1 of 33

Writing, Cognition, and Executive Functions

A Framework for Writing Instruction

1

2 of 33

Overall Framework

Current theories of AD/HD as a Disorder of Executive Function
(ASD, NVLD and Executive Functions)
Cognitive Models of the Writing Process
Mapping AD/HD to the Cognitive Process Model: Developing a Prescription for Process
Individualizing Strategy Sequences
Addressing Affective and Behavioral Domains

2

3 of 33

Asperger Syndrome and NLD

Diagnostic confusion and overlapping diagnoses
Major deficits in AS: Theory of mind; Central coherence; Executive functions
Theory of mind: audience sense, academic conventions, elaboration, organization
Central coherence: details instead of wholes (disorganization, weak abstract thinking, poor thesis development)
Executive functions: difficulties with activation, planning and organization, sustained focus and mental energy; tendency to be waylaid by high interest activities and tangents
AS and NLD often look like ADHD with added challenges in social cognition and abstract conceptual reasoning (e.g., inference, alternative perspectives, nuances of ideas)

3

4 of 33

Approaches to AD/HD

Barkley’s Unitary Causal Model
Brown’s EF Syndrome Model
Tannock and the Search for Endophenotypes

ADHD has been reified “as an ontological and psychological reality, rather than just a useful clinical construct” - in Tannock, et. al. 2002

4

5 of 33

Barkley’s Model of AD/HD

Developmental failure in the neurological processes that underlie “inhibition of prepotent response”

Non-Verbal Working Memory
Verbal Working Memory
Internalization of Self-Directed Speech
Self-Regulation of Mood, Motivation, Arousal
Reconstitution

5

6 of 33

Non-Verbal Working Memory

Dependent on this for a sense of time—notice of the passage of events
Difficulty estimating duration or being on time
Difficulty remembering objects that are out of view; the reason for flat filing systems
Tendency to live in the “now” and be driven by immediate stimuli

6

7 of 33

Verbal Working Memory

Implicated in all aspects of communication and academic processes
Essential to reading comprehension and writing production
Required to hold distal information in mind while attending to proximal information
Another word for focus and concentration

7

8 of 33

Internalization of self-directed speech

A key component in developing self-regulation and behavioral controls in childhood
Difficulty with rule-governed behavior
Difficulty with self-guidance and -questioning
Difficulty remembering to get things done
Difficulty internalizing directions or advice

8

9 of 33

Self-regulation of mood, motivation, level of arousal

Controlling public emotional display
Regulating/modulating moods or feelings
Tendency to be driven by feelings (impulsivity) rather than thoughts
Sleep/waking difficulties
Difficulty regulating activation and de-activation

9

10 of 33

Reconstitution

Holding past events and behaviors in mind to reflect on them
“Learning from consequences” – limited value of negative reinforcement
Ability to analyze behaviors and synthesize new behaviors
Solving problems using past experience

10

11 of 33

Brown’s Model of Executive Functions Impaired in ADHD

11

Executive Functions

Organizing, prioritizing, and activating�to work

1.

Activation

Focusing, sustaining focus, and shifting focus to tasks

2.

Focus

Regulating alertness, sustaining effort, and processing speed

3.

Effort

Managing frustration and modulating emotions

4.

Emotion

Utilizing working memory and accessing recall

5.

Memory

Monitoring and self-regulating action

6.

Action

Brown TE.2005

12 of 33

Critique of the Models

Each is useful in providing accurate description of symptom clusters
Students identify with symptoms—enables a shared language, demystification
Barkley’s model leaves out key underlying factors
Brown’s model ignores sub-types and blurs causal factors

12

13 of 33

Genetics and Diagnosis

About 30 percent of individuals carry at least one of three genetic markers for ADHD
Rigorous research suggests ADHD incidence of about 5 percent (3-7 percent)
Actual dx incidence is about 10 percent, and as high as 15 percent in some states
Expression of ADHD depends on gene-environment interaction
Epigenetics: an unknown terrain

13

14 of 33

The Search for Endophenotypes

Endophenotype = a sub-clinical manifestation of genetic make-up that represents closest approximation to gene effect or underlying causal factor
Example: research indicates that genetic relatives of someone with ADHD often share sub-clinical traits of restlessness and disinhibition

14

15 of 33

Candidate Endophenotypes

Locomotor hyperactivity (physical restlessness, lack of behavioral impulse control)
Response inhibition (distraction, impulsivity)
Delay aversion (reward system of the brain)
Working memory (focus, holding information in mind during processing and production)
Temporal processing (response and processing variability—generally slow, sometimes too quick)

From Tannock 2002

15

16 of 33

Some Hypotheses

These five endophenotypes may all have some explanatory validity, representing different genetic and gene-environment factors
Potential endophenotypes are often closely related:

Working memory and response inhibition
Working memory and temporal processing
Delay aversion and locomotor hyperactivity

16

17 of 33

Why Does This Matter?

