). When teachers ask students specific
questions pertaining to each of the 11 EF skills, students reflect on how they are doing and what
they are doing to achieve a goal.
Self-Efficacy Solutions
Teachers need to believe in themselves and have the confidence to learn EF strategies,
skills, and interventions that will increase student achievement. Gibbs and Powell (2012) found
that high self-efficacy and teacher job performance led to positive student and teacher
relationships and outcomes. This finding suggests that PD leaders must provide useful training to
support EF skills and processes. Teachers can increase self-efficacy by ensuring adequate
strategy training, role-modeling, and persuasive communication that expresses confidence in
students’ ability to use EF skills (Dawson & Guare, 2012) in the core curriculum. Teachers’
training with PD leads to motivation and self-efficacy in their abilities to maintain effort and
persistence.
The findings in this study indicate that self-efficacy is a need as Grade 5 classroom
teachers do not feel confident in their ability to teach all EF processes and skills. For motivation
to be maintained and supported, teachers need to believe in their ability to learn and perform
tasks connected to personal relevance and goals (Bandura, 2000). Guo et al. (2010) found higher
levels of teacher self-efficacy in conjunction with higher levels of classroom emotional support.
113

Meltzer (2018) noted that academic performance is often dependent on teachers’ knowledge of
and willingness to use EF strategies explicitly for students with learning and attention issues.
This dependence implies that teachers need training, collaboration, practice, and feedback on EF
strategies with colleagues to adjust their teaching practices to serve students with EF deficits to
bridge the gap between skills and academic demands.
Organization Recommendations
This study’s data validated four organizational influences on the problem of practice: one
cultural setting, one cultural model, one policy, process, and procedure, and one resource
influence. The influences were validated through document analysis and interviews. Table 14
indicates a priority level for each validated influence in achieving the organization's goal and the
research-based principles that support recommendations. Following the table, a discussion is
provided for each priority influence, the associated principle, and the specific recommendations
based on evidence from the literature base. To ultimately reach OWA’s performance goal, the
organization needs to allocate resources to train Grade 5 teachers through PD on EF language,
skills, processes, interventions, and tools to help meet the needs of all learners. The assumed
organizational influences indicate a need for OWA to develop a school culture, cultural model,
policies, and resources dedicated to the success of EF implementation within the core
curriculum. Therefore, the priority for the school is high to progress in meeting the
organizational performance goal. Table 14 lists the organization's causes, priority, principle, and
recommendations. Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and
recommendation and the literature supporting the recommendation is provided.

114

Table 14
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organization
influence
Priority
(high, low)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Cultural settings
Successful teachers
need to be part of
an organization
that implements
policies, processes,
and procedures
promoting values
of teaching EF
embedded in the
core curriculum.
High Communication
becomes more
effective and
professional when
teachers use EF
language when
discussing
students’ deficits
with all teachers,
students, and
parents (Dawson
& Guare, 2018).
Develop a growth
mindset and use EF
language in daily
practice that co-
facilitates learning
with students and
aligns with
weaknesses that
manifest in student
performance.
Cultural models
OWA must provide
professional
learning
opportunities to
collaborate among
elementary
teachers for them
to learn EF skills,
strategies, and
interventions.
High Effective
organizations
ensure teachers’
beliefs support EF
skills, strategies,
and interventions
through PD
(McCloskey et al.,
2009).
Ensure all teachers
receive PD to learn,
collaborate, and
develop systems
with each other on
EF language, skills,
interventions, and
processes in PLCs.
Policies and procedures
Successful teachers
need to be part of
an organization
that provides
MTSS for teachers
to learn how to
meet the needs of
all learners who
need foundational
EF skills.
High Teachers need time
within their PLC
meetings to
discuss students
who are not
meeting
benchmark
standards through
the MTSS
framework to
develop
intervention
processes (Choi et
al., 2019)
Ensure all policies and
procedures align
with supporting the
needs of all students
with weaknesses in
EF.
115

Assumed
organization
influence
Priority
(high, low)
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Resources
OWA needs to
provide teachers
time to learn about
EF within their
PLCs.
High Teachers need time
in PLC meetings
to discuss students
who are not
meeting
benchmark
standards through
the MTSS
framework to
develop
intervention
processes (Choi et
al., 2019) and
learn about EF.
Ensure teachers have
time to learn, create,
practice, implement,
and observe each
other teach EF skills
and strategies
within the core
curriculum with
teachers in their
PLCs.

Cultural Settings Solutions
The data validated one gap in the assumed organizational influence of cultural settings,
showing the school needs systems to promote and value EF skills and strategies throughout the
school day. Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that culture is the most important part of an
organization as it dictates how individuals collaborate to accomplish tasks and goals. The core
values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes must align with the organizational goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). According to Rueda (2011), cultural settings are the visible characteristics and
include the who, what, when, where, why, and how the organization functions from day to day.
Dawson and Guare (2018) recommend teachers refrain from using a traditional approach
of viewing students’ deficit behaviors from assumptions about the cause to using an EF growth
mindset. When teachers assume that behavior is due to the lack of students’ effort or character,
they may give students negative, vague, and unproductive feedback. When teachers view
116

behavior through an executive skill lens, they assume the behavior is due to a particular skill
weakness and give students positive, specific, and achievable feedback. Research indicates that
to support students with weaknesses in EF, all teachers need to be part of an organization that
implements policies, processes, and procedures that promote values of seeing students' behaviors
through a growth mindset and an executive skill lens. Relating obstacles to EF skills reduces the
negative self-image that students can feel about having difficulty in school (Dawson & Guare,
2018). Teachers can co-facilitate learning with students by asking them about the obstacles
getting in the way of their learning, what the EF skill associated with the challenge is, and to
name strategies for overcoming the obstacle. Teachers can provide feedback to students and
create success criteria for all subject areas and skills. The organization needs to train teachers to
use EF language and terminology in all meetings, settings, and processes around student growth
and development, which will create a positive school climate around students’ behavior, social-
emotional learning, and academic achievement.
Cultural Model Solutions
Cultural models are often invisible in organizations; therefore, shared representations of
structures, values, practices, and policies must be developed thoughtfully throughout the
organization (Rueda, 2011). Research supports the fact that when an organization has a shared
mental schema, beliefs, and understanding of how EF skill deficits manifest academically,
behaviorally, and emotionally, students are more likely to be successful when an organization’s
cultural model is aligned and supportive of all students (McCloskey, 2009). OWA must provide
professional learning opportunities and development to all teachers to strengthen their EF
pedagogy and practices. When systems are in alignment and integrate values in what is measured
and what is measured is valued, EF pedagogy can be developed with the collaboration of
117

teachers and students in all core subjects (Dawson & Guare, 2018). Professional development is
more effective when teachers collaborate and integrate activities into daily practice (Huijboom et
al., 2019) within PLCs. The literature and guiding principle confirm that the organization must
develop systems integrating measurement tools of EF skills in assessments in reading, writing,
math, science, and social studies. When students have direct, timely feedback on rubrics, they
can self-assess their learning through objectives that are small, simple, and clear (Dawson &
Guare, 2018). When students and teachers are held accountable for EF skills and expectations,
individual roles are aligned with the organizational goal and mission.
Policies and Procedures Solutions
Teachers need to be a part of an organization that has policies, processes, and procedures,
with all members in alignment with PLC meetings. When teachers have time allocated to talk
about pedagogy and high-leverage practices within the MTSS framework, they can ensure all
policies and procedures align to support the needs of all students with weaknesses in EF.
Organizations should include MTSS in their cultural setting to enhance the process of
prevention, identification, and intervention through data-driven collaborative processes (Choi et
al., 2019; Sugai & Horner, 2009). It is important for teachers to use UDL instructional strategies
that create clear action plans, allocate staff responsibilities, resources, and ongoing monitoring of
support of students through regular PLC meetings (Choi et al., 2019). The OWA needs policies
that incorporate adaptability, acceptability, and accountability standards and regulations for all
teachers to achieve the organizational goal (Rueda, 2011) of explicitly teaching all students EF
skills within the core curriculum.
118

