Sorting Test, Tower Test, and BRIEF-SR do not predict school performance of healthy adolescents in preuniversity education

Executive functions (EF) such as self-monitoring, planning, and organizing are known to develop through childhood and adolescence. They are of potential importance for learning and school performance. Earlier research into the relation between EF and school performance did not provide clear results possibly because confounding factors such as educational track, boy-girl differences, and parental education were not taken into account. The present study therefore investigated the relation between executive function tests and school performance in a highly controlled sample of 173 healthy adolescents aged 12–18. Only students in the pre-university educational track were used and the performance of boys was compared to that of girls. Results showed that there was no relation between the report marks obtained and the performance on executive function tests, notably the Sorting Test and the Tower Test of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functions System (D-KEFS). Likewise, no relation was found between the report marks and the scores on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Self-Report Version (BRIEF-SR) after these were controlled for grade, sex, and level of parental education. The findings indicate that executive functioning as measured with widely used instruments such as the BRIEF-SR does not predict school performance of adolescents in preuniversity education any better than a student's grade, sex, and level of parental education.

Learning for self-regulation: Improving instructional benefits for pupils, teachers, parents, schools, and society at large

Compulsory education laws oblige primary and secondary schools to give each pupil positive encouragement in, for example, social, emotional, cognitive, creative, and ethical respects. This is a fairly smooth process for most pupils, but it is not as easy to achieve with others. A pattern of pupil, home or family, and school variables turns out to be responsible for a long-term process that may lead to a pupil’s dropping out of education. A systemic approach will do much to introduce more clarity into the diagnosis, potential reduction and possible prevention of some persistent educational problems that express themselves in related phenomena, for example low school motivation and achievement; forced underachievement of high ability pupils; concentration of bullying and violent behaviour in and around some types of classes and schools; and drop-out percentages that are relatively constant across time. Such problems have a negative effect on pupils, teachers, parents, schools, and society alike. In this address, I would therefore like to clarify some of the systemic causes and processes that we have identified between specific educational and pupil characteristics. Both theory and practice can assist in developing, implementing, and checking better learning methods and coaching procedures, particularly for pupils at risk. This development approach will take time and require co-ordination, but it will result in much better processes and outcomes than we are used to. First, I will diagnose some systemic aspects of education that do not seem to optimise the learning processes and school careers of some types of pupils in particular. Second, I will specify cognitive, social, motivational, and self-regulative aspects of learning tasks and relate corresponding learning processes to relevant instructional and wider educational contexts. I will elaborate these theoretical notions into an educational design with systemic instructional guidelines and multilevel procedures that may improve learning processes for different types of pupils. Internet-based Information and Communication Technology, or ICT, also plays a major role here. Third, I will report on concrete developments made in prototype research and trials. The development process concerns ICT-based differentiation of learning materials and procedures, and ICT-based strategies to improve pupil development and learning. Fourth, I will focus on the experience gained in primary and secondary educational practice with respect to implementation. We can learn much from such practical experience, in particular about the conditions for developing and implementing the necessary changes in and around schools. Finally, I will propose future research. As I hope to make clear, theory-based development and implementation research can join forces with systemic innovation and differentiated assessment in educational practice, to pave the way for optimal “learning for self-regulation” for pupils, teachers, parents, schools, and society at large.