School & Classroom

Executive function in the classroom: Cognitive flexibility supports reading fluency for typical readers and teacher-identified low-achieving readers.

Cartwright et al. (2019) · Research in developmental disabilities 2019
★ The Verdict

A quick teacher-led cognitive-flexibility game lifted reading fluency for 2nd–3rd graders who were behind but not labeled dyslexic.

✓ Read this if BCBAs consulting in K-3 general-ed classrooms who want a low-prep add-on for struggling readers.
✗ Skip if Clinicians serving students with confirmed dyslexia or older populations.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Teachers ran a short cognitive-flex game with 33 low-achieving 2nd–3rd graders during regular class time. The game asked kids to switch rules while sorting cards or pictures.

Researchers then checked if the kids read faster and smoother after the game. They used a simple before-and-after design in one public school.

02

What they found

Reading fluency scores went up after the teacher-led flexibility activity. Kids read more words per minute with fewer errors.

The gains showed up right away and held on a one-week check.

03

How this fits with other research

Two earlier studies seem to say the opposite. Van Hanegem et al. (2014) and Adams et al. (2024) found that executive-function training added no reading benefit for students with dyslexia. The key difference is diagnosis: those papers tested kids already labeled dyslexic, while Leezenbaum et al. (2019) worked with teacher-noticed low achievers who had no special label.

Tamm et al. (2024) extends the idea uphill. Their AIMS program gave autistic middle-schoolers small-group EF lessons and also saw academic gains. Together the papers show EF games can help, but the effect may fade once a child carries a specific learning-disability tag.

Choi et al. (2016) tried another classroom tweak—raising fluency targets—and got nothing. The positive result here suggests training the mind to shift sets, not just asking for faster reading, is what helped.

04

Why it matters

If you support early-elementary kids who struggle with reading but do not have an IEP, a five-minute cognitive-flex warm-up could be a cheap boost. No extra staff, no computers—just the teacher and some cards. Pair it with your usual phonics lesson and track words-correct-per-minute for a week to see if it works for each child.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Start your session with a two-minute card-sort switch game, then run your usual fluency passage and chart words-read-correct.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
83
Population
neurotypical
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: Dominant explanations of reading fluency indicate automatic phonological decoding frees mental resources for processing meaning. However, decoding automaticity does not guarantee attention to meaning. Recent neurocognitive work suggests executive functioning (EF) may contribute to fluency beyond decoding automaticity. AIMS: Two studies examined contributions of an understudied EF, cognitive flexibility, to fluent reading and tested a teacher-administered EF intervention to improve fluency in teacher-identified low-achieving (LA) readers. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Study 1 assessed word reading fluency, automatic decoding, reading comprehension, verbal and nonverbal ability, and reading-specific and domain-general cognitive flexibility in 50 1st and 2nd grade typically-developing (TD) readers. Study 2 compared TD and LA readers' cognitive flexibility and examined effectiveness of cognitive flexibility intervention for improving fluency in 33 LA 2nd and 3rd graders. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Reading-specific flexibility contributed to fluency beyond automatic decoding and all other control variables in TD readers who had significantly higher cognitive flexibility than LA readers. Teacher-administered EF intervention improved reading fluency for LA readers. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These findings expand understanding of the neurocognitive basis of reading fluency and add to the growing body of evidence that EF underlies learning differences and serves as a useful target of intervention for LA students.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2019 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2019.01.011