Resources Solutions
Resources such as time and materials must be readily available for individuals to use to
achieve and perform the organization's goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). OWA needs to provide time
for teachers to discuss students who are struggling to meet benchmark standards through the
MTSS framework and time to create academic and behavioral support plans for students Choi et
al., 2019). Regular meetings and progress monitoring allow teachers to learn what skills need to
be taught and how to implement strategies into core subjects. To effectively teach 11 EF skills,
teachers need time to learn and implement their instructional practices with ongoing feedback
and support from teachers who can observe each other teach. When teachers carefully record EF
skills targets on assessment documents, students can focus on elements of their performance they
can control, and this holds both teachers and students accountable for using EF skills. Therefore,
learning is more relevant and meaningful with a universal classroom design of EF skills shared
by all (Dawson & Guare, 2018).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation Evaluation Framework
The new world Kirkpatrick model was developed to inform the implementation plan and
evaluation plan for reaching an organizational goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This study
utilizes both the implementation and evaluation plan. The model uses four levels of training and
evaluation designed in reverse order, beginning with the end in mind, of the organization’s
purpose and mission: Level 4 (results), Level 3 (behavior), Level 2 (learning), and Level 1
(reaction). This backward design creates accountability for all stakeholders and forces the
organization to execute outcomes with purposeful action. The following sections outline Level 4,
with results aligned with the organizational goal. Next is Level 3, which defines the critical
119

behaviors stakeholders must perform consistently that impact the intended results. Then Level 2
follows the learning goals and the knowledge required of all stakeholders to achieve the
organization’s goal. Lastly, Level 1 measures stakeholders’ satisfaction with the training
involved. The new world Kirkpatrick model will guide, foster value, and create buy-in from
stakeholders to achieve expected outcomes.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The mission of OWA is to prepare and motivate students for a rapidly changing world by
instilling critical thinking skills, a global perspective, and respect for core values. The school’s
strategic plan is to deepen the focus on social-emotional learning and wellness and promote
consistency of high-quality teaching in every classroom to support the learning needs of every
student. As a result of the school’s mission statement, teachers need to understand and explicitly
teach 11 EF processes, strategies, skills, and interventions to students in all core subjects.
In Grade 5, SNAP data revealed an increase in behaviors related to attention, behavior,
focus, and organization. Approximately 20% of students in a classroom exhibit deficits in EF in
general education students and special education students. Teachers do not name the fact that
problems may be related to EF and may not know the critical importance of EF in the context of
learning. In SNAP meetings, teachers often make negative assumptions about why students
struggle through character flaws or lack of motivation. This study evaluated Grade 5 classroom
teachers’ assumptions and needs to support their ability to teach EF skills, strategies, and
interventions daily in conjunction with academic subjects. The following implementation and
evaluation plan will ensure teachers are trained on EF pedagogical strategies and will implement
high-leverage practices that support all learners in their classroom.
120

Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 15 shows the Level 4 leading indicators for the external and internal outcomes and
metrics as well as methods to be used to measure them. Furthermore, Level 4’s internal
outcomes will be met as the expected result of the training and organizational support of teachers
and administrators. There will be a positive correlation between the realization of the external
outcomes as the purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the implementation plan was
successful, and teachers are trained in EF foundational skills and strategies.

121

Table 15
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
All meetings with
stakeholders include
strengths and weaknesses
of supporting students’ EF
skills with EF language
The number of administrators,
teachers, parents, and students
using EF language inside and
outside of the classroom.
Quarterly check-ins with
stakeholders on the
progress and
development of EF
skills within core
subjects
Policies and procedures on
assessments include EF
skills with rubrics
The number of assessments
linked to EF skills
Solicit data from
classroom teachers
Increased student awareness
of their learning profile of
EF strengths and
weaknesses
Feedback from students Solicit data from students
via interviews, surveys,
and rubrics
Internal outcomes
Implementation of research-
based instructional
strategies targeting EF
skills in Grade 5
Number of strategies utilized in
weekly lesson plans,
observations of teachers
teaching strategies, and
observations of students
implementing strategies
Review lesson plans and
classroom observations
Implementation of surveys,
questionnaires, and semi-
structured interviews with
all students
Number of data gathered for each
student and analyzed by each
classroom teacher
EF rubrics, surveys, and
interview sheets
gathered from
classroom teachers
Increase student performance
in SEL, behavior, and
academics
Percentage of students increasing
mastery of all 11 EF skills
Classroom observations,
formative and
summative assessments
Increased quality of
coaching, training,
feedback, and reflection of
EF foundational skills
Frequency of use of EF language,
skills, and strategies
PLC meeting minutes,
teacher surveys,
reflection surveys

122

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
The stakeholders of focus were Grade 5 teachers in terms of the behaviors noted in Table
16, which are central to implementing EF skills and strategies into their daily instruction to
support students with EF weaknesses. Each critical behavior is specific, observable, and
measurable and will influence the results in Level 4.

Table 16
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
Implement EF
language and 11
skills and
research-based
strategies into
daily classroom
lessons
Number of teachers
who are
implementing and
number of strategies
implemented
Classroom
observations, lesson
plans, and
assessments
Daily
Engage in training,
coaching,
feedback, and
reflection cycles
that facilitate
teacher
knowledge and
motivation
The number of
opportunities to
engage in
discussions and
reflect on training
and implementation
of EF skills and
strategies
Administrators will
track the reflection,
feedback, and
coaching
opportunities that
support teacher
knowledge and
motivation in
supporting students'
EF skills
Teachers will receive
feedback once a
week that
specifically
addresses: lesson
plans,
observations,
coaching, PLC
meeting
discussions
Implement all
formative and
summative
assessments to
include 11 EF
skills in all
subject areas
Number of teachers
implementing and
number of
assessments,
including EF rubrics
Assessment data in all
subject areas
Daily

123

Required Drivers
Teachers require the support and collaboration of instructional coaches and
administrators as well as colleagues in acquiring the knowledge and motivational skills to
support their own EF skills and the skills of students. Teachers benefit from utilizing
instructional tools such as questionnaires, surveys, semi-structured interview questions, and
rubrics to help guide their knowledge in supporting all students achieve learning behaviors
required for success in the classroom. Table 17 shows the recommended drivers that support
critical behaviors of administrators, coaches, and teachers to ensure accountability and the
implementation of EF training.

124

Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical
behaviors
supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job aids including steps to implement 11 EF skills Weekly or daily
(as needed)
1, 2, 3
Questionnaires, surveys, semi-structured interviews, and
rubrics
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Coaching to support planning and instruction Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Administration and team members problem solve
challenges together
Bi-monthly 1, 2, 3
Feedback from coaches on observations and next steps Weekly 1, 2, 3
Informal feedback from administrators to acknowledge
effort
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Collaboration and peer modeling as part of training Weekly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement of teachers implementing
strategies and seeing a positive impact on student
achievement
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Personalized notes from administrator recognizing effort
and work
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Classroom observations of teachers implementing EF
strategies
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback from coaches and teachers on assessments
including EF skills in all core subject areas
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Instructional coaches gather data on the use of strategies
and EF language development
Weekly 1, 2, 3

Organizational Support
The organization is required to support the critical behaviors and required drivers of
administrators, coaches, and classroom teachers through the solutions to the organizational gaps
125

indicated previously. By providing support, planning time, and resources to learn EF language
and the impact of weaknesses on academic performance, teachers will begin to align their
instructional focus and practices with academic subjects. School administrators and coaches will
need to build in time to collaborate, learn, practice, reflect, and implement strategies daily
through coaching and observations from administrators, coaches, and colleagues. The
organization will need to support teacher knowledge and motivation in alignment with the
organization’s vision, mission, and goals through the strategic plan ensuring all students' and
teachers' EF skills are supported. The organizational support is based on the findings from
Chapter Four that support a need for collaboration, time, resources, and instructional support.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
The following completion of the recommended solutions, specifically EF skills training
and instructional coaching, classroom teachers will be able to do:
1. Understand EF skills strengths and weaknesses to support teachers and students (F)
2. Explain all components of EF in relation to impacts on student achievement (F)
3. Implement research-based EF strategies daily in all core subjects (P)
4. Implement EF skills into rubrics on all assessments (P)
5. Understand collaborative practices and the importance of self-reflection daily (M)
6. Use EF language and terminology daily in all PLC meetings and with students (M)
7. Self-reflect on the effectiveness of EF instruction and strategies with feedback from
coaches (M)
126