Current dx categories for AD/HD are not educationally useful:

ADD hyperactive type seems very rare and may not exist
ADD combined type encompasses a broad range of learning profiles (a catch-all)
ADD inattentive type describes three distinct sub-types of working memory impairment (response inhibition, temporal processing, or both)—Barkley suggests should be a distinct dx

An accurate model of causal factors is essential to effective strategy instruction—strategies should address underlying factors, not surface symptoms

17

18 of 33

Descriptive Models of Writing as a Cognitive Process

Description vs. Prescription
Having a clear model of the cognitive and affective elements engaged in writing allows us to map neurocognitive differences onto the model as a basis for prescription
Models are approximations, not the thing itself, but they are also useful to the extent to which they are good approximations

18

19 of 33

19

Flower & Hayes, 1981

20 of 33

20

Hayes, J., 1996. “The Organization of Writing Processes”

21 of 33

Connecting the two models

It is useful to substitute the central function in the 1981 model for the “cognitive processes” function in the 1996 model
Together, the two models provide the basis for a simplified “prescriptive model” that allows us to map neurodevelopmental differences, specific instructional approaches, and writing strategies, based on individual themes within the classroom

21

22 of 33

A Simplified Prescriptive Model

22

Generating

Organizing

Planning

Draft(ing)

REVISING

Lynne Shea, Landmark College

23 of 33

Applying the Models: Some Themes or Categories

Planning and response inhibition/working memory
Activation and delay aversion (starting work)
Writer’s block and response inhibition/working memory (affective overlay—perfectionism and OCD)
Organization and working memory (controlling ideas, coherence, unity)
Sustained mental energy and delay aversion/working memory (finishing work)
Expressive fluency and working memory/temporal processing (elaboration, sophistication of language and ideas, integration of textual information)

23

24 of 33

Some Features of the Hayes Model

Working memory is the central cognitive function in writing
Motivation and affect: “cost-benefit analysis” and activation; affective overlay, working memory, and past experiences (“perfectionism”)
Temporal processing and working memory as the interface with LTM
LTM and stored plans for writing, knowledge of topic, control of textual material
Environmental factors (task, task environment)

24

25 of 33

An Approach to Instruction (1)

The classroom as a coach’s clinic
Every instance and dimension of performance provides diagnostic information
Impaired performance (not poor writing) is why a student is in my classroom—the instructional terrain
Regulate task variables to highlight specific cognitive/affective challenges
Every assignment is “diagnostic,” and feedback is diagnostic and prescriptive

25

26 of 33

Approaches to Instruction (2)

Each assignment is the vehicle for highlighting one-three specific strategies
Assignments are scaffolded based on task requirements and constraints
Topic knowledge and stored plans for writing are key variables that I control
Assessment is formative until the end of the semester, while maintaining accountability
Reflection and metacognition are integral to the class process and to each assignment

26

27 of 33

In Practice: Course Design

Initial focus: Identifying core problems (activation, perfectionism, disorganization)
Initial focus: short assignments with specific steps and interim deadlines, assessment based on engaging with each step
Design: Students able to activate and engage with each step receive strong positive reinforcement, even if they struggle
Design: Minimize constraints in the first seven weeks, scaffolding them in one by one

27

28 of 33

Course Design (2)

Teach activation and strategies to address writer’s block explicitly (SFD, big paper, response to prompts, assign imperfect work)
Address performance issues as academic issues, not behavioral ones
Account for the affective dimension
In first half of course, privilege student knowledge and interests over “academic knowledge”

28

29 of 33

On Activation & Writer’s Block

29

30 of 33

Course design (3)

Use individual assignments to prescribe strategy sequences (trial and error; analogy = titration of prescriptions)
Use sequences of assignments to scaffold EF constraints (e.g., I do part of the work for each early assignment—provide plan, structure, etc.)
Work at the point of performance in class each week on each assignment
Touch base individually with each student each week to foster metacognition and self-efficacy

30

31 of 33

Specific Strategies (Early Weeks)

Emphasize initiation and “shitty first drafts”—producing something, not something good
Focus early assignments on high interest, relevant content (history as a writer; ADD: Difference or Disorder; “Hidden Intellectualism” (Graff) and popular music; Millenial generation; advertising, etc.)
Provide a range of generating, organizing, and drafting strategies (big paper, Inspiration, Dragon, working thesis and topical outline, SFD)

31

32 of 33

Overall Design

Five papers in the first five weeks, 2-5 pages, with emphasis on following strategy sequences and interim deadlines (40 points per paper)
First-unit portfolio (week 6): time for consolidation, reflection, and catching up, one week (80 points)
Paper 6: Major assignment (5-7pages), using sources, two weeks (80 points)
Paper 7: Major assignment (8-10 pages), using sources, three weeks (120 points)
Paper 7: A free essay (5-7 pages), two weeks (80 points)
Final two weeks (inc. exam week): reflection essay and final portfolio (200 points)

32

33 of 33

Final Thoughts

What are students accountable for? What is the teacher accountable for?
What is the balance between ongoing opportunities for success and accountability for performance (esp. attendance)?
What is writing instruction for students who already know how to write better than most of their peers?
How do we account for our responsibilities when students all have clinically-defined neurocognitive and behavioral challenges?
How do we manage our classrooms as a process of change as much as a process of learning?

33