EXECUTIVE FUNCTION PROBLEMS: MAKING A STRENGTH OUT OF A WEAKNESS
|
|||||||||||
| Executive Functions as Normalcy Causative Role in multiple disorders
|
GIFTED
creative nonconformist imaginative intense |
POOR EF
disorganized not rule bound disinhibited/distractible poor self control |
GOOD EF
planned rule bound inhibited/on track/focussed good self control |
||||||||
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS GOAL ORIENTATION |
|||||||||||
|
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION (EF)
Top-Down, Central Control Agency Homunculus Little Man in the Head Ghost in the Machine Self Control ³Supervisory Attentional System² Meta-Rules Meta-Procedures LOSS OF DEMOCRATIC INTERACTIONS ON THE GROUND DISCONNECT FROM CONTENT/MEANING/STRUCTURE INFINITE REGRESS |
|||||||||||
|
EF vs MEANING
-18 +12 6 EXECUTE ORDERED but empty STEPS: ³I Canıt remember what the sign should be.² INSIGHT Borrow 18, pay back 12 -------------------------------------- EXECUTE ORDERED but empty STEPS: 1.05 ³2 x 5 is 10, put down the zero, carry the one. x.2 2 x 0 is 2, plus (the carried) one is 3 2.30 2 x 1 is 2 INSIGHT When questioned, S was able to say that 1.05 was about 1, .2 was about 1/2 (this was accepted) and said that 1/2 of 1 would be less than 1.
BACK TO EF |
|||||||||||
|
META, PROCEDURAL, HIGHER ORDER
REMOTE FROM: UNDERSTANDING INSIGHT CONCEPT FORMATION RELATIONSHIPS STRUCTURE OF INFORMATION FIELD PATTERNS INTELLIGENCE EMPTY, DETACHED, CIRCULAR ³TO FOLLOW RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS...AS A FORM OF PROBLEM SOLVING AND TO CONSTRUCT META-RULES, THE BASIS FOR USING RULES² (BARKLEY 2000, P. 1068) A Problem is something for which there is no known solution. |
|||||||||||
|
STRAIGHT IS NARROW
Devaluing of Error/Experimentation Problem |
|||||||||||
|
EF as RESTRICTION EF - School Achievement - Anxiety - Narrow Focus elevated epinephrine levels Anderson et al, 2000 Frankenhauser, 1971 Manassis, 2000 vs URGENT SEARCH FOR MEANING Disinhibition - Seek/Explore - Fluid - Global dopamine seeking (feelings of reward, satisfaction) decreased frontal enervation unchecked right hemisphere feelings/urgencies/personal valences perceiving global, integrated, broad, essential properties Strobel, et al, 1999 Ebstein, et al, 1996 |
|||||||||||
|
EXECUTIVE DYSFUNCTION?? Whoıs Dysfunctional? Case Example: There were many instances at this testing when X had a rush of ideas with which he had to struggle in order to come up with some clarity of expression. When supplying the missing word on the passage comprehension test (see Woodcock-Johnson results below), X went through a rich set of associations before settling on precisely the right word. In so doing, he revealed his appreciation for every nuance of what the passage called for but also the persistent problem of channeling all of them into a response worthy of them. Often he is not successful in his effort to constrain his thinking in a way that is expected of him. He can give fully developed, insightful summaries of what heıs read but then cannot force them into the constraints of those options given on a multiple choice test (Gray Oral Reading Test). Whether successful or not, it is exhausting for X to go through the process. Since he accepts the test and its choices as authority, X feels that it is his inadequacy when the richness of his thinking does not conform to the answers. In his words, he wonders, ³What am I not seeing that someone else would see?² |
|||||||||||
SUPPORTS EFıS by passes meaning mild anxiety/hyperfocus fragmentation rule following syntax persistence repetition mental effort detail patience restriction |
|
||||||||||
INSTRUCTION GO BIG DONıT: task analyze, divide into smaller steps DO: consolidate information - anchor in essential properties GO BASIC DONıT: collect isolated information fragments DO: recognize, predict details as implicates of key ideas DO: learn detail in following a larger purpose GO DEEP DONıT: use meta- strategies, memorize DO: reveal essential properties/concepts/patterns, encourage insight GO DIRECT DONıT: overload with detailed, language-laden multiple choice testing DO: assess with open ended tests, projects, topic-choice papers GO REAL DONıT: use formulaic or disassociated problems DO: use actual problems (no preset formula for solution) relate to real, relevant, studentıs personal context |
|||||||||||
executive functions: ³actually allow the personıs behavior to be more effectively controlled by that environment....individuals who demonstrate greater self-regulation are far more under the control of their environment than are those with less self-regulation. Thus the former benefits far more in the long run than does the latter.² (Barkley, 1998; p. 247). |
|||||||||||
|
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION = INHIBITION OF COMMON SENSE Failure to suppress prepotent responses Rejection of personal preferences EXECUTIVE FUNCTION = HIGH VALUE PLACED ON NORMATIVE FEEDBACK J. Brown - anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), ability to realign intention w/ feedback http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003- 10/vu-ntp092903.php Carter,MacDonald,Ross & Stenger (2000) ACC - ability to use error feedback |
|||||||||||