Program
The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a training program
that explores the knowledge and motivation needed to support students' EF skills. The primary
learners, Grade 5 classroom teachers, will learn EF definitions, terminology, and the 11 skills to
help all students succeed in the classroom with explicit instruction. The program will consist of
training, coaching, feedback, self-reflection, and collaboration. To prevent extraneous load of
learning, training will take place over 11 weeks, with one EF skill being introduced a week for
time to plan and implement skills and strategies explicitly into each academic subject. The
rationale behind this is to go slow in the right direction rather than going fast in the wrong
direction.
Instructional coaches will model how to teach each skill explicitly through videos, step-
by-step instruction, discussions, and reproducible materials. Teachers will learn research-based
instructional strategies to target the EF strengths and weaknesses of every student in their
classroom. School administrators will also participate in the training to support teachers in PD.
Training will take place at OWA, and the trainers will be instructional coaches for their expertise
in EF. The training is targeted at the teacher's zone of proximal development and will target
teachers’ assumptions and needs throughout the training. Coaches and administrators will follow
up with a survey, observations, and ongoing feedback weekly.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Acquisition of demonstration of declarative knowledge is a prerequisite to applying
knowledge and demonstrating metacognitive and procedural knowledge. Therefore, Grade 5
teachers must evaluate the procedural, metacognitive, and declarative knowledge throughout the
training to guide effective change and implementation of explicitly teaching EF skills, strategies,
127

and interventions. Teachers will receive a pre-survey questionnaire to be completed a week prior
to the training (Appendix H). Understanding the 11 EF foundational skills is crucial for teachers
in the training. To feel connected to the training, it is important to evaluate a teacher's
confidence, value, purpose, and commitment to learning EF skills. However, teachers must
increase self-efficacy and motivation to implement change to apply their knowledge to lesson
plans and assessments. As such, Table 18 lists the evaluation methods and timing for the
components of learning. At the start of the training, teachers will be given a questionnaire to
determine their own EF strengths and weaknesses (Appendices F & G).

128

Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge “I know it.”
Understand teacher’s own EF strengths and weaknesses During training
Explain what EF is and how it impacts learning
academically, behaviorally, and socially
During and after training
Knowledge checks of teacher practice implementing EF
strategies
During and after training
Explain all 11 EF skills During and after training
Procedural skills “I can do it right now.”
Checklist of EF included in lesson plans During and after training
Explain the learning profile of each student’s EF
strengths and weaknesses
After training and after individual
and PLC meetings
Implement research-based strategies to support EF
weaknesses
After training and after individual
and PLC meetings
Implement EF skills on all assessments with rubrics in
all core subject areas
After training and after individual
and PLC meetings
Self-reflect on the effectiveness of teaching high-
leverage EF practices
After training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Pre and post-survey questions Before and after training
Discussions of teachers on the value of the training Before, during, and after training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Post survey of teachers related to confidence After training
Team discussions and reflections within PLCs After training
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Use EF terminology in all PLC meetings with an action
plan for each EF skill
After training and after individual
and PLC meetings
Commitment to skills and strategies in lesson plans from
the training
After training and after individual
and PLC meetings
Observations and feedback from coaches and
administrator
After training and after individual
and PLC meetings

129

Level 1: Reaction
Acquisition of new knowledge is impacted by a participant’s engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction with the training. Level 1, reaction, refers to the degree to which the participant finds
the training useful and applicable to their work. Engagement refers to the active involvement and
contribution to the learning experience. Engagement refers to the personal responsibility and
learning of the participant. Relevance is the degree to which participants can apply what they
have learned from the training. Table 19 lists the methods to determine the teachers’ reactions to
the training program.

Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Methods or Tools Timing
Engagement
Observations from session lead During the training
Feedback from session lead During the training
Follow-up observations After the training
Relevance
Discussions with teachers regarding using the new learning After the training
Check-ins with session lead After the training
Customer satisfaction
Feedback from the session lead After the training
Training evaluation post-survey After the training

130

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
An anonymous survey will be administered following the training of Grade 5 teachers
(Appendix I). The survey will be administered digitally and will contain questions about the
level 1 reactions to the training. In addition, the survey will ask questions regarding the
perceived newly acquired knowledge and skills learned from the training. The survey will be
used as feedback to guide future training to inform instructional coaches on how to train other
teachers throughout the elementary school on EF. Administrators and instructional coaches will
conduct informal check-ins and feedback discussions throughout the training to gauge
engagement during the training.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately 4 weeks after completing the training program, the instructional coach
and administrator will complete an evaluation of the training from the teacher's perspective.
Appendix J outlines potential survey questions regarding Levels 1–4. The Grade 5 teachers will
complete the self-evaluation survey with both open-ended questions and Likert scale items to
determine the extent to which their progress is impacting the larger organizational goals (Level
4), progress towards critical behaviors (Level 3), confidence in applying the training to their
instructional pedagogy (Level 2), and satisfaction with the training (Level 1). School leaders will
review the evaluation survey to determine if the training was effective, form positive and
negative trends, and inform future training. Additionally, administrators and instructional
coaches will check in with Grade 5 teachers to discuss engagement, relevance, value, and reward
for their learning experience from the training.
131

Data Analysis and Reporting
The survey results after the training and evaluation after 4 months of training will be
analyzed and shared with a report to Grade 5 teachers. The report will detail the instrument’s
results and focus on Level 1 and 2 findings from the initial training using pie charts and exact
responses. Data generated from Level 3 and Level 4 findings will be shared with Grade 5
teachers using the same system of pie charts and exact quotes from teachers’ responses. Data
from informal classroom observations and student data tied with assessments will be shared and
celebrated for all stakeholders to access. The goal of collecting, analyzing, and sharing data is to
monitor progress, provide transparency, and hold teachers accountable for the performance and
stakeholder goal.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The new world Kirkpatrick model served as the framework to plan, implement, and
evaluate the recommendations for the organization to maximize achieving the stakeholder and
organizational goals. The plan addresses recommended solutions to the validated gaps identified
through the data analysis in Chapter Four. The advantage of using the new world Kirkpatrick
model is that the focus is on data-driven decisions, ensuring the organization consistently
measures progress against the desired Level 4 goals and ensuring support for Level 1, 2, and 3
components towards the performance goal. Misalignment occurs at Level 4 (results) when
departments or teams define results in their individual realms instead of aligning to the
organizational goal.
The suggested follow-up training and data analysis will result in higher teacher self-
efficacy in supporting students who have deficits in EF weaknesses. Teachers will have
increased factual knowledge about EF skills and terminology and use their newly acquired skills
132

in all PLC meetings. Teachers will explicitly teach each 11 EF skills, create learning profiles,
and assess students learning on formative and summative assessments in all core subjects. The
training will also lead to teachers explaining EF to parents using resources, terminology, and
materials from the training. The training will create a framework for instructional coaching that
allows administrators and instructional coaches to provide targeted, specific feedback to teachers
and engage in self-reflection around EF skills and strategies. Through an increase in knowledge
and motivation, the organization will have a positive impact on student achievement through a
growth mindset approach. All stakeholders will have buy-in and value new learning through the
collaborative training process and implementation of newly acquired skills. See Appendices K–P
for work examples of what teachers can use in the classroom.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations and delimitations to this study. Limitations are the factors
that may impact the quality of research but are out of the researcher's control. Delimitations are
the limits that fall within the researcher's control and reflect a decision made for the course of
this study. OWA was the only school examined for the study, and the stakeholder sample was
small. A larger sample of participants from different grade levels at OWA would provide a
broadened data set to analyze. Teachers from Grades K–12 could have participated in the study
to broaden the scope of developmental tasks requiring executive skills throughout elementary,
middle, and high school. Examining only one school is a limitation as a larger context would
provide deeper insights into the KMO challenges of teachers' assumptions on the importance of
EF. By only focusing on one stakeholder group, the study limited its generalizability. The study
did not focus on key perspectives from administrators, teachers of other grade levels, parents, or
133

students. This design created a limited understanding of EF skills, biases, assumptions, and
experiences, limiting results to only one perspective.
Recommendations for Future Research
As a result of this study, several recommendations for future research can be made to
grow the body of literature around teachers’ assumptions about the importance of EF in the
classroom. Future research could mirror the study of OWA but include all teachers, not one
grade level, and incorporate all stakeholders’ perspectives. The research could examine whole-
school trends in the KMO influences impacting the achievement of the organizational goal at
OWA. Future research should include how to help teachers who name they have EF weaknesses
in EF and how to support their own EF. Future research could examine other international
schools and replicate this study with a larger sample size across schools. Academic and peer-
reviewed articles were difficult to locate to assist in determining teachers’ assumptions on EF,
the most critical influence on student achievement. While there is an overlap in the neurological
field, there is a lack of research in education on how assessments in EF constructs carry over into
the classroom. Future research should follow up with long-term qualitative and quantitative
studies regarding EF trajectories and development in students in elementary school. Future
research could also include how coaching models with students and teachers impact students’
social, emotional, behaviorally, and academic achievement.
Conclusion
The goal of OWA is that all teachers in Grade 5 will apply their knowledge of EF and
fully implement skills and strategies with students by the end of the school year. This study’s
findings make visible the need for teachers to learn EF skills and strategies and implement
research-based strategies and interventions in the classroom. As students' needs are becoming
134

more visible through the COVID-19 epidemic, mental health and students with disabilities are on
the rise in classrooms worldwide. As a result, the performance and achievement gaps among
students are widening. Addressing students' EF needs will improve student learning and
teachers’ pedagogy, achieving the organization’s performance goal. This study introduced the
organizational performance status, stakeholder goal, related literature, and research methods and
proposed a training program in alignment with the KMO framework. Teachers can be change
agents leading from their chair and will always be lifelong learners in the field of education.

135

References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1993). First-grade classroom behavior: Its
short- and long-term consequences for school performance. Child Development, 64(3),
801. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131219
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Kirkwood, H., & Elliott, J. (2009). The cognitive and
behavioral characteristics of children with low working memory. Child Development, 80,
606–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01282
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term
and WM in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77(6), 1698–1716.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x
Anderson, D. L., Watt, S. E., & Shanley, D. C. (2013). A multi-dimensional model of the origins
of attitude certainty: Teachers’ attitudes toward attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Social Psychology of Education, 17(1), 19–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9235-
5
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (1st
ed.). Longman.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood.
Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
Anderson, P. J. (2008). Towards a developmental model of executive function. In V. Anderson,
R. Jacobs, & P. J. Anderson (Eds.), Executive functions and the frontal lobes: A lifespan
perspective (pp. 3–21). Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Modularity, mass-action and memory. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748608401613
136

Baggetta, P., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Conceptualization and operationalization of executive
function. Mind, Brain and Education : the Official Journal of the International Mind,
Brain, and Education Society, 10(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12100
Baler, R. D., & Volkow, N. D. (2006). Drug addiction: the neurobiology of disrupted self-
control. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 12(12), 559–566
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78
Banich, M. T. (2009). Executive function: The search for an integrated account. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2009.01615.x
Barch, D. M. (2005). The cognitive neuroscience of schizophrenia. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 1(1), 321–353. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143959
Barker, J. E., Semenov, A. D., Michaelson, L., Provan, L. S., Snyder, H. R., & Munakata, Y.
(2014). Less-structured time in children’s daily lives predicts self-directed executive
functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00593
Barkley, R. A. (2020). Executive functions: What they are, how they work, and why they evolved.
The Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A., & Fischer, M. (2011). Predicting impairment in major life activities and
occupational functioning in hyperactive children as adults: Self-reported executive
function (EF) deficits versus EF tests. Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(2), 137–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2010.549877
137

Bates, L. A., & Glick, J. E. (2013). Does it matter if teachers and schools match the student?
Racial and ethnic disparities in problem behaviors. Social Science Research, 42, 1180 –
1190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.005
Becker, D. R., Miao, A., Duncan, R., & McClelland, M. M. (2014). Behavioral self-regulation
and executive function both predict visuomotor skills and early academic achievement.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 411– 424.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.014
Benton, A. L., & Sivan, A. B. (2007). Clinical neuropsychology: A brief history. Disease-a-
Month, 53(3), 142–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2007.04.003
Bergen, T., & van Veen, K. (2004). Het leren van leraren in een context van
onderwijsvernieuwingen: Waarom is het zo moeilijk? [The learning of teachers in a
context of innovation of education: Why is it so difficult?]. Velon, 25(4), 29–39.
Berninger, V. W., & Richards, T. L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists.
Elsevier Science & Technology.
Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and
technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–
114). Guilford Press.
Berry, D. (2012). Inhibitory control and teacher–child conflict: Reciprocal associations across
the elementary-school years. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 66–
76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.10.002
138

Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive functions after age 5: Changes and
correlates. Developmental Review, 29, 180 –200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.05.002
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child
Development, 81(6), 1641–1660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological
conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist,
57(2), 111–127.
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief
understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in Kindergarten. Child Development,
78(2), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing Organizations, 6th edition. Jossey-Bass.
Brain Futures. (2019). Executive function report. Retrieved February 15, 2022, from
https://www.brainfutures.org/brainfitnessinschools/
Braver, T. S., Cole, M. W., & Yarkoni, T. (2010). Vive les differences! Individual variation in
neural mechanisms of executive control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 242–250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.03.002
Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher survey
on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools.
(ED558068). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558068.pdf
Brock, L. L., Murrah, W. M., Cottone, E. A., Mashburn, A. J., & Grissmer, D. W. (2017). An
after-school intervention targeting executive function and visuospatial skills also
139

improves classroom behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(5),
474–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025417738057
Brown, T. E. (2006). Executive functions and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder:
Implications of two conflicting views. International Journal of Disability Development
and Education, 53(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120500510024
Brown, T. E., & Landgraf, J.M. (2010). Improvements in executive function correlate with
enhanced performance and functioning and health-related quality of life: evidence from 2
large, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in ADHD. Postgraduate
Medicine, 122(5), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2010.09.2200
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2004). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and
executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical
achievement at age 7 Years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 205–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982312
Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictor of children’s mathematics
ability: Inhibition, switching and working memory. Developmental Neuropsychology,
19(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN1903_3
Cantin, R. H., Gnaedinger, E. K., Gallaway, K. C., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Hund, A. M.
(2016). Executive functioning predicts reading, mathematics, and theory of mind during
the Elementary Years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 66–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.014
140

Cartwright, K. B. (2015). Executive skills and reading comprehension: A guide for educators.
Guilford Press.
Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M., & Kools, Q. (2013). Collective learning in primary schools and
teacher education institutes. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 373–402.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9209-6
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version
2.2. https://udleguidelines.cast.org
Choi, J. H., McCart, A. B., Hicks, T. A., & Sailor, W. (2019). An analysis of mediating effects of
school leadership on MTSS implementation. The Journal of Special Education, 53(1),
15–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918804815
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S.,
Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of Child
Characteristics X Instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by
differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221.
https://doi.org/10.1598/Rrq.46.3.1
Cooper-Kahn, J., Dietzel, L. (2008). Late, lost, and unprepared: A parent’s guide to helping
children with executive functioning. Woodbine House.
Corcoran, R. P., & O’Flaherty, J. (2017). Executive function during teacher preparation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 168–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.023
141

Crescioni, A. W., Ehrlinger, J., Alquist, J. L., Conlon, K.E., Baumeister, R. F., (2011). High trait
self-control predicts positive health behaviors and success in weight loss. Journal of
Health Psychology, 16(5), 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310390247
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2009). Smart but scattered: the revolutionary “executive skills”
approach to helping kids reach their potential. Guilford Press.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2012). Coaching students with executive skills deficits. Guilford Press.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2018). Executive skills in children and adolescents: a practical guide
to assessment and intervention. Guilford Press.
Delis, D., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function scale. The
Psychological Corporation.
Denckla, M. B. (1994). Measurement of executive function. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of
reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues
(pp. 117–142). Brookes.
De Rosnay, M., Harris, P. L., & Pons, F. (2008). Emotional understanding and development
psychopathology in young children. In C. Sharp, P. Fongay, & I. Goodyer (Eds.), Social
cognition and developmental psychopathology (pp. 343–386). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198569183.003.0012
de Wilde, A., Koot, H. M., & van Lier, P. A. (2015). Developmental links between children’s
working memory and their social relations with teachers and peers in the early school
years. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(1), 19–30.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0053-4
142

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). The early years: Preschool
program improves cognitive control. Science, 318(5855), 1387–1388.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151148
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in
children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529
DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002). Promoting academic enablers to improve student
achievement: An introduction to the mini-series. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 293–
297. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086156
Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., & Hamre, B. (2010). Teacher–child interactions in the classroom:
Toward a theory of within- and cross-domain links to children’s developmental
outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21(5), 699–723.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.497453
Drijbooms, E., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). How executive functions predict
development in syntactic complexity of narrative writing in the upper elementary grades.
Reading and Writing, 30(1), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9670-8
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani,
L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C.
(2007). “School readiness and later achievement”: Correction to Duncan et al. (2007).
Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.43.6.1428
143

Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation:
Theory and application. Guilford.
Elliott, J. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1988). Factors affecting achievement test scores and marks
of Black and White first graders. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 449 – 471.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461550
Fairchild, G., van Goozen, S. H., Stollery, S. J., Aitken, M. R., Savage J., (2009). Decision
making and executive function in male adolescents with early-onset or adolescence-onset
conduct disorder and control subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 66(2), 162–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.02.024
Fleming, J., & Bay, M. (2004). Social and emotional learning in teacher preparation standards. In
J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic
success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 94–110).
Teachers College Press.
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior
and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness
curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256
Forsyth, P. B., Barnes, L. B., & Adams, C. M. (2006). Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 122–141.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652024
Frazier, T. W., Youngstrom, E. A., Glutting, J. J., & Watkins, M. W. (2007). ADHD and
achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 49–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400010401
144

Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008).
Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal
of Experimental Psychology. General, 137(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-
3445.137.2.201
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Capizzi, A. M.,
Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill
in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Garcia, E. B., Sulik, M. J., & Obradović, J. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ executive
functions: Disparities by gender, ethnicity, and ELL status. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 111(5), 918–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000308
Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and
educational attainment: evidence from National Curriculum assessments at 7 and 14
years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.934
Gibbs, S., & Powell, B. (2012). Teacher efficacy and pupil behavior: The structure of teachers’
individual and collective beliefs and their relationship with numbers of pupils excluded
from school. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 564–584.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02046.x
Gilmore, C., & Cragg, L. (2014). Teachers’ understanding of the role of executive functions in
mathematics learning. Mind, Brain and Education: The Official Journal of the
145

International Mind, Brain, and Education Society, 8(3), 132–136.
https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12050
Gilotty, L., Kenworthy, L., Sirian, L., Black, D. O., & Wagner, A. E. (2002). Adaptive skills and
executive function in autism spectrum disorders. Child Neuropsychology, 8(4), 241–248.
https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.4.241.13504
Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Kenworthy, L., & Barton, R. M. (2010). Profiles of everyday
executive function in acquired and Developmental Disorders. Child Neuropsychology,
8(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.8.2.121.8727
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goble, P., Nauman, C., Fife, K., & Blalock, S. M. (2019). Development of executive function
skills: Examining the role of teachers and externalizing behaviour problems. Infant and
Child Development, 29(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2160
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between
teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,
807–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00032-4
Graziano, P. A., Garb, L. R., Ros, R., Hart, K., & Garcia, A. (2015). Executive functioning and
school readiness among preschoolers with externalizing problems: The moderating role
of the student–teacher relationship. Early Education and Development, 27(5), 573–589.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1102019
Greenberg, M. T., Riggs, N. R., & Blair, C. (2007). The role of preventive interventions in
enhancing neurocognitive functioning and promoting competence in adolescence. In D.
Romer & E. F. Walker (Eds.), Adolescent psycho-pathology and the developing brain:
146

Integrating brain and prevention science (pp. 441–462). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195306255.003.0020
Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Relations among preschool
teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children’s language and literacy gains.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1094–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.005
Gureasko-Moore, S., DuPaul, G. J., & White, G. P. (2007). Self-management of classroom
preparedness and homework: Effects on school functioning of adolescents with attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 647–664.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087923
Hall, S. L. (2018). 10 success factors for literacy intervention: Getting results with MTSS in
elementary schools. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and
collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative
benefits. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515602330
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement.
Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Is ADHD an impairing condition in childhood and adolescence. In P. S.
Jensen & J. R. Cooper (Eds.), Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder- State of the science
– Best practices (pp. 2–21). Civic Research Institute.
147

Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12(4), F9–
F15. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x
Hughes, C., & Ensor, R. (2010). Do early social cognition and executive function predict
individual differences in preschoolers' prosocial and antisocial behavior? Self- and
Social-Regulation, 418–442.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327694.003.0017
Huijboom, F., Van Meeuwen, P., Rusman, E., & Vermeulen, M. (2019). How to enhance
teachers’ professional learning by stimulating the development of professional learning
communities: Operationalising a comprehensive PLC concept for assessing its
development in everyday educational practice. Professional Development in Education,
46(5), 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1634630
Hunter, S. J., & Sparrow, E. P. (Eds.). (2012). Executive function and dysfunction: Identification,
assessment, and treatment. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977954
Iarocci, G., Hutchison, S. M., & O’Toole, G. (2017). Second language exposure, functional
communication, and executive function in children with and without autism spectrum
disorder (ASD). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(6), 1818–1829.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3103-7
Johnson, J., & Reid, R. (2011). Overcoming executive function deficits with students with
ADHD. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 61–67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2010.534942
148

Jussim, L. (1989). Teacher expectations: Self-fulfilling prophecies, perceptual biases, and
accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 469 – 480.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.469
Kieffer, M. J., Vukovic, R. K., & Berry, D. (2013). Roles of attention shifting and inhibitory
control in fourth-grade reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 333–
348. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.54
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path
model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 1554–1578.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00365
La Paro, K. M., Lippard, C., Fusaro, M., & Cook, G. (2019). Relationships in early practicum
experiences: Positive and negative aspects and associations with practicum students’
characteristics and teaching efficacy. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
41(4), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2019.1668889
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Martin, J., & Failows, L. (2010). Executive function: Theoretical concerns. Self- and Social-
Regulation, 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327694.003.0002
149

Martins, E. C., Osório, A., Veríssimo, M., & Martins, C. (2014). Emotion understanding in
preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414556096
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Mashour, G. A., Walker, E. E., & Martuza, R. L. (2005). Psychosurgery: Past, present, and
future. Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews, 48(3), 409–419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2004.09.002
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A., & Divner, B. V. (2009). Assessment and intervention for
executive function difficulties. Routledge.
McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A., & Van Divner, B. (2008). Assessment and Intervention for
Executive Function Difficulties.
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2019). Attributions and emotional competence: Why some
teachers experience close relationships with disruptive students (and others don’t).
Teachers and Teaching, 25(3), 334–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1569511
McKinnon, R. D., & Blair, C. (2019). Bidirectional relations among executive function, teacher–
child relationships, and early reading and math achievement: A cross-lagged panel
analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 152–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.011
McKinnon, R. D., & Blair, C. L. (2018). Does early executive function Predict teacher–child
relationships from kindergarten to second grade. Developmental Psychology, 54(11),
2053–2066. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000584
150

Meltzer, L. (2010). Promoting executive function in the classroom. Guilford Press.
Meltzer, L. (2018). Executive function in education: from theory to practice. Guilford Press.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D. C. (2013). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.).
John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, H. V., Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., (2011). Self-control and health outcomes in a
nationally representative sample. American Journal of Health Behavior, 35, 15–27
Miller, M. R., Giesbrecht, G. F., Müller, U., McInerney, R. J., & Kerns, K. A. (2012). A latent
variable approach to determining the structure of executive function in preschool
children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(3), 395–423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.585478
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in
executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411429458
Morgan-Borkowsky, L. (2012). Executive functions in the schools: what do teachers know about
executive functions and how they impact student progress? [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Wang, Y., Hillemeier, M. M., Oh, Y., & Maczuga, S. (2018).
Executive function deficits in kindergarten predict repeated academic difficulties across
elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 20–32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.06.009
151

Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C.C., McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self-regulation and academic
achievement in the transition to school. In S. D. Calkins & M. Bell (Eds.), Child
Development at the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition (pp. 203–24). American
Psychological Association.
Mostow, A. J., Izard, C. E., Fine, S., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2002). Modeling emotional, cognitive,
and behavioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development, 73(6), 1775–1787.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00505
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Home page, a part of the U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2011). Building the brain’s “air traffic
control” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function
(Working Paper No.11). http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu
Neuenschwander, R., Friedman-Krauss, A., Raver, C., & Blair, C. (2017). Teacher stress predicts
child executive function: Moderation by school poverty. Early Education and
Development, 28(7), 880–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1287993
Otero, T. M., Barker, L. A., & Naglieri, J. A. (2014). Executive function treatment and
intervention in schools. Applied Neuropsychology. Child, 3(3), 205–214.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2014.897903
Packwood, S., Hodgetts, H. M., & Tremblay, S. (2011). A multiperspective approach to the
conceptualization of executive functions. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 33(4), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.533157
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
152

Parkosadze, K., Tatishvili, T., Lomidze, N., & Kunchulia, M. (2019). Issues of visual attention
and executive functions in children with dyslexia. Georgian Medical News, 287, 61–66.
Penades, R., Catalan, R., Rubia, K., Andres, S., Salamero, M., Gasto, C. (2007). Impaired
response inhibition in obsessive compulsive disorder. European Psychiatry, 22, 404–410.
Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational
Dynamics, 2(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(73)90007-7
Rapoport, S., Rubinsten, O., & Katzir, T. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the
role of executive functions in reading and arithmetic. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01567
Ready, D. D., & Chu, E. M. (2015). Sociodemographic inequality in early literacy development:
The role of teacher perceptual accuracy. Early Education and Development, 26, 970 –
987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1004516
Riggs, N. R., Jahromi, L. B., Razza, R. P., Dillworth-Bart, J. E., & Mueller, U. (2006). Executive
function and the promotion of social–emotional competence. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 300–309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.002
Riggs, N. R., Spruijt-Metz, D., Sakuma, K. K., Chou, P., Pentz, M. A. (2010). Executive
cognitive function and food intake in children. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 42, 398–403
Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Kieras, J. (2006). Temperament, attention and the development
of self-regulation. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of
early child development (pp. 338–357). Blackwell Press.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757703.ch17
153

Röthlisberger, M., Neuenschwander, R., Cimeli, P., Michel, E., & Roebers, C. M. (2011).
Improving executive functions in 5- to 8-year-olds: Evaluation of a small group
intervention in prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Infant and Child Development,
21(4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.752
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving Student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Shaul, S., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The role of executive functions in school readiness among
preschool-age children. Reading and Writing, 27, 749–768. https://doi:10.1007/s11145-
013-9470-3
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schnoes, C., Reid, R., Wagner, M., & Marder, C. (2006). ADHD among students receiving
special education services: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 483–496.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200406
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and application. Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sciutto, M. J., Terjesen, M. D., Kučerová, A., Michalová, Z., Schmiedeler, S., Antonopoulou, K.,
Shaker, N. Z., Lee, J. Y., Alkahtani, K., Drake, B., & Rossouw, J. (2015). Cross-national
comparisons of teachers’ knowledge and misconceptions of ADHD. International
Perspectives in Psychology : Research, Practice, Consultation, 5(1), 34–50.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000045
154

Searle, M. (2013). Causes and cures in the classroom: Getting to the root of academic and
behavior problems. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading
comprehension (1st ed.). The RAND Corporation.
St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in
school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500162854
Sosic-Vasic, Keis, O., Lau, M., Spitzer, M., & Streb, J. (2015). The impact of motivation and
teachers’ autonomy support on children’s executive functions. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 146–146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00146
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
Strosnider, R., & Sharpe, V. (2019). The Executive Function Guidebook: Strategies to help all
students achieve success. Corwin.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1984). Neuropsychological studies of the frontal lobes.
Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.3
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive
behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4),
223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903235375
Sulla, N. (2018). Building executive function: the missing link to student achievement.
Routledge.
155

Takabori, A. (2021). The overlooked third domain of social-emotional learning: Cognitive skills.
Scientific Learning. https://www.scilearn.com/the-overlooked-third-domain-of-social-
emotional-learning/?fbclid=IwAR02PI5dvfINb-
bk29MUS9kzaT9e6AbvcVisKKQxiIjWGoTO3tx-MsmSnYk
Thacker, T., Bell, J. S., & Schargel, F. P. (2009). Creating school cultures that embrace
learning: What successful leaders do. Eye on Education.
Toplak, M., West, R., & Stanovich, K. (2012). Practitioner review: Do performance-based
measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 54(2), 131–143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12001
Torrington Eaton, C., & Ratner, N. B. (2016). An exploration of the role of executive functions
in preschoolers’ phonological development. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 30(9),
679–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2016.1179344
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The
implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic
achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 497–527.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209353594
van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., Boom, J., and Leseman, P. P. M. (2013). The
structure of executive functions in children: a closer examination of inhibition, shifting,
156

and updating. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 70–87.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02079.x
Vasquez, E., III, & Marino, M. T. (2021). Enhancing executive function while addressing learner
variability in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(3), 179–185.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220928978
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Waitoller, F. R., Artiles, A. J., & Cheney, D. A. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of
overrepresentation research and explanations. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 29 –
49. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466908329226
Walk, L. M., Evers, W. F., Quante, S., & Hille, K. (2018). Evaluation of a teacher training
program to enhance executive functions in preschool children. PLOS ONE, 13(5), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197454
Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M. Z., & Sivo, P. J. (1989). A new conceptual framework for
establishing school-based social competence promotion programs. In L. A. Bond & B. E.
Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 255–296). Sage
Publications.
Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of
cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income
families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016738
157

Willis, J. (2011, October 5). Three brain-based teaching strategies to build executive function in
students [Blog post]. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/brain-based-teaching-
strategies-judy-willis
Wilson, D., & Conyers, M. (2016). Teaching students to drive their brains: Metacognitive
strategies, activities, and lesson ideas. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wolfe, P. (2010). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice (2nd ed.).
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ylvisaker, M., & Feeney, T. (2008). Helping children without making them helpless: Facilitating
development of executive self-regulation in children and adolescents. In V. Anderson, R.
Jacobs, & P. Anderson (Eds.), Executive functions and the frontal lobes: A lifespan
perspective (pp. 409–438). Taylor & Francis.
Zelazo, P. D., Blair, C., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). Executive function: implications for
education. U.S. Department of Education.
Zins, J. E., Elias, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Promoting social and
emotional competence in children. In K. M. Minke & G. G. Bear (Eds.), Preventing
school problems promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 71–
99). National Association of School Psychologists.

158

Appendix A: Iterative Universal Design for Learning Classroom Implementation Cycle

From “Enhancing executive function while addressing learner variability in inclusive
classrooms,” by E. Vasquez, III and M. T. Marino, 2021, Intervention in School and Clinic,
56(3), 179–185. (https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220928978)

159

Appendix B: Recruitment Email
Dear Teacher,
My name is Christine Demetre and I am a Doctoral candidate in Educational Leadership
at University of Southern California. I am completing this research study as part of my
dissertation, under the supervision of Dr. Darline Robles, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Education
at University of Southern California.
You are invited to participate in an interview examining your knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that facilitate and act as barriers to executive function practices of
classroom teachers. Throughout the interview, you will be asked to share your insights,
experiences, challenges, and to offer suggestions on teaching executive function in the
classroom. If you choose to participate, you will be invited for an interview via Zoom that will
take less than an hour of your time in my classroom or your classroom. There will be no
identifiable information required for your participation, as your voluntary participation will be
completely anonymous. You are free to stop your participation or not answer a question. The
interview will be recorded for data collection purposes and data analysis. Your completion of the
interview indicates your willingness to participate in the research, as well as your permission for
me to use your data and interpret the data you provide. To participate in the study, please
respond to this email.
I appreciate your participation in the interview. Again, please be rest assured that your
identity will be protected and I will be the only one to access the information you provide. Once
my dissertation is approved, at your request, I will share my dissertation with you. Attached is
the information sheet and guiding questions for your reference. If you have any questions,
concerns, or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me via email at cdemetre@usc.edu.
160

Your time and participation is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your
participation in my study.

Sincerely,

Christine Demetre

161

Appendix C: Information Sheet
Teachers’ Assumptions on the Importance of Executive Function: A Gap Analysis Evaluation
Study
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Christine Demetre at the
University of Southern California. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose
to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions
about anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study
This research study aims to understand how classroom teachers explicitly teach executive
function skills within the core curriculum and social-emotional curriculum to all students.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview for
the duration of no more than one hour. The questions will be related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact elementary teachers. You do not have to
answer any questions you do not want to.
Confidentiality
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your
name, address or other identifiable information will not be collected.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

162

Investigator Contact Information
The principal investigator is Christine Demetre. Email: cdemetre@usc.edu. The faculty
advisor is Dr. Darline Robles. Email: drobles@rossier.usc.edu
IRB Contact Information
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

163

Appendix D: Interview Protocol Questions for Grade 5 Teachers at One World Academy
Introduction
Thank you for joining me today for this interview. I value your ideas, experiences, and
your time. In order to stay true to what you tell me in the interview, I would like to record our
conversation using an audio recording device. Are you okay with this?
The purpose of this interview is to gain a better understanding of the ways in which you
teach executive function skills, strategies, and interventions within the core curriculum and SEL
curriculum in your classroom. For this interview, executive function is defined as directive
capacities that are responsible for a person’s ability to engage in purposeful, organized, strategic,
self-regulated goal-directed processing of perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and actions. As a
reminder, executive function incorporates 11 skills including organization, response inhibition,
emotional control, task initiation, goal-directed persistence, metacognition, working memory,
sustained attention, planning/prioritization, time management, and flexibility. Anonymous.
You’re free to stop the interview at any time. The data will be deleted after the dissertation is
completed. Are you okay with going over 60 minutes?
Setting the Stage
1. How long have you been working at One World Academy?
2. What grade levels have you taught since you joined OWA?
Knowledge Questions
3. If someone was to ask you what executive function is, what would you say to them?
4. How do you identify students' areas of strength and weakness in executive function?
5. Please describe how you would target and teach specific skills and strategies to
students in the areas of organization, time management, resisting impulses, planning
164

ahead, staying focused, following through on tasks, learning from mistakes, emotion
control, solving problems, and being resourceful? Choose one.
6. Can you describe the steps you follow when implementing an EF intervention?
7. How often, if at all, do you self-reflect on the effectiveness of strategies and
interventions you implement for students who have EF deficits?
8. What physical or social environmental adjustments have you made to be more
supportive of a student's executive function weaknesses? Probe: Think of seating
arrangement, desk arrangement, placement of work materials, homework collections
bins, how the teacher navigates the classroom, modifying the tasks, or changing the
way adults interact with students with prompts, reminders, metacognitive questions,
specific praise for effort, reinforcing the use of executive skills, or how you model
thought processes.
Motivational Questions
9. What is the importance, if any, of teaching EF in your classroom?
10. Tell me about a time you felt confident providing EF support to a student
behaviorally, academically, or socially? Probe: Can you provide a specific example of
a time that demonstrates why you feel this way about your ability to provide support
to your students?
11. How do you feel about your ability to teach EF through direct instruction?
Organizational Questions
12. What barriers or impediments do you have to teaching EF skills to your students?
13. Describe what you think the ideal professional development at OWA on EF would be
for teachers?
165

14. What kind of support would you give a student who needed a Tier 2 level of support
in EF? Probe: What kind of support would you give a student who needed a Tier 3
level of support in EF?
15. How much time is allotted to learn about EF skills, strategies, and interventions at
your weekly PLC meetings?
a. Probe: How much time do you spend collaborating about the effectiveness of
EF skills, strategies, and interventions?
b. Probe: What would you say are some positive elements to SNAP meetings?
c. Probe: What would you say are some negative elements to SNAP meetings?
Closing Question
16. Is there anything else you would like to add to this topic?
Thank you for talking with me today. Your ideas are invaluable to this study. I may come
to you to ask clarifying questions after I transcribe the interview to ensure I accurately represent
your ideas.

166

Appendix E: Qualitative Research Documents Analysis Protocol
Artifact/Document Influence assessed
(K-M-O)
Data analyzed

167

Appendix F: Questionnaire for Parents and Teachers
Big Problem 1
Moderate Problem 2
Mild problem 3
Slight problem 4
No problem 5

Item Score
1. Acts on impulse _____
2. Gets in trouble for talking too much in class _____
3. Says things without thinking _____
Total Score: _____

4. Says, “I’ll do it later” and then forgets about it _____
5. Forgets homework assignments or forgets to bring home needed materials _____
6. Loses or misplaces belongings such as coats, mittens, sports equipment, etc. _____
Total Score: _____

7. Gets annoyed when homework is too hard or confusing or takes too long to finish _____
8. Has a short fuse, easily frustrated _____
9. Easily upset when things don’t go as planned _____
Total Score: _____

10. Difficulty paying attention, easily distracted _____
11. Runs out of steam before finishing homework or other tasks _____
12. Problems sticking with schoolwork or chores until they are done _____
Total Score: _____

13. Puts off homework or chores until the last minute _____
14. Difficulty setting aside fun activities in order to start homework _____
15. Needs many reminders to start chores _____
Total Score: _____

16. Trouble planning for big assignments (knowing what to do first, second, etc.? _____
17. Difficulty setting priorities when has a lot of things to do _____
18. Becomes overwhelmed by long-term projects or big assignments _____
Total Score: _____
19. Backpack and notebooks are disorganized _____
20. Desk or workspace at home or school is a mess _____
21. Trouble keeping bedroom or locker tidy _____
Total Score: _____

168

22. Has a hard time estimating how long it takes to do something (such as homework) _____
23. Often doesn’t finish homework at night; rushes to get it done in school _____
24. Slow getting ready for things (e.g., appointments, school, changing classes _____
Total Score: _____

25. If the first solution to a problem doesn’t work, has trouble thinking of a different one _____
26. Resists changes in plans or routines _____
27. Has problems with open-ended homework assignments (e.g., doesn’t _____
know what to write about when given a creative writing assignment?
Total Score: _____

Key

Child’s Executive Skills Strengths Child’s Executive Skills Weaknesses
___________________________________ ___________________________________
___________________________________ ___________________________________

From Executive skills in children and adolescents: a practical guide to assessment and
intervention by P. Dawson and R. Guare, 2018, Guilford Press. Copyright 2018 by The Guilford
Press.
Items Executive Skill Items Executive Skill
1-3 Response inhibition 4-6 Working memory
7-9 Emotional control 10-12 Sustained attention
13-15 Task initiation 16-18 Planning/prioritization
25-27 Flexibility 22-24 Time management
31-33 Goal-directed persistence 28-30 Metacognition
169

Appendix H: Pre-Survey Questions Before the Training
This is an anonymous survey to gain insight into the upcoming EF training. Please answer the
following questions.
1. What is executive function?
2. Please tick the column that best correlates with how you feel about the statement for
each of the following questions:

Table H1
Before Training Survey Questions

I can
scaffold
instruction
and teach
this skill
I can
scaffold
instruction
and
sometimes
teach this
skill
I can
monitor
the
progress
of this
skill.
I need help
scaffolding
instruction
and
teaching
this skill
I need help
scaffolding
instruction,
teaching
this skill,
and
progress
monitoring
this skill
Response Inhibition: the
capacity to think before you
act-this ability to resist the
urge to say or do something

Working memory: the ability to
hold information in memory
while performing complex
tasks

Emotional control: the ability to
manage emotions to achieve
goals, complete tasks, or
control and direct behavior

Sustained attention: the capacity
to keep paying attention to a

170

I can
scaffold
instruction
and teach
this skill
I can
scaffold
instruction
and
sometimes
teach this
skill
I can
monitor
the
progress
of this
skill.
I need help
scaffolding
instruction
and
teaching
this skill
I need help
scaffolding
instruction,
teaching
this skill,
and
progress
monitoring
this skill
situation or task in spite of
distractibility, fatigue, or
boredom
Task initiation: the ability to
begin projects without undue
procrastination, in an efficient
or timely fashion

Planning/Prioritization: the
ability to create a roadmap to
reach a goal or to complete a
task. Focusing on what’s
important and what is not
important

Organization: the ability to
create and maintain systems to
keep track of information or
materials

Time management: the capacity
to estimate how much time
one has, how to allocate it, and
how to stay within time limits
and deadlines

Goal-directed persistence: the
capacity to have a goal, follow
through to the completion of
the goal, and not be put off by
or distracted by competing
interests

Flexibility: the ability to revise
plans in the face of obstacles,
setbacks, new information or

171

I can
scaffold
instruction
and teach
this skill
I can
scaffold
instruction
and
sometimes
teach this
skill
I can
monitor
the
progress
of this
skill.
I need help
scaffolding
instruction
and
teaching
this skill
I need help
scaffolding
instruction,
teaching
this skill,
and
progress
monitoring
this skill
mistakes. Adapting to
changing conditions
Metacognition: the ability to
stand back and take a bird’s-
eye view of yourself in a
situation, to observe how you
problem-solve including self-
monitoring and self-evaluative
skills

172

Appendix I: Evaluation Tool to Be Used Immediately Following Training
Remember this survey is anonymous and your feedback will help future training in EF at
One World Academy.
Please select the number that best correlates with how you feel about the statement for
each of the following questions:

Table I1
After-Training Evaluation Tool

Strongly
Disagree

1

2
Agree

3

4
Strongly
Agree

5
The training held my interest.

My participation was encouraged by the instructional
coach.

During the training, I can apply what I learned.

I feel positive about applying what I learned after the
training into my classroom.

The training met my expectations.

I am committed to applying what I learned.

I found the feedback during the discussions valuable
for informing my practice.

I am satisfied with the training on implementing
research-based skills and strategies to support EF
strengths and weaknesses in my classroom.

173

Please answer the following questions related to the training:
1. What part of the training did you find most useful for your goal in implementing
research-based strategies into the core curriculum?
2. What is one concept you learned that you will apply immediately into your
classroom?
3. What additional support will you need to implement what you learned?
4. What barriers do you anticipate that could limit your success in applying what you
learned?
5. How do you think this training could be improved?
6. What additional learning would you like to see in future training on EF?
7. Describe how the training related to your job responsibilities?

174

Appendix J: Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After Training
The purpose of the following questions is to evaluate the quality of the performance
results since completing the 11-week training to learn research-based strategies that support EF
skills in your classroom.

Table J1
Delayed Evaluation Tool

Strongly
disagree

1

2
Neither
agree nor
disagree
3

4
Strongly
agree

5
I feel confident in implementing research-based
strategies to support students EF in my
classroom. (L1)

I feel positive about the impact these strategies
have on student learning and outcomes. (L1)

I have utilized the information and skills I
learned in the training sessions to support
students with attaining EF skill. (L2, L3, L4)

I feel confident in EF terminology and
explicitly teach EF skills in my classroom.
(L1)

I incorporate skills with rubrics on assessments
in my classroom. (L3, L4)

I have utilized questionnaires, semi-structured
interviews, and surveys with students and
parents in my classroom. (L2, L3, L4)

175

Since the completion of the training, describe a newly learned strategy you used in the
classroom and the impact it had on your students. (L2, L3, L4).
Describe the value of implementing research-based instructional strategies to support
students with EF weaknesses in your classroom. (L1, L2)
What additional support will you need to implement what you learned from this training?
(L2)
What barriers do you have or you anticipate that could limit your success in applying
what you learned? (L2)

176

Appendix K: Examples of Applying Assessment Levels to Use of Executive Skill Strategy
Teacher tracks the level of support the student needs to use the strategy, gives ongoing
feedback to student individually, and marks the progress of the level on progress monitoring
sheet.

Table K1
Assessment Levels
Level What the level indicates Sample teacher feedback
1 Student can apply strategy
with 1:1 support.
“Do you need help to use the strategy? Let’s
practice together.”
2 Student can apply the strategy
when given a reminder to do
so.
“I do not see you using the strategy yet. I am
going to track that reminder. Let us see
whether you can start to use that strategy
independently.”
3 Student applies the strategy,
independently, as needed.
“You are using the strategy independently.”
4 Student makes in-dept or
innovative use of strategy.
“You are using the strategy in an innovative
way.”

177

Table K2
Teacher Talk for Math Activity
Stage of lesson Executive skills feedback and assessment
Instructions “You will use your long division and thinking skills to solve
three problems. What will stop you from succeeding?
Which executive skill will this require? Ok, so what
strategy can we use to manage the initiation? Ok, I will
watch to see you making up your scratch paper with
problem-solving ideas right away, our criteria for success.”
Classroom management “I am watching to see how you manage initiation. I see three
people have you have used the strategy. Five people.
Interesting. I am tracking your use of strategy.”
Feedback “I have noticed that a few of you haven’t started working on
the problems. Remember that to meet expectations you have
to use our initiation strategy independently. Wow, Adavit, I
have never seen that problem-solving approach.
Interesting!”
Assessment “You used the strategy of initiate your problem solving and
developed a creative solution for solving long division.”
Student learning How to select and use a variety of approaches for long
division problems. Knowledge of learning style and strategy
of initiation. Strategy is marked at the top of the assessment
by three levels of support: #1 1:1 support, #2 with a
reminder, #3 independently.

Note. Appendices K–P come from Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents (3rd ed), by P.
Dawson and R. Guare. Copyright 2018 The Guilford Press.
178

Appendix L: Cornell Method Note-Taking Strategy
Key terms and concepts Running notes Reflections, questions, links
to personal experience

Note. Appendices K–P come from Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents (3rd ed), by P.
Dawson and R. Guare. Copyright 2018 The Guilford Press.
179

Appendix M: Score Sheet for Independent Work Time
Student Job Teacher Rating
Self Teacher Listens to
directions
Self Teacher
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Listens to directions:
3: starts work immediately
2: needs directions from peer or instructional assistant
1: needs directions from teacher

Stays in seat:
3: stays in seat with no reminder
2: leaves seat once and returns with cue
1: leaves seat more than once

Stays on the job:
3: attends to job or activity with no reminder
2: needs one reminder from peer or instructional assistant
1: needs reminder from teacher

Completes job:
3: finishes all work
2: finishes most of work
180

1: finishes only a little work

Note. Appendices K–P come from Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents (3rd ed), by P.
Dawson and R. Guare. Copyright 2018 The Guilford Press.
181

Appendix N: Designing Interventions
Intervention Steps
1. Establish behavioral goal
What is the executive skill involved?
Problem behavior:
Goal behavior:
2. What environmental supports will be provided (check all that apply)
_____ Change physical or social environment [add physical barriers, reduce
distractions, provide organizational structures, reduce social complexity, etc.]

_____ Change the nature of the task [make shorter, build in breaks, give something to
look forward to, create a schedule, build in choice, make the task more fun, etc.]

_____ Change the way adults interact with the child [rehearsal, prompts, reminders,
coaching, praise, debriefing, feedback]
3. What procedure will be followed to teach the skill?
Who will teach the skill and supervise the procedure?
What steps will the child follow?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

182

4. What incentives will be used to encourage the child to learn, practice, or use the
skill [check all that apply]
_____ specific praise
_____ something to look forward to when the task [or part of the task] is completed
_____ a menu of rewards and consequences
Daily reward possibilities:

Weekly reward possibilities:
Long-term reward possibilities:
5. What is the outcome measure? How will you know if the intervention was
successful?

Note. Appendices K–P come from Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents (3rd ed), by P.
Dawson and R. Guare. Copyright 2018 The Guilford Press.
183

Appendix O: Intervention Planning Form
Problem description: What
does the behavior look like?
What task, situation, or
directive is most likely to
elicit the behavior?

Executive skills: What skills
do think might be involved?

Setting: Where, when, or
under what circumstances
does the behavior usually
occur?

Where to Start: If you could
change one small part of the
student’s behavior, that
would lead you to say, “This
is better,” what would that
behavior be?

Environmental
Modifications: How can the
situation be modified so the
student has a great likelihood
to succeed?

Check all that apply:
____ Change the physical or social environment (physical
barriers, reduce distractions, provide organizational structures,
reduce social complexity)
____ Change the nature of the task (shorter, build in breaks,
give something to look forward to, create a schedule, build in
choice, make the task more fun)
____ Change the way adults interact with the child (rehearsal,
prompts, reminders, coaching, praise, debriefing, feedback)

Possible motivator: What
would help the student be
more likely to try? Can you
use a simple reward system?
Alternate between preferred
and nonpreferred activities?
Other ideas?

Check all that apply:
___ Specific praise
____ Something to look forward to when the task (or a piece
of the task) is done
____ A menu of rewards and consequences

Daily reward possibilities:

Weekly reward possibilities:

184

Long-term reward possibilities:

Goal behavior: There are two
parts to this: process and
outcome. Both should be
phrased as “Student will…do
what”

Process goal: This should identify the strategy the student will
use to achieve the outcome.

Outcome goal: This is the end point to the intervention. What
do you want the student to do differently?

Intervention implementation
steps

Who will supervise the intervention?

What steps will be followed?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Visual feedback to show
progress: What visual
feedback can you give the
student so he can see that
progress is being made?
Graph? Checklist? Behavior
counts? Tracking grades on
tests? Other ideas?

Note. Appendices K–P come from Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents (3rd ed), by P.
Dawson and R. Guare. Copyright 2018 The Guilford Press.

Appendix P: Progress Monitoring Response to Intervention
Student’s Name:

Table P1
Monitoring Sheet
Tier
level
Intervention Start
date
Review
date
Criterion for success Measurement
procedure
Outcome Next step

Note. Appendices K–P come from Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents (3rd ed), by P. Dawson and R. Guare. Copyright 2018
The Guilford Press.
185

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Principals’ leadership influence on teachers’ capacity to enact 21st-century skills curriculum

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis

PDF

The factors supporting or inhibiting Teachers of Color to accept and stay in an international school in Southeast Asia

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Assessing correctional educator capacity in adult correctional education programs: a gap analysis

PDF

Racial disparities in U.S. K-12 suburban schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Reflecting Asian American students in our social studies curriculum through culturally relevant pedagogy: a gap analysis

PDF

Positive behavior intervention support plan: a gap analysis

PDF

Child-centered, play-based curriculum at a Hong Kong kindergarten and nursery: a gap analysis

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Evaluation of knowledge and motivation factors when assessing executive leadership candidates for new organizational roles: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study of... What do teachers know about gifted students?

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Creating a language immersion teacher recruitment pipeline: understanding the needs and motivation of prospective candidates

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Demetre, Christine (author)

Core Title Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/01/2022

Defense Date 05/19/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cognitive function,core curriculum,emotional control,executive function,explicit instruction,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational influences,research-based solutions,social interaction,teacher's assumptions,teacher's knowledge,teacher's motivation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email cdemetre@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375874

Unique identifier UC111375874

Legacy Identifier etd-DemetreChr-11019

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Demetre, Christine

Type texts

Source 20220801-usctheses-batch-965 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu