See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321116181
The Classroom as a Developmental Context for
Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis on the
Importance of Teacher–Stud....
Article in Review of Educational Research · November 2017
DOI: 10.3102/0034654317743200
CITATIONS
READS
50
5,848
5 authors, including:
Loren Vandenbroucke
Jantine L Spilt
KU Leuven
KU Leuven
14 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS
52 PUBLICATIONS 2,621 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Karine Verschueren
KU Leuven
188 PUBLICATIONS 3,882 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Teacher stress and wellbeing in teacher-child relationships View project
Teacher behavior and sensitivity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Loren Vandenbroucke on 28 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
743200
research-article2017
RERXXX10.3102/0034654317743200Vandenbroucke et al.Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
Review of Educational Research
Month 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1­–40
DOI: 10.3102/0034654317743200
© 2017 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
The Classroom as a Developmental Context for
Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analysis on the
Importance of Teacher–Student Interactions for
Children’s Executive Functions
Loren Vandenbroucke, Jantine Spilt, Karine Verschueren,
Claire Piccinin, and Dieter Baeyens
KU Leuven, Belgium
Executive functions (EFs), important cognitive processes that enable goaldirected behavior, develop due to maturation and environmental stimulation.
The current study systematically reviews and synthesizes evidence on the
association between teacher–student interactions and EFs. The search
resulted in 28 studies, from which 23 studies provided sufficient data to be
included in the calculations. Overall effect sizes indicate that teacher–child
interactions are related to general executive functioning, working memory,
and inhibition but not cognitive flexibility. Relationships were stronger for
studies including children at the beginning of elementary school, studies with
higher socioeconomic status participants and more boys, and studies measuring teacher–child interactions at the dyadic level. This study shows that
qualitative teacher–child interactions are important for performance in EFs
in children. This suggests that teachers can promote the cognitive processes
that are essential in children’s learning by changing their behavior to create
an emotionally positive, structured, and cognitively stimulating classroom
environment.
Keywords:
effect size, meta-analysis, school/teacher effectiveness, social
context, student cognition
Successful functioning throughout life (e.g., in school, social interactions,
physical and mental health, and professional careers) requires, among other
things, well-developed executive functions (EFs). EFs refer to the cognitive
processes needed to regulate behavior, thoughts, and emotions (Huizinga, Dolan,
& van der Molen, 2006; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). The importance of EFs for a
large variety of life domains has driven an increase in studies exploring EFs
development and how this development can be improved. Recently, positive
1
Vandenbroucke et al.
interactions between teachers and their students have been related to improvements in development of EFs (e.g., Berry, 2012; de Wilde, Koot, & van Lier,
2016; Hamre, Hatfield, Pianta, & Jamil, 2014). However, research on this topic is
fragmented due to the inconsistent use of terminology, definitions, and operationalization of both the construct of EFs and teacher–student interactions. The
current study systematically reviews existing literature and synthesizes results
into a meta-analysis to provide an overview of the available research.
Executive Functioning
EFs refer to a complex construct that has been defined in many different ways.
Nevertheless, these definitions have some common elements emphasizing the key
characteristics of EFs. First, EFs are defined as cognitive processes exerting topdown influence over actions, thoughts, and emotions (Zelazo & Carlson, 2012).
Second, EFs are involved in conscious, goal-directed behavior and not in situations that rely on automatized or intuitive behavior (Huizinga et al., 2006; Zelazo
& Carlson, 2012). Consequently, using EFs requires effort. Third, EFs refer to a
set of interconnected, though distinguishable, cognitive processes and is thus considered to be a multidimensional rather than a unitary construct (Diamond, 2013;
Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). This multidimensionality
of EFs is also confirmed for young children in numerous empirical studies
(Huizinga et al., 2006; Letho, Juujärvi, Kooistra, & Pulkkinen, 2003; Miller,
Giesbrecht, Müller, McInerney, & Kerns, 2012; Usai, Viterbori, Traverso, & De
Franchis, 2014). Most researchers agree that there are three core EFs (i.e., working
memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility) that develop during the first years of
life (Diamond, 2013; Huizinga et al., 2006). At a later stage these core EFs are
integrated to support more complex EFs, such as planning and reasoning
(Diamond, 2013). In the current study, we focus on the three core EFs in a classroom context.
Working memory refers to the memory system that consist of two components
to temporarily store information (the phonological loop and visuospatial sketch
pad) and one component for the processing or manipulating information (the central
executive; Baddeley, 1992). For example, doing mental mathematics requires to
remember the numbers and operators and to make the calculations. Within the
classroom context, working memory is essential in children’s learning in preschool and elementary school as shown by positive relationships between working memory and children’s school engagement (Fitzpatrick & Pagani, 2012),
following instructions in the classroom (Gathercole, Durling, Evans, Jeffcock, &
Stone, 2007), and academic achievement (Alloway & Alloway, 2010; Friso-van
den Bos, van der Ven, Kroesbergen, & van Luit, 2013). Additionally, working
memory is important for better social functioning (McQuade, Murray-Close,
Shoulberg, & Hoza, 2013) and adequate emotional functioning (Brunnekreef
et al., 2007; Engen & Kanske, 2013; Joormann & Gotlib, 2008).
Inhibition is the ability to suppress an automatic response, thought, or emotion in favor of a less dominant, though often more appropriate, response
(Bari & Robbins, 2013). For example, when working on an important task
attention needs to be focused on the relevant aspects of the task, while filtering out distracting sounds or thoughts. In an extensive longitudinal study,
2
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
Moffitt et al. (2011) linked the ability to resist temptation at the age of 3 to
positive outcomes in several domains, such as physical health and socioeconomic status (SES) in adulthood. Within the elementary classroom context,
inhibition has been shown to be important for behaviors important for learning, such as attention and externalizing behaviors (Berry, 2012), social skills
and internalizing behavior (Rhoades, Greenberg, & Domitrovich, 2009), and
learning outcomes, such as academic achievement (Blair & Razza, 2007;
Lubin, Regrin, Boulc’h, Pacton, & Lanoe, 2016).
Cognitive flexibility refers to viewing matters from diverse perspectives and
efficiently handling these perspectives in order to adapt to the changing demands
of the situation (Canas, Quesada, Antoli, & Fajardo, 2003). All situations in which
(unexpected) changes occur require cognitive flexibility. For example, when
students need to change from one activity to another in the classroom, they need
to turn their attention away from the previous activity, let go of their old response
set, and shift their attention and response set to meet the demands of the new
activity. Children with higher performance on measures of cognitive flexibility
generally have better social understanding (Bock, Gallaway, & Hund, 2015) and
better reading skills (Cartwright et al., 2017) in middle childhood.
As the three core EFs each play a crucial role in children’s development, classroom functioning, and learning, it is important to understand how these functions
develop and which malleable factors in children’s proximal environments can
promote this development.
EFs Development, Plasticity, and the Role of the Environment
EFs are related to different brain regions, the most important being the prefrontal
cortex (PFC; V. Anderson, Jacobs, & Anderson, 2008; McKenna, Rushe, &
Woodcock, 2017). EFs development parallels changes in this brain region and is
characterized by alternating periods of rapid and gradual growth (V. Anderson
et al., 2008). Elementary forms of behavioral control emerge in infants (before the
age of 2), when neural density in the PFC increases (Diamond, 2002). Between
the age of 2 and 7 the neural pathways in the PFC are improved and function more
efficiently due to synaptic pruning processes (Diamond, 2002; Zhong et al., 2014).
During this period an important developmental spurt occurs in which the three
core EFs develop rapidly (Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). Both the PFC and the three
core EFs continue to progress at a more gradual rate until adolescence or even
young adulthood (P. Anderson, 2002; Diamond, 2002; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012).
Although maturation is important for the development of EF, the brain shows
remarkable anatomical and functional plasticity, especially in periods of rapid
growth (V. Anderson et al., 2008; McEwen & Morrison, 2013; Zelazo & Carlson,
2012). Due to the prolonged development of the prefrontal brain regions, with
alternating periods of rapid and gradual growth, there is a long window for environmental stimulation to promote EFs development (Hughes, 2011). Studies on
the possibility to train EFs have shown that effects of computerized training do
not generalize to real-life classroom situations, suggesting that performance in
EFs can be improved in young children (e.g., Thorell, Lindqvist, Nutley, Bohlin,
& Klingberg, 2009), though focusing only on EFs does not improve related
behavior and outcomes in the classroom context (Diamond & Lee, 2011;
3
Vandenbroucke et al.
Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013). Including children’s developmental contexts in
interventions targeting EFs is needed. Programs that include stimulation of EFs
and also pay attention to the classroom contexts have indeed shown better transfer
effects (e.g., Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008; Raver et al.,
2011).
It can be assumed that in the course of normal EFs development, outside of
intervention situations, stimulation provided in children’s environments play a
role as well. Compared to the literature on the biological underpinnings of EFs
and the effects of training, the research examining the role of the environment for
performance in EFs and development is more recent, and the studies are limited
in number (Hughes, 2011). Most available studies focus on the family and home
environment as an important developmental context for EFs, showing that positive
parent–child interactions can stimulate EFs (see Hughes, 2011, for an overview).
However, when children enter formal schooling, the classroom context and interactions with teachers also become an important part of their environment and
developmental context (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Downer, Sabol, & Hamre,
2010). So far, the role of teacher–child interactions in EFs performance has rarely
been investigated.
Teacher–Child Interactions and EFs
There are different ways of looking at the teacher–student interaction. In
general teacher–child interactions are studied at two levels, the dyadic level and
the classroom level. In young children, an attachment-based perspective is often
used in research (Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). This
framework focuses on the affective components of the dyadic relationship between
the teacher and a student. More specifically, it looks at closeness, conflict, and
dependency in the relation between the teacher and a specific student (Koomen,
Verschueren, van Schooten, Jak, & Pianta, 2012; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012).
Closeness refers to the degree of affection, warmth, and open communication
between the child and teacher, whereas conflict includes the degree of negative
affect expressed and experienced in the relationship (Ahnert, Harwardt-Heinecke,
Kappler, Eckstein-Madry, & Milatz, 2012; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Dependency
refers to clingy behavior of the child toward the teacher and the overreliance on
the teacher (e.g., continuously asking for help, even when it is not needed; Ahnert
et al., 2012; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Koomen et al., 2012; Vervoort, Doumen, &
Verschueren, 2015). However, such a dyadic relationship does not stand on its
own. It is embedded within the broader classroom context, which can influence
children’s development in its own way (Howes et al., 2011). It is therefore important to also consider the interactions of the teacher with the class as a group. At the
classroom level, research has mainly focused on teacher’s emotional support,
classroom organization, and instructional support as important factors for children’s classroom functioning (Downer et al., 2010; Hamre et al., 2014). Emotional
support refers to behaviors that promote the affective quality of interactions with
the teachers and that increase children’s comfort and sense of security within the
classroom (e.g., smiling, acknowledging children’s emotions and experiences and
sensitively responding to it, allowing children to speak their mind). Behaviors that
contribute to the smooth functioning of the classroom are classified in the domain
4
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
of classroom organization (e.g., clarifying rules and expectations, minimizing
transition time, proactive behavior management). Finally, instructional support
includes those interactions that promote children’s cognitive and higher order
thinking, such as asking open-ended questions, providing feedback that extends
children’s learning, and providing opportunities to use advanced language.
Although previous studies have clearly shown that the classroom environment,
and in particular the interactions between students and teachers, can influence
children’s development (Downer et al., 2010; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012),
research examining the role of this environmental context for children’s EFs has
only recently gained attention. The first studies are now showing that positive
relationships and interactions with teachers can promote EFs, whereas negative
relationships can hinder EFs (e.g., Berry, 2012; de Wilde et al., 2016). These
results are promising, yet evidence is hard to interpret for three reasons. First,
research examining the relationship between teacher–child interactions and EFs
has operationalized teacher–child interactions in different ways. Some studies
have examined these interactions at the dyadic level (e.g., de Wilde et al., 2016),
while others have investigated these interactions at the classroom level (e.g.,
Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). It is unclear what
the relative importance of each of these levels is for children’s EFs. Additionally,
there are different operationalizations of these interactions. For example, teacher–
child interactions are measured from both the perspective of the teacher (e.g.,
Cadima, Doumen, Verschueren, & Buyse, 2015) and the perspective of the child
(e.g., de Wilde et al., 2016). Second, different researchers define and measure EFs
in a variety of ways and some concepts that are related to but different from EFs
are used interchangeably (e.g., self-regulation, effortful control; see Nigg, 2016,
for an overview of terminology). Third, there are differences in the study designs
examining the relation between teacher–child interactions and EFs. In particular,
one type of studies uses cross-sectional designs and the other type aims to predict
performance in EFs based on teacher–child interactions measured at an earlier
point in time. Altogether, these differences make the research on this topic fragmented and make it hard to draw conclusions across studies. The current study
tries to fill this gap.
Research Questions
The current study examines the relationship between teacher–student interactions and EFs by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Insights into
the association between these concepts is essential for understanding how teacher–
student interactions might be used to prevent or decrease problems with EFs and
related academic issues. If we can understand which aspects of these interactions
are important for which EFs, we can attempt to improve specific teacher behaviors in order to target problems with specific EFs. For example, if the amount of
warmth in the relationship between teachers and students is the most important,
then focusing on increasing teachers’ sensitivity is likely to be more effective than
improving classroom organization when it comes to improving EFs. Focusing on
the quality of teacher–student interactions could then be complementary to training of EFs and might increase transfer effects of such trainings.
5
Vandenbroucke et al.
The current study has three goals:
1.
2.
3.
To provide an overview of the existing research on the association between
teacher–student interactions and children’s EFs;
To provide an estimate of the mean effect size of the association between
teacher–child interactions and EFs;
To examine whether the effect size depends on sample characteristics
(age, gender, SES), the level of teacher–student interactions (dyadic vs.
classroom level), the dimensions of the teacher–student interactions (e.g.,
closeness, conflict, classroom organization) measured, and the study
design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal).
These questions were addressed with a systematic search and a meta-analysis
in which we summarize the empirical evidence on the relationship between different aspects of teacher–student interactions and EFs.
Method
Search
First, a database search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and ERIC.
Because both teacher–student interactions and EFs are complex constructs comprising multiple dimensions and components, an extensive list of search terms was used
(Table 1), based on the literature (Diamond, 2013; Nigg, 2016). A first selection of
studies was made based on a comparison of the title and abstract with the inclusion
and exclusion criteria (see below). If an exclusion criterion was applicable, then the
study was excluded from further review. If all inclusion criteria were applicable or
the title and abstract contained insufficient information for exclusion or inclusion,
then the study was included. From there, the included studies were compared to the
inclusion and exclusion criteria again, this time based on the full text.
Second, those publications that were included based on the database search
were used for a backward and forward search. For the backward search, the reference lists of all included documents were inspected. The titles (and abstracts if
necessary) were compared to the eligibility criteria. New papers that met inclusion criteria were added to the sample of studies. For the forward search, all
papers were examined that referred to one of the papers already included. Once
these papers were identified, the papers were again compared to the inclusion
criteria and included in the sample if appropriate.
The full process of the search for and selection of studies was conducted by two
people, the first author and the fourth author. After the selection based on title and
abstract, results from the two researchers were compared. There was an original agreement of 97.46% in the screening phase and of 90% for the reading of the full text. Studies
for which there was disagreement were discussed until an agreement was reached.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Only studies reported in English were considered for the current review.
Studies were included if the following criteria were met: (1) the sample consisted
of children between the ages of 2 and 12, (2) the study comprised a community
6
Table 1
Search terms used for the database search in Web of Science, Pubmed, and Eric
OR
Executive function*
Cognitive control
Executive control
Self-regulation
Working memory
Central executive
Phonological loop
Visuospatial sketchpad
Inhibitory control
Interference control
Selective attention
Behavio* inhibition
Cognitive inhibition
Attentional control
Attentional inhibition
Executive attention
Response control
Delay of gratification
Cognitive flexibility
Set shift*
Attention shift*
Response shift*
Task switching
Mental flexibility
Fluency
Generativity
AND
OR
Teacher* student* relationship*
Teacher* child* relationship*
Teacher* pupil* relationship*
Teacher* student* interaction*
Teacher* child* interaction*
Teacher* pupil* interaction*
Student* teacher* relationship*
Child* teacher* relationship*
Pupil* teacher* relationship*
Student* teacher* interaction*
Child* teacher* interaction*
Pupil* teacher* interaction*
Emotional support
Classroom organi*
Instructional support
Teacher AND support
Teacher AND closeness
Teacher AND warmth
Teacher AND sensitivity
Teacher AND involvement
Teacher AND conflict
Teacher AND dependency
Teacher AND “negative interaction”
Teacher AND “positive interaction”
Teacher AND structure
Teacher AND “positive feelings”
Teacher AND “negative feelings”
Teacher AND affiliation
sample, (3) teacher–child interactions were measured, and (4) EFs were
measured.
The age of the participants included in the study ranged from 2 to 12 years.
This age range corresponds to the period in which children start preschool
(Bertram & Pascal, 2002) until the end of primary education (Le Métais, 2003)
in most countries. Children from secondary education and older were excluded
as they are often exposed to multiple teachers throughout the day (more so than
in primary education) and therefore teacher–child interactions may have a different meaning and a different effect on student outcomes at this older age
(Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011). Similarly, we focused on children
recruited in community samples, and not clinical samples, as the studied
7
Vandenbroucke et al.
processes may differ for children with a medical or psychiatric diagnosis. For
example, studies that focus on samples of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder were excluded. The study was
also included if data were available on a subsample that corresponded to the
inclusion criteria.
The study had to include a general measure for EFs or specifically assess one
of the three core EFs, working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. These
measures of EFs need to be clearly distinguished from measures capturing related
concepts, such as self-regulation or effortful control. The term self-regulation is
sometimes used interchangeably with EFs (e.g., Morrison, Ponitz, & McClelland,
2010), seen as a part of EFs (e.g., Diamond, 2013), or seen as a broader construct
that includes EFs (e.g., Nigg, 2016). Similarly, effortful control is a concept that
is also sometimes used as an equivalent of EFs (e.g., Eisenberg, Smith, & Spinrad,
2011), whereas others assume it is an aspect of temperament, has a more
constitutional basis, and is more stable than EFs (e.g., Neuenschwander,
Rothlisberger, Cimeli, & Roebers, 2012). Because the use of these terms often
differs between studies and researchers, the decision to include or exclude a study
was based on the specific measurement used. When tasks were used that explicitly
involved the use of top-down controlled cognitive processes or behavior the study
was included. Indirect measures used, such as questionnaires on temperament,
impulsivity, self-regulation, or EFs (e.g., Barbarin, 2013; Cappella et al., 2012),
led to exclusion. Additionally, a measure for teacher–student interactions, at either
the dyadic or classroom level, had to be included. Measures assessing the
teacher–child interactions had to indicate the quality of those interactions and not
merely the amount of time spent in interactions (e.g., the amount of time spent in
individual instruction). Studies were excluded when the measure of teacher–
student interactions and/or EFs was confounded with other measures (e.g., a general
cognitive measure combining EFs with other cognitive processes). Finally, the
study was included only if it provided data where teacher–child interactions were
assessed before or simultaneously with the EFs measure, as this approach allows
us to answer the current research questions.
Sample
Figure 1 gives an overview of the number of studies that were found, included,
and excluded in each step of the process. The database search resulted in a sample
of 2,167 studies. The database and backward and forward search resulted in the
inclusion of 28 original empirical studies. Additionally, we found one review
study and one book chapter including a section on teacher–child interactions and
EFs (Blair & Raver, 2015; McGrath, Thurman, Raisch, & Lucey, 2016) and one
meta-analysis on the associations between observations of teacher–child interactions at the classroom level and child outcomes, including some EFs outcomes
(Perlman et al., 2016). These were used for a backward and forward search. For
these 28 studies statistical data were extracted and or requested from the author(s).
For 23 studies sufficient statistical information was collected to calculate an effect
size. Most studies were reported in articles published in journals, three studies
were found in the form of conference abstracts, and two studies were part of a
PhD dissertation.
8
Figure 1. Flowchart of study search and inclusion. Flowchart indicates the number of
studies found in the database search, studies found in the backward search and forward
search, and studies excluded and included during the screening of titles and abstracts
and the reading of the full text.
Data Collection and Preparation
Data were extracted from the studies. Sample characteristics, study characteristics, and statistics were noted and recoded for use in the analyses. With regard to
the sample characteristics the number, mean age (in months), and gender (percentage of boys) of participants was documented. Additionally, information on
the SES was gathered for the participating children (parental education, family
income, parental work status, and/or eligibility for reduced lunch fees) and/or the
setting in which the study was conducted (educational level, average income,
unemployment rates, or general rates on reduced–lunch fee eligibility for the
school or geographical area). If a high number of participants (>50%) had a low
SES or the studied area was characterized by low SES (compared to the average
of the country as mentioned in the included paper), then the study was coded as
examining a low-SES sample.
9
Vandenbroucke et al.
With regard to the study characteristics, data were collected on the study
design, the dimension of teacher–child interactions that was measured, and the
core EF that was measured. With regard to the study design, the effect sizes were
categorized as either cross-sectional or longitudinal, depending on the timing of
the measures. The aspect of the teacher–child interactions that was examined was
coded as closeness, conflict, dependency, general dyadic relationship, emotional
support, organizational support, instructional support, and general classroom
interactions. These concepts were chosen as they are supported by the most
commonly used models for characterizing teacher–child interactions (see above).
The type of measure (questionnaire or observation) and the name of the measure
were also documented. A similar approach was used for the measurement of EFs.
Based on the definitions of working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility
in the introduction, it was determined in which category a measure was included.
When the measure focused on remembering and/or processing information over a
short period of time, it was classified as a working memory measure. Measures of
long-term memory or episodic memory were not included. If the main focus of the
measure was on the degree to which the child could suppress a dominant thought,
emotion, or response, it was labeled inhibition. Measures were categorized as
cognitive flexibility assessments when the child had to generate ideas flexibly or
shift between different cognitive or behavioral sets. When a measure included
more than one of these processes or different measures were combined in a
composite score, then it was categorized as general EF. Again, the type of
measurement (test, questionnaire, observation) and the name of the instrument
were noted.
Finally, the statistical information needed to calculate the association between
the teacher–child interactions and EFs was recorded and transformed into a
correlation. In case the information needed to compute the correlation was missing,
the authors were contacted by e-mail and the information was requested.
Correlations were always registered in such a way that positive correlations
indicated that better teacher–child interactions were related to better EF
performance.
Data Analyses
Analyses
First, a qualitative analysis of the systematic review is reported, providing an
overview of the existing literature, characteristics of the included studies, and
their conclusions.
Next, meta-analysis is used to calculate the mean effect size of the association
between teacher–child interactions and EFs. Since this study did not examine
differences between conditions or groups but rather studied the association
between two (continues) variables, unconditional Pearson correlations are used as
an effect size. From the 28 studies, 14 studies reported the correlations (Abenavoli
& Greenberg, 2014; Berry, 2012; Cadima et al., 2015; Cadima, Verschueren, Leal,
& Guedes, 2016; Conradt et al., 2014; de Wilde et al., 2016; Finch, Johnson, &
Phillips, 2015; Fuhs, Farran, & Nesbitt, 2013; Hong, 2012; Liew, Chen, & Hughes,
2010; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Spilt & Hughes, 2015; Valiente, Swanson, &
Lemery-Chalfant, 2012; Williford, Maier, Downer, Pianta, & Howes, 2013). For
10
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
one study the correlations were calculated based on means and standard deviations that were provided for children scoring high and low on secure-base behavior
(Commodari, 2013). The 13 remaining studies reported only the results of multilevel linear analyses, and correlations were requested from the authors. Eight
authors provided us with the correlations (Araujo, Carneiro, Cruz-Aguayo, &
Schady, 2016; Bailey, Denham, Curby, & Bassett, 2016; Cadima, Enrico, et al.,
2016; Choi et al., 2016; Hamre et al., 2014; Leyva et al., 2015; Ursache, Blair,
Bierman, & Nix, 2011; Weiland, Ulvestad, Sachs, & Yoshikawa, 2013). The
remaining studies were not included in the meta-analysis (Ertürk Kara, Gönen, &
Pianta, 2017; Jones & Bailey, 2014; Jones, Bub, & Raver, 2013; Slot, Mulder,
Verhagen, & Leseman, 2014; Yildiz, Ertürk Kara, Tanribuyurdu, & Gönen).
Correlations are transformed into Fisher z coefficients for use in all calculations
and are transformed back to aid interpretation of results (Borenstein, Hedges,
Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For the calculation of effect
sizes, fixed or random models can be used. Random effects models are used when
effect sizes of studies with different characteristics are synthesized. They provide
the opportunity to generalize results (Borenstein et al., 2009). As such, these models are the most appropriate for the current data. However, random effects models
have lower power to detect significant effects compared to fixed effects models
(Borenstein et al., 2009). Therefore, both models will be calculated and reported
in the current study. Fixed effects models are calculated when at least two studies
are available (Borenstein et al., 2009). Random effects models are calculated
when at least five studies are available, as these models require sufficient studies
to calculate between study variation (Borenstein et al., 2009). Effect sizes are
calculated across all EF outcomes but also specifically for the different outcomes
(general EF measure, working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility).
Finally, a meta-regression is performed to examine whether effect sizes differ
for samples with different characteristics (age, gender, SES), dyadic versus classroom-level teacher–child interactions, the aspect of teacher–child interactions
measured (e.g., closeness vs. conflict), and cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. To this end, the effect sizes of all types of EF outcomes are used, as most
core EFs have not been studied by a sufficient number of studies to examine these
separately in a meta-regression.
Dependency of Effect Sizes
In the current study we need to take into account the complex data structure
that arises from the fact that most studies examined multiple aspects of teacher–
student interactions in relation to EFs or measured EFs at multiple time points. As
a consequence, most studies contribute more than one effects size to the metaanalysis and meta-regression. The effect sizes of these studies are thus not
independent from one another, and if this issue is not addressed in the analysis, it
will lead to underestimation of the variance of the mean effects, which can bias
interpretation (Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, 2010). In the current study, the weights
were corrected when calculating the mean effect sizes by multiplying the inverse
of the variance of the effect size with the inverse of the number of effect sizes
provided by the study (Hedges et al., 2010). As a result, samples with more
participants will have more weight, though each study will contribute only once
11
Vandenbroucke et al.
in the calculation of the mean effect sizes. For the meta-regression, robust variance
estimation is used to correct for the dependency between the effect sizes (Hedges
et al., 2010). This approach requires 20 to 40 studies and on average more than
one effect size per study (Hedges et al., 2010). The current study includes 23 studies
with an average of more than five effect sizes per study.
Publication Bias
Publication bias, resulting from a tendency to publish significant results more
easily than null findings, is a clear issue in educational and psychological research
(Polanin, Tanner-Smith, & Hennessy, 2016). Publication bias can be (partially
avoided) by also including nonpublished work in a meta-analysis (Polanin et al.,
2016). Therefore, the current study also includes unpublished conference abstracts
and dissertations in the analysis. However, it is always possible that other gray
literature exists on the topic that was not found by the researchers.
To statistically assess publication bias, the correlation was examined between
sample size and effect size. If publication bias is present, a negative correlation
between the sample size and effect size should occur, because studies with smaller
samples that indicate small or nonsignificant results are more likely not to be
published than studies with larger samples with nonsignificant results (Kühberger,
Fritz, & Scherndl, 2014; Roorda et al., 2011). In our sample we found a nonsignificant correlation (r = .02, p = .873), indicating there was no such publication
bias in this study.
Results
Sample and Study Characteristics
An overview of study and sample characteristics included in the review and
meta-analysis can be found in Table 2. The oldest study included was published in
2009, but most studies were published from 2013 onward. With regard to the
qualitative review, the sample of 22,360 children (range = 80–7,978) had an
average mean age of 61.54 months across the studies. Boys and girls are approximately equally represented in the sample (51% boys). Not all studies reported the
number of classrooms, but those studies that did included a total of 2,263 classrooms. Eighteen studies had a sample with high numbers of children with a low
socioeconomic background (based on parental education, family income, or eligibility for reduced lunch fees). Studies were conducted in Belgium, Chile, Ecuador,
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, and different parts of the United States of
America.
Of these 28 studies, 23 had sufficient statistical information to calculate an
effect size that could be included in the meta-analysis. In total, 19,906 children
from a total of at least 1,929 classrooms were included. Mean age of this subsample was 62.91 months and 50.7% were boys. Fifteen samples were characterized as low SES; for one study, data on SES were missing.
Systematic Review
Overall EFs
Of the 28 studies included, 5 studies (17%) reported the association of some
aspect of teacher–child interactions with a general measure of EF. One study used
12
13
2016 United States
2013 Italy
2014 United States
2016 The Netherlands
2017 Turkey
2015 United States
2013 United States
2014 United States
et al.
ade Wilde, Koot, and van Lier
Ertürk Kara, Gönen, and Pianta
aFinch, Johnson, and Phillips
aFuhs,
aHamre,
Farran, and Nesbitt
Hatfield, Pianta, and Jamil
aConradt
aCommodari
Verschueren, Leal, and
Guedes
aChoi et al.
803
1,407
120
154
279
860
1,109
169
2016 Portugal
aCadima
1,364
145
2012 United States
2015 Belgium
233
252
206
312
2016 United States
2016 Portugal
301
7,978
aAraujo,
and Greenberg
Carneiro, Cruz-Aguayo,
and Schady
aBailey, Denham, Curby, and Bassett
aBerry
aCadima, Doumen, Verschueren,
and Buyse
aCadima, Enrico, et al.
2014 United States
2016 Ecuador
—
60
325
120
61
—
19
60
47
56
47
30
—
44
32
269
No. of
No. of
children classrooms
aAbenavoli
Country
Year
Author
Table 2
Overview of study characteristics
54.00 (4.00)
50.04 (5.64)
— (—)
52.14 (2.42)
54.00 (6.24)
132.00 (—)
66.24 (12.00)
56.00 (6.38)
63.60 (9.05)
56.51 (9.97)
59.00 (8.52)
72.00 (—)
75.00 (3.00)
53.84 (7.80)
73.08 (4.56)
59.35 (5.24)
Age in months
54
49
—
48
53
51
50
48
53
56
52
50
48
50
64
51
%
Boys
1
0
—
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
Low
SES
(continued)
Cross-sectional and
longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional and
longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional and
longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Design
14
Blair, Bierman, and Nix
Swanson, and LemeryChalfant
aWeiland, Ulvestad, Sachs, and
Yoshikawa
aWilliford, Maier, Downer, Pianta,
and Howes
Yildiz, Ertürk Kara, Tanribuyurdu,
and Gönen
850
350
307
356
291
414
605
80
2014 The Netherlands
2015 United States
2011 United States
2012 United States
2013 United States
2013 United States
2014 Turkey
467
189
1,868
761
172
296
—
—
309
83
204
29
185
36
—
36
12
91
127
No. of
No. of
children classrooms
72.00 (—)
50.18 (5.44)
60.00 (—)
79.44 (4.68)
78.12 (4.56)
48.00 (—)
67.72 (4.63)
42.00 (2.70)
49.40 (8.00)
— (—)
53.50 (3.70)
78.84 (4.68)
64.92 (4.08)
42.87 (4.35)
Age in months
—
49
50
100
0
46
54
53
46
51
48
52
53
45
%
Boys
—
1
1
1
1
—
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Low
SES
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Cross-sectional
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Cross-sectional and
longitudinal
Design
Note. SES = socioeconomic status. Studies preceded by superscript a were also included in the meta-analysis. For the other studies correlations were not
available, and these were thus only considered for the qualitative review. For SES, 1 = sample is characterized by high numbers of children with a low
socioeconomic background)
aValiente,
aUrsache,
2013
2014
2015
2010
2009
Jones, Bub, and Raver
Jones and Bailey
aLeyva et al.
aLiew, Chen, and Hughes
aRimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm,
Nathanson and Brock
Slot, Mulder, Verhagen and Leseman
aSpilt and Hughes
United States
United States
Chile
United States
United States
2012 United States
aHong
Country
Year
Author
Table 2 (continued)
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (Cadima, Verschueren, et al., 2016) as a general
EF measure. The other four studies used a composite score comprising different
components of EFs (Araujo et al., 2016; Cadima, Verschueren, et al., 2016;
Conradt et al., 2014; Fuhs et al., 2013). One study examined the role of dyadic
teacher–child interactions, three studies investigated the teacher–child interactions
at a classroom level, and one studied investigated both levels.
With regard to dyadic teacher–child relationships, a general positive dyadic
relationship was significantly related to better EFs measured simultaneously
(Conradt et al., 2014). At this dyadic level, results of the study of Cadima,
Verschueren, et al. (2016) suggested that closeness was positively correlated to
general EFs measured later, whereas conflict showed no significant relationship. With regard to the classroom level, teacher–child interactions were positively related to general EFs, even after controlling for additional variables,
such as, age, gender, SES, and teacher experience (Araujo et al., 2016; Cadima,
Verschueren, et al., 2016). When looking at emotional support, classroom organization and instructional support as separate aspects of classroom teacher–
child interactions, there was no association with general EFs (Cadima,
Verschueren, et al., 2016). Fuhs et al. (2013) showed that teachers’ behavior
approval was positively related to EFs, whereas other aspects of emotional support were unrelated, and results of Cadima, Verschueren, et al. (2016) indicate
that instructional support has a positive effect on EFs only for children who
experience difficulties in EFs.
Working Memory
Seven studies (24%) reported on the association between teacher–child interactions and children’s working memory. A number of different measures were
used to asses working memory, mainly verbal in nature: word span backward
(Abenavoli & Greenberg, 2014; Ursache et al., 2011), digit span forward
(Commodari, 2013; Weiland et al., 2013), digit span backward (Commodari,
2013; Hamre et al., 2014; Weiland et al., 2013; Williford et al., 2013), and dot
matrix backward (de Wilde et al., 2016). Three studies examined dyadic teacher–
child relationships and four studies examined teacher–child interactions at the
classroom level.
With regard to the dyadic teacher–child interactions, results are mixed.
Commodari (2013) revealed no association between the general affective
teacher–child relationship and working memory. Results of Abenavoli and
Greenberg (2014) suggest that higher levels of teacher reported closeness
were related to better working memory and teacher-reported conflict is not
related, whereas de Wilde et al. (2016) found a negative effect of childreported conflict on working memory and a positive association between
child-reported closeness and working memory. At the classroom level, a general measure of teacher–child interactions was related to working memory
(Williford et al., 2013). Weiland et al. (2013) found no correlation with the
specific dimensions of emotional support, classroom organization, and
instructional support, whereas Hamre et al. (2014) found only classroom organization to be positively related with working memory but not emotional or
instructional support.
15
Inhibition
Most studies that were found include a measure of inhibition (23 studies, 79%).
Most studies used a measure tapping behavioral forms of inhibition: Preschool
Self-Regulation Assessment (Bailey et al., 2016; Cadima, Enrico, et al., 2016;
Ertürk Kara et al., 2017; Hong, 2011; Jones & Bailey, 2014; Jones et al., 2013;
Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009; Yildiz et al., 2014), Peg Tapping (Abenavoli &
Greenberg, 2014; Choi et al., 2016; Hamre et al., 2014; Hatfield, Burchinal,
Pianta, & Sideris, 2016; Leyva et al., 2015; Ursache et al., 2011; Weiland et al.,
2013; Williford et al., 2013), Continuous Performance Test (Berry, 2012; Valiente
et al., 2012), Circle and Star (Cadima et al., 2015), Go/No-Go task (Finch et al.,
2015), and Walk-a-Line Slowly (Liew et al., 2015; Spilt & Hughes, 2015; Ursache
et al., 2011). There were only two studies that used a more cognitive measure of
inhibition, namely, a visual and/or auditory search task requiring selective attention (Commodari, 2013; Slot et al., 2014).
Dyadic teacher–child interactions were assessed in seven studies. Sixteen studies
reported associations with classroom level interactions. With regard to the dyadic
level, general measures of teacher–child relationship quality were positively associated with inhibition outcomes (Commodari, 2013), also after controlling for
children’s SES (Valiente et al., 2012). Conflict was negatively correlated with
inhibition (Abenavoli & Greenberg, 2014; Berry, 2012; Cadima et al., 2015),
except in the study of Spilt and Hughes (2015) with an ethnically diverse sample
of children where no relationship was found. Closeness was related to inhibition
in only one study (Abenavoli & Greenberg, 2014), whereas two studies showed
no relationship (Cadima et al., 2015; Liew et al., 2010).
At the classroom level, results are mixed. Most studies indicate no relationship
between general teacher–child interactions or the specific dimensions and inhibition.
A few studies do show positive associations with general teacher–child interactions (Williford, 2013), emotional support (Choi et al., 2016; Hatfield et al., 2016),
classroom organization (Hamre et al., 2014; Hatfield et al., 2016), and instructional support (Hatfield et al., 2016; Leyva et al., 2015; Slot et al., 2014). One
study indicated a negative association between emotional support and inhibition
(Hamre et al., 2014). Finally, some studies suggest that the association might be
more complex, depending on initial inhibition scores (Choi et al., 2016) or the
task measuring inhibition (Yildiz et al., 2014). Weiland et al. (2013) found quadratic relationships but no linear relationships.
Cognitive Flexibility
Only three studies (11%) examined cognitive flexibility in relation to the quality
of teacher–child interactions. All three studies used the Dimensional Card Change
Sort task, which measures the ability to shift attention from one set of characteristics (shape) to another set of characteristics (color).
One study suggests that higher levels of closeness and lower levels of
conflict are associated with better performance on the shifting task (Abenavoli
& Greenberg, 2014). The other two studies examined the association with
classroom-level teacher–child interactions, showing no significant associations
with emotional support, classroom organization, or instructional support
(Leyva et al., 2015; Ursache et al., 2011). The study of Ursache et al. (2011)
16
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
only showed a positive relationship with instructional support in kindergarten,
not in prekindergarten.
Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression
An overview of the studies and effect sizes included in the meta-analysis is
shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the overview of the general effect sizes according to the fixed and random effects models. Mean effect sizes were calculated
between teacher–child interactions, on one hand, and all EF outcomes, general
EF, working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, on the other. The mean
effect sizes were all significant, except for the effect size estimating the association between teacher–child interactions and cognitive flexibility. Effect sizes are
considered as small below .10, small to medium between .10 and .25, medium
around .25, medium to large between .25 and .40, and large above .40 (Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001, p. 147). For all EF outcomes taken together, general EFs and inhibition the mean effect size fell in the small range. For working memory, a small to
medium effect size was found.
Meta-regression was conducted with effect sizes for all EF measures as the
outcome and sample characteristics (age, gender, SES), the level of the teacher–
child interactions (dyadic level as baseline group), and the study design (crosssectional as baseline group) as predictors. These predictors were analyzed
separately as there were not enough studies available to include all these variables
in the model simultaneously. Although most pairs of moderators were unrelated,
some moderators were found to be associated with one another. Specifically, in
samples with higher percentages of boys mean age was higher (r = .67, p < .001),
when the effect of the dyadic teacher–child relationship on EFs was investigated
mean age was higher, t(112) = 7.41, p < .001, cross-sectional designs were more
often used in low SES samples (χ2 = 6.12, p = .013), and the classroom level was
more often examined in low-SES samples (χ2 = 13.02, p < .001). Because there
where both between and within study variation for the different moderators, we
examined moderator effects both across and within studies. The aspect of teacher–
child interactions (e.g., closeness, conflict) could not be included because there
were not enough studies available.
Results are shown in Table 5. Age and gender significantly predicted the effect
size, both across and within studies. If the mean age of the sample was higher or
the sample included a higher percentage of boys, higher effect sizes were found in
the association between teacher–child interactions and EFs. For SES, a significant
between study effect indicated that studies involving a low-SES sample reported
lower effect sizes compared to the other studies. Only one study examined both a
low- and a high-SES group (Cadima, Verschueren, et al., 2016). In this study, a
significant relationship was found between teacher–child interactions and EFs for
the low-SES group but not the high-SES group. With regard to the level of
teacher–child interactions, there were significantly higher effect sizes for studies
measuring dyadic teacher–child interactions when examining this moderator
across studies. Within study a similar trend was visible, though this result was not
significant. Finally, entering study design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal) as a
predictor resulted in a nonsignificant difference in effect sizes, both across and
within studies.
17
Table 3
Overview of effect sizes for the studies included in the meta-analysis
TSI
Author
N
General EF
Araujo, Carneiro, Cruz- 7,978
Aguayo and Schady
7,978
7,978
Cadima, Enrico, et al.
233
233
252
252
Cadima, Verschueren,
Leal, and Guedes
181
181
181
181
Conradt et al.
860
Fuhs, Farran, and
Nesbitt
803
803
803
803
Working memory
Abenavoli and Greenberg
Commodari
de Wilde, Koot, and
van Lier
Concept
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
Closeness
Conflict
General classroom TSI
Instructional
support
General dyadic
TSR
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Timing
EF
Instrument
Timing
T1
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T1
Instrument
r
T1
Aggregated
measure
Aggregated
measure
Aggregated
measure
HTKS
.23
CLASS
T1
HTKS
.15
T1
CLASS
T1
HTKS
−.02
T1
CLASS
T1
HTKS
.08
T1
STRS
T2
HTKS
.27
T1
T1
STRS
CLASS
T2
T2
HTKS
HTKS
.04
–.01
T1
CLASS
T2
HTKS
.08
T1
STRS
T1
CANTAB subtests
.17
T1
TOP
T2
.11
T1
TOP
T2
T1
TOP
T2
T1
TOP
T2
Aggregated
measure
Aggregated
measure
Aggregated
measure
Aggregated
measure
301
Closeness
T1
STRS
T1
301
Conflict
T1
STRS
T1
279
279
Closeness
Closeness
T1
T1
AQS
AQS
T1
T1
1,109
Warmth
T1
Y-CATS
T1
1,109
Warmth
T1
Y-CATS
T2
1,109
Warmth
T1
Y-CATS
T3
1,109
Warmth
T2
Y-CATS
T2
.01
.04
.02
.02
.04
.05
Backward word
span
Backward word
span
Forward digit span
Backward digit
span
Dot matrix
backward
Dot matrix
backward
Dot matrix
backward
Dot matrix
backward
.19
.05
.07
.11
–.02
.08
.03
.16
(continued)
18
Table 3 (continued)
TSI
Author
Hamre, Hatfield,
Pianta, and Jamil
N
Timing
Instrument
r
T2
Y-CATS
T3
1,109
Warmth
T3
Y-CATS
T3
1,109
Conflict
T1
Y-CATS
T1
1,109
Conflict
T1
Y-CATS
T2
1,109
Conflict
T1
Y-CATS
T3
1,109
Conflict
T2
Y-CATS
T2
1,109
Conflict
T2
Y-CATS
T3
1,109
Conflict
T3
Y-CATS
T3
853
Closeness
T1
STRS
T2
853
Conflict
T1
STRS
T2
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Instructional
support
Instructional
support
Emotional support
T1
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T1
T2
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T1
T2
CLASS
T2
T1
CLASS
T1
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Dot matrix backward
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
Backward word
span
Backward word
span
Backward word
span
Backward word
span
Forward digit span
T1
CLASS
T1
Forward digit span
–.05
T1
CLASS
T1
Forward digit span
.01
T1
CLASS
T1
T1
CLASS
T1
T1
CLASS
T1
T1
CLASS
T2
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
Backward digit
span
1,170
161
154
161
154
413
413
413
412
412
412
Williford, Maier,
Downer, Pianta, and
Howes
Instrument
Warmth
1,170
Weiland, Ulvestad,
Sachs, and Yoshikawa
Timing
1,109
1,170
Ursache, Blair, Bierman, and Nix
Concept
EF
605
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
General classroom TSI
.12
.11
.15
.16
.16
.26
.26
.23
.10
.05
.07
.12
.11
–.08
–.04
.04
.01
.01
–.02
.00
.01
.14
(continued)
19
Table 3 (continued)
TSI
Concept
Timing
EF
Instrument
Timing
Instrument
r
Author
N
Inhibition
Abenavoli and Greenberg
301
Closeness
T1
STRS
T1
Peg Tapping Task
.20
301
298
Conflict
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
Conflict
Conflict
Conflict
Closeness
T1
T1
STRS
CLASS
T1
T2
Peg Tapping
PSRA
.19
.08
T1
CLASS
T2
PSRA
.14
T1
CLASS
T2
PSRA
.01
T1
T1
T3
T1
STRS
STRS
STRS
STRS
T2
T4
T4
T1
CPT
CPT
CPT
Circle and Star
drawing task
.17
.18
.24
.07
145
Conflict
T1
STRS
T1
.13
233
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
Closeness
T1
CLASS
T1
Circle and Star
drawing task
Toy Wrap
.12
T1
CLASS
T1
Toy Sort
.17
T1
CLASS
T1
Snack Delay
.13
T1
CLASS
T1
Toy Wrap
–.02
T1
CLASS
T1
Toy Sort
–.03
T1
CLASS
T1
Snack Delay
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.15
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.19
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.15
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
–.01
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
–.09
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
–.01
T1
AQS
T1
T1
T1
AQS
ORCE
T1
T2
Auditory
recognition
Visual recognition
No/Go-No task
.29
.05
T2
ORCE
T2
No/Go-No task
.15
T1
ORCE
T3
No/Go-No task
–.13
Bailey, Denham, Curby,
and Bassett
298
298
Berry
Cadima, Doumen,
Verschueren, and
Buyse
Cadima, Enrico, et al.
1,153
1,153
1,153
145
233
233
252
252
252
Choi et al.
166
166
166
164
164
164
Commodari
Finch, Johnson, and
Phillips
279
279
154
154
154
Closeness
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
.06
.22
(continued)
20
Table 3 (continued)
TSI
Author
N
154
Hamre et al.
853
853
1,173
1,173
1,173
Hong
153
153
153
153
153
148
153
153
153
153
153
148
153
153
153
153
153
148
Leyva et al.
1,582
1,582
Concept
Emotional
support
Closeness
Conflict
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
General classroom TSI
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Timing
EF
Instrument
Timing
Instrument
r
T2
ORCE
T3
No/Go-No task
.10
T1
T1
T1
STRS
STRS
CLASS
T2
T2
T2
Pencil tap
Pencil tap
Pencil tap
.16
.12
.03
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
.10
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
.06
T1
CLASS
T1
Gift wrap
.02
T1
CLASS
T2
Gift wrap
–.11
T1
CLASS
T3
Gift wrap
–.11
T2
CLASS
T2
Gift wrap
–.12
T2
CLASS
T3
Gift wrap
–.06
T3
CLASS
T3
Gift wrap
–.12
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
.09
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
–.07
T1
CLASS
T3
Pencil tap
–.05
T2
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
.01
T2
CLASS
T3
Pencil tap
.04
T3
CLASS
T3
Pencil tap
.05
T1
CLASS
T1
Toy Sort
–.02
T1
CLASS
T2
Toy Sort
.11
T1
CLASS
T3
Toy Sort
.10
T2
CLASS
T2
Toy Sort
.12
T2
CLASS
T3
Toy Sort
.06
T3
CLASS
T3
Toy Sort
.12
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.02
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.01
(continued)
21
Table 3 (continued)
TSI
Author
EF
N
Concept
Timing
Instrument
Timing
Instrument
r
1,582
Instructional
support
General Dyadic
TSR
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
.06
T1
TSRI
T1
.05
.00
Liew, Chen, and
Hughes
761
Rimm-Kaufman,
Curby, Grimm, Nathanson and Brock
172
Emotional
support
T1
CLASS
T2
Walk-a-Line; Star;
Circle;
Telephone poles
PSRA
172
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
Conflict
T1
CLASS
T2
PSRA
.01
T1
CLASS
T2
PSRA
–.07
T1
NRI
T1
Walk-a-Line; Star;
Circle; Telephone Poles
T1
T1
NRI
CLASS
T1
T1
Peg Tapping Task
T1
CLASS
T1
Walk-a-Line slowly
T2
CLASS
T2
Peg Tapping Task
.13
T2
CLASS
T2
Walk-a-Line slowly
.11
T1
CLASS
T1
Peg Tapping Task
.09
T1
CLASS
T1
Walk-a-Line slowly
T2
CLASS
T2
Peg Tapping Task
.23
T2
CLASS
T2
Walk-a-Line slowly
.19
T1
STRS
T1
CPT
.22
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.03
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
–.04
T1
CLASS
T1
Pencil tap
.05
T1
CLASS
T2
Pencil tap
.10
Closeness
T1
STRS
T1
DCCS
.13
Conflict
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
T1
T1
STRS
CLASS
T1
T1
DCCS
DCCS
.14
.01
T1
CLASS
T1
DCCS
–.04
172
Spilt and Hughes
350
Ursache et al.
307
161
161
154
154
161
161
154
154
Valiente, Swanson, and
Lemery-Chalfant
Weiland et al.
291
412
412
412
Williford et al.
605
Cognitive flexibility
Abenavoli and Greenberg
301
Leyva et al.
301
1,608
1,608
Conflict
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Instructional
support
Instructional
support
Instructional
support
Instructional
support
General dyadic
TSR
Emotional
support
Classroom
organization
Instructional
support
General classroom TSI
.03
.01
.15
–.04
–.07
(continued)
22
Table 3 (continued)
TSI
Author
1,608
Ursache et al.
Concept
N
161
154
161
154
Instructional
support
Emotional
support
Emotional
support
Instructional
support
Instructional
support
EF
Timing
Instrument
Timing
Instrument
r
T1
CLASS
T1
DCCS
–.06
T1
CLASS
T1
DCCS
–.04
T2
CLASS
T2
DCCS
.00
T1
CLASS
T2
DCCS
–.03
T2
CLASS
T2
DCCS
.23
Note. TSI = teacher–child interactions; EFs = executive functions; STRS = Student–Teacher Relationship Scale;
CLASS = Classroom Assessment Scoring System; TCRS = Teacher–Child Rating Scale; ORCE = Observational
Ratings of the Caregiving Environment; TOP = Teacher Observation in Preschool; TSRI = Teacher–Student
Relationship Inventory; YCATS = Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support; NRI = Network Relationship
Inventory; DCCS = Dimensional Card Change Sort; PSRA = Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment; CPT =
Continuous Performance Test; HTKS = Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders.
Table 4
Overall effect sizes for the associations between teacher–student interactions and the
core executive functions
Model
Overall
Fixed effects model
Random effects model
EFs
General measure
Fixed effects model
Working memory
Fixed effects model
Random effects model
Inhibition
Fixed effects model
Random effects model
Cognitive flexibility
Fixed effects model
95% Confidence
interval
k
No. of effect
sizes
N
.09***
.09***
[.07, .11]
[.04, .13]
23
23
101
101
11,443
11,443
.11***
[.07, .16]
3
9
1,844
.10***
.09**
[.07, .13]
[.03, .15]
7
7
32
32
4,038
4,038
.08***
.08*
[.06, .10]
[.02, .14]
17
17
71
71
8,463
8,463
.00
[−.04, .04]
3
9
2,070
r
Note. EFs = executive functioning, k = number of studies in the calculation, N = number of
participants in the calculation. The random effects model was not calculated for the general measures
of executive functions and for cognitive flexibility, due to the small number of studies.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
23
Table 5
Results of the meta-regression examining the moderating role of age, gender,
socioeconomic status, level of teacher–child interactions, and study design in the
relationship between teacher–child interactions and executive functioning
Variables
Between-study effects
Age
Gender
Socioeconomic status
Level of teacher–
child interactions
Study design
Within-study effects
Age
Gender
Socioeconomic status
Level of teacher–
child interactions
Study design
β
SE
95% Confidence interval
t
p
.002
.008
−.077
−.110
<.001
.003
.032
.029
[.001, .002]
[.001, .015]
[−.143, −.011]
[−.170, −.050]
3.51
2.54
−2.45
−3.84
.002
.020
.024
.001
.030
.041
[−.056, .116]
0.72
.479
.013
<.001
.148
−.058
.004
<.001
—
.032
[.005, .021]
[.000, .001]
—
[−.126, .010]
3.50
2.47
—
−1.78
.002
.023
—
.091
.003
.040
[−.080, .086]
0.08
.941
Note. All variables were entered in the regression separately, as there were not enough studies to
examine the moderators simultaneously.
Discussion
The current study aimed to provide an overview on available research examining the association between teacher–child interactions and children’s EFs. A systematic review was conducted, combined with a meta-analysis and a
meta-regression, to provide an estimation of the general effect size and to investigate which factors moderated this effect size.
The Association Between Teacher–Child Interactions and EFs
The mean effect sizes calculated for overall EFs and its different aspects indicated that in general positive teacher–child interactions were related to better EF
performance. Only with regard to cognitive flexibility was such an association not
found. However, only three studies examined this EF, and they all used the same
attention-shifting task, not taking into account other aspects of cognitive flexibility, such as response-shifting or fluency. In general, the effect sizes were low to
low-medium and thus indicate a modest contribution of teacher–child interactions
in EF performance. Nevertheless, it should be noted that categorizing effect sizes
aids interpretation of results but should be used with caution. Hill, Bloom, Black
and Lipsey (2008) argue that such categorization does not take into account the
context (e.g., what type of outcome measure used). The association of teacher–
child relationships with other types of variables also shows small to medium
effects (e.g., Roorda et al., 2011). Similarly, the associations between EFs and
24
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
other variables is often of the medium range (e.g., Jacob & Parkinson, 2015). The
findings of small to small-medium associations in the current study are thus in
line with other research and should also be interpreted in this way.
Additionally, a meta-regression was conducted to examine whether the effect
sizes observed depended on sample characteristics (average child age, child gender, and low-SES sample), research design (cross-sectional or longitudinal), the
level of teacher–child interactions measured (dyadic or classroom level) or components of teacher–child interactions and EFs measured. Results indicate that the
associations between teacher–child interactions and EFs were stronger for samples with older children and higher number of boys. When teacher–child interactions were measured at the dyadic level, effect sizes were stronger, though this
result was significant between studies and a trend within studies. Results were
more mixed for SES as a moderator, showing lower effects sizes in low-SES
samples when examining between studies, while within one study a higher effect
size was found in the low-SES sample compared to the high-SES sample. The
research design did not affect the effect size.
With regard to age, it should be noted that all studies, except for one, examined
the associations between teacher–child interactions and EFs in children between
the ages of 2 and 7. They thus all examined the period in which EFs show tremendous growth (Garon et al., 2008; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012) and are likely sensitive
to environmental stimulation (Diamond, 2002; Huttenlocher, 2002). It is possible
that within this age-group older children are more affected by teacher–child interactions, because of the growing importance of the classroom context when children enter formal schooling. Diamond and Lee (2011) note that EF trainings are
effective in 8- to 12-year-olds and classroom curricula designed to improve EFs
are effective for 4- and 5-year-olds. This suggests that different factors might have
their most profound impact on EFs at different points in development.
Studies with higher percentages of boys had, on average, higher effect sizes in
the current study. This is in line with the idea that children who have more difficulties with EFs, such as boys compared to girls, are more likely to show improvements from experiences promoting EFs (Diamond & Lee, 2011). This is likely to
do with the fact that there is a larger window for improvement. Unfortunately,
there is, to our knowledge, no research available that systematically examined
whether boys and girls are affected differently by interventions targeting EFs. A
similar idea has been posed in research on the importance of teacher–child interactions for children’s development. The academic risk hypothesis suggests that
at-risk children will benefit more from positive teacher–child interactions (Hamre
& Pianta, 2001). A meta-analysis on the role of teacher–child relationships and
engagement and academic achievement has shown similar results, with boys and
low-SES children benefitting more from positive teacher–child relationships
(Roorda et al., 2011). Based on this you would expect that our study would find
higher effect sizes in low-SES samples, as low-SES children are considered to be
at-risk and show in general lower EF performance (Hackman, Gallop, Evans, &
Farah, 2015; Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005). Results were, however, more mixed
in this study. Between-study analysis showed that effect sizes were lower in lowSES samples. It is possible that for low-SES children the quality of the home
environment is more important than the classroom context. On the other hand, it
25
Vandenbroucke et al.
is important to note that this effect was not found within studies. A study that
examined the teacher–child interactions in relation to EFs for a group of low- and
high-SES children found that such a relationship was present only in the low-SES
group. The reverse effect that was found between studies may have thus been due
to other differences between the studies. Clearly, more research is needed that
examines the association between teacher–child interactions and EFs in both lowand high-SES groups, while using the same design to draw more sound conclusions on this matter.
The question concerning which domains of teacher–child interactions affect
which EFs could only partially be addressed due to the low number of studies
available. Results show that teacher–child interactions are important for all EFs,
though the quality of the dyadic teacher–child interactions seems to be more
strongly associated with EFs than teacher–child interactions at the classroom
level. It should be noted that although this moderator significantly predicted the
effect size between studies, there was only a trend for this moderator within studies. Nevertheless, it seems important that prevention programs aimed at improving teacher–child interactions pay enough attention to the interactions with
specific children and not only to the overall interactions (e.g., banking time,
Playing2gether; Driscoll & Pianta, 2010; Vancraeyveldt, Verschueren, Van
Craeyevelt, Wouters, & Colpin, 2015). Teachers should also attempt to spend
enough time and energy in getting to know their students and the individual needs
of the different students in order to maintain adequate relationships with each of
them. However, this does not mean that the overall classroom climate and quality
should be ignored. It should be noted that the difference found between these
levels may be due to the measurements used. Dyadic relationships are generally
assessed with teacher reports and sometimes with child reports, whereas classroom level interactions are generally measured with observations. Additionally,
measurements of dyadic interactions, so far, focus only on the affective aspects of
the relationship and do not include information on classroom organization and
instructional support. As mentioned earlier, these two levels of interactions have
been mainly investigated separately, and it is thus unclear whether classroomlevel interactions may serve as a moderator in the association between dyadic
interactions and EFs.
A final note of caution is warranted with regard to the fact that this metaanalysis examined potential moderating variables separately due to the limited
number of studies. However, there were some associations found between moderator pairs, which may have influenced the results. First, higher effect sizes were
found in samples with higher mean age and a higher percentage of boys, though
there was a positive relationship between these moderators indicating that samples with a higher mean age also contained more boys. It is thus difficult to say
which of these factors uniquely predicts the effect size. It is possible that gender
came forward as a significant moderator only because samples with more boys
also have a higher mean age. Second, the finding that teacher–child interactions
were less related to EFs in low-SES samples may be driven by the level of teacher–
child interactions that was examined. In low-SES samples it was mostly teacher–
child interactions at the classroom level that was examined, and smaller effect
sizes were found for these type of teacher–child relationships. Finally, higher
26
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
effect sizes were found between teacher–child interactions at the dyadic level and
EFs, though this level of interactions was examined in samples with older children. It is thus important that more research is being done, which would allow to
examine more closely which moderators drive the effect between teacher–child
interactions and EFs. This would give us valuable information about which
teacher behaviors are important for EFs (e.g., emotional support or classroom
organization) and for whom (e.g., boys or girls).
How Teacher–Child Interactions Might Affect EF
Although studies seem to suggest a positive association between teacher–child
interactions and EF, little research provides us with explanations on why this is
the case, or in other words what the underlying mechanisms are. Some suggestions can be found in the literature.
With regard to the affective domain (at both the classroom and the dyadic levels),
two mechanisms might be involved in the effect of teacher–child interactions on EF.
Several authors suggest that teacher–child interactions characterized by negative
affectivity may have a negative effect on EFs because they form a source of stress
for the child (Berry, 2012; Blair & Raver, 2015). Research has indeed shown that
children who have more positive and less conflictual interactions with teachers have
lower levels of salivary cortisol, an indication of lower stress levels (Hatfield,
Hestenes, Kintner-Duffy, & O’Brien, 2013; Hatfield & Williford, 2017; Lisbonee,
Mize, Payne, & Granger, 2008). A study of Ahnert et al. (2012) suggests that children involved in more positive teacher–child interactions not only have lower average stress levels but also can regulate their stress levels better, as is shown by
reducing stress levels throughout the school day and week. In turn, high stress levels
have been related to bad performance on EF tasks (e.g., Schoofs, Preuss, & Wolf,
2008). Some studies suggest that EF performance is optimal with medium levels of
stress and worse when very low or high levels of stress arise (Lupien, Maheu, Tu,
Fiocco, & Schramek, 2007). Research on parent–child interactions has shown evidence for this hypothesized pathway by showing that the effect of positive parenting
on EFs is mediated by children’s cortisol levels (Blair et al., 2011).
Another potential mechanism through which positive affective interactions
may promote EFs is through increased engagement and exploration (Cadima,
Enrico, et al., 2016; Cadima, Verschueren, et al., 2016). When children are
involved in positive teacher–child interactions, they will have more self-confidence and feel safe in their environment and are more likely to engage themselves
in challenging activities in the classroom and persist in those activities when they
become difficult (Cadima et al., 2015; Roorda et al., 2011). These children are
thus more exposed to challenging tasks, which is likely to challenge their EFs and
the use of such EFs in the classroom context. In other words, their EFs might
develop better because they have more practice in the use of EFs through stimulating experiences. Such a pathway has been found in a study on parent–child
interactions showing that children who are more attached to their parent will
explore the home and classroom environment more and will perform better on a
variety of cognitive tasks (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007). However, these tasks
did not include EF tasks, and the sequence of these processes has, to our knowledge, not yet been examined for teacher–child interactions.
27
Vandenbroucke et al.
Several researchers assume that classroom organization should be most obviously linked to EFs (e.g., Downer et al., 2010), though the reasoning behind this
is often not clarified. It is possible that children are less stressed in classrooms
where it is clear what is expected from them and there are little interruptions and
unpredictable situations during the classroom activities. However, an association between classroom organization and children’s stress levels has not yet, to
our knowledge, been investigated. Another possibility posited by different
researchers is that a well-organized classroom provides external help for children to organize their behavior and that this provides an ideal context for internalizing regulation strategies (Berry, 2012; Cadima, Enrico, et al., 2016;
Cadima, Verschueren, et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2016; Rimm-Kaufman et al.,
2009). Additionally, teachers who interact in a positive way and organize the
classroom interactions and activities well are likely to show high levels of EFs
themselves and as such may model the effective and efficient use of EFs in the
classroom context (Choi et al., 2016; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2009). Finally,
research has shown that highly organized classrooms spend less time in transitions and more time in learning activities (Cameron, Connor, & Morrison,
2005). Children in highly organized classrooms may thus be more exposed to
challenging learning activities during which they can practice their EF skills
(Choi et al., 2016).
Finally, the domain of instructional support has been suggested to promote EFs
in two ways. The first explanation refers to the fact that classrooms that score high
on instructional support are characterized by activities that encourage reasoning
and higher order thinking, such as classroom discussion and the use of openended questions (Downer et al., 2010). Such higher order thinking requires the
use of EFs and thus might directly stimulate them (Cadima, Verschueren, et al.,
2016; Fuhs et al., 2013). The second explanation refers to the importance of language in the development of EFs (Cadima, Verschueren, et al., 2016; Choi et al.,
2016). Teachers who offer high levels of instructional support will facilitate language use and development (Downer et al., 2010). Children who have better language skills may use internal speech to guide their behavior more efficiently
(Sarsour et al., 2011).
When and How EFs Are Studied in Relation to Teacher–Child Interactions
The current review clearly shows that research on the importance of teacher–
child interactions for EFs has only emerged very recently and that the number of
studies available are still limited. Most available studies focus on young children
from preschool until the early years of primary education. This age range is
important to focus on as it covers an important period during which both EFs and
its underlying brain regions are characterized by rapid growth, change, and plasticity (Diamond, 2002; Klingberg, 2010; Kolb et al., 2012; Tsujimoto, 2008). As
a consequence, stimulation from the environment is more likely to have a positive
impact during this developmental stage (Huttenlocher, 2002). Nevertheless, it
may be useful to explore the role of teacher–child interactions in other age periods
as well—especially at the beginning of secondary education, when great changes
in children’s environment occur at the same time when a second developmental
spurt takes place (Zelazo & Carlson, 2012).
28
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
The current study also shows that the complexity of both the concept of
teacher–child interactions and EFs (Nigg, 2016; Pianta, 2016; Verschueren &
Koomen, 2012) results in fragmentation of the literature, making it difficult to
draw overall conclusions. Moreover, some aspects of teacher–child interactions and EFs are more often examined, whereas others are ignored. With
regard to EF, most studies assess behavioral forms of inhibition as a specific
aspect of EF. Working memory, cognitive flexibility, and cognitive forms of
inhibition are less well researched in relationship to teacher–child interactions. Especially in the case of working memory this provides a caveat, as this
core EF has been linked to children’s learning-related behavior in the classroom (Fitzpatrick & Pagani, 2012; Gathercole et al., 2007) and has most consistently been related to children’s academic functioning (Cragg & Gilmore,
2014; Vandenbroucke, Verschueren, & Baeyens, 2017). Knowing which
aspects of teacher–child interactions are important for this core EF can indicate which teacher behaviors should be promoted (e.g., teacher sensitivity vs.
clarification of rules and expectations) to support working memory
performance.
With regard to the teacher–child interactions this study found studies examining interactions at the dyadic level and at the classroom level in relation to EF. At
the dyadic level focus is mainly placed on the quality of the affective interactions
between the child and teacher. This is in line with the broader research examining
the importance of teacher–child relationships for children’s development, where
the attachment approach is most frequently used (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012).
Nevertheless, other conceptual models on dyadic teacher–child relationships,
such as a motivational or socialization models, may be useful in examining the
role of the teacher EFs performance and development (Davis, 2003; Verschueren
& Koomen, 2012). Additionally, within the attachment framework the concept of
dependency in relation to EF was ignored (with the exception of Jones et al.,
2013). One potential reason for the lack of research attending to the role of dependency is the discussion about the validity of the concept (Doumen et al., 2009;
Roorda et al., 2011). Additionally, children seem to view high levels of dependency as a positive characteristic, whereas teachers generally interpret this dimension negatively (Vervoort et al., 2015). Nevertheless, more dependency generally
relates to lower school adjustment, and it is interesting to examine how it relates
to EFs (Murray & Murray, 2004). Children who are highly dependent on the
teacher rarely explore their environment independently and, as such, have less
learning experiences that can promote their development and EF. At the classroom level, there is a better balance between the different aspects of teacher–child
interactions (emotional support, classroom organization, instructional support)
researched in relation to EF.
Suggestions for Future Studies
The current study shows that there is already some evidence available that
indicates the importance of positive teacher–child interactions for EF. However,
additional research is needed to get more insight into what teachers can do or
which teacher behaviors should be stimulated to promote children’s EF. We provide some directions to guide future researchers in this endeavor.
29
Vandenbroucke et al.
First, when examining the importance of teacher–child interactions for EFs close
attention should be paid to the conceptualization of both concepts and the current
scope should be broadened. More specifically, attention should be moved from
behavioral forms of inhibition to working memory, cognitive forms of inhibition, and
cognitive flexibility. Also, different types of tasks should be used to assure that findings are not task-specific (e.g., both verbal and visuospatial working memory tasks).
Similarly, other aspects of teacher–child interactions should be considered at the
dyadic level, including concepts such as dependency, autonomy support, and behavior management. Some of these factors have already been shown to be important for
EFs when examined in parent–child interactions (e.g., Matte-Gagné & Bernier,
2011). Additionally, interactions between dyadic and classroom-level teacher–child
interactions might be worth considering. For example, high levels of conflict might
have a less negative effect on EFs when the general classroom climate is positive.
Second, it should be noted that the current study focused mainly on EFs as the
cognitive aspect of children’s ability to regulate behavior, emotions, and thoughts
(Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). However, research shows that cognitive and emotional
aspects of self-regulation are both important and in daily life often intertwined
(e.g., Ferrier, Bassett, & Denham, 2014). Some studies examining inhibition did
use task that incorporate an emotional aspect (e.g., Toy Wrap). Emotional support
from a teacher may have an even more profound effect on this emotional aspect
of self-regulation. Future studies should therefore consider examining influences
of children’s social environments on both cognitive and emotional aspects of
self-regulation.
Third, it is important to note that all evidence reviewed in the current study is
correlational in nature. None of the studies have attempted to manipulate aspects
of teacher–child interactions through an experimental or intervention study
design. A few studies did include an EF intervention, with a randomized controlled study design (e.g., Ursache et al., 2011). However, these interventions did
not specifically focus on improving teacher–child interactions. Therefore, only
the correlational data of these studies could be used in the overview and metaanalysis. As a consequence, we can only establish that there is a relationship
between teacher–child interactions and children’s EFs, though it is unclear why
this is and whether improving the interactions between children and their teachers
would have a causal effect on EF. Future studies should attempt to manipulate
aspects of teacher–student interactions. To this end, experimental studies could be
used, as well as micro trials (Leijten et al., 2015) or single–case study designs
(Smith, 2012). These last two types of research designs allow manipulation of
very specific aspects of the interactions between the teacher and students (e.g.,
verbalizing experiences and feelings or sensitive responding), which will help us
understand which specific behaviors of teachers might help improve EF performance and development in children. Additionally, these studies should pay attention to individual differences, examining for which children improving
teacher–child interactions may benefit EFs (e.g., low- or high-SES children).
Conclusion
Overall, the current study attempted to provide an overview of the research
examining the link between teacher–child interactions and children’s EFs and
30
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
shows a positive association between both concepts, when measured both
simultaneously and longitudinally. This suggests that teachers can promote the
cognitive processes that are essential in children’s learning by changing their
behavior to create an emotionally positive, structured, and cognitively stimulating classroom environment. It is, for example, important that teachers recognize
children’s feelings and needs, adequately respond to these feelings and needs,
make their expectations about children’s behavior clear, provide children with
challenging classroom activities such as classroom discussions, and give extensive feedback about their behavior and performance. The dyadic relationships
with teachers are especially important for children’s EFs. Furthermore, the current study suggests that teacher–child interactions are particularly important for
EFs of children at the end of kindergarten and the beginning of primary education and for higher SES samples. Further research is needed to examine why this
is the case and which specific teacher behaviors are important for children’s EFs
and if there is a causal link between interactions with teachers and improvements in children’s EF performance. Such further insights can help building on
to existing EF trainings, which are currently showing limited generalization to
everyday situations (Diamond & Lee, 2011; Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013).
Indirectly, our study suggests that preventing or intervening in EF problems
might be more efficient when integrating such approaches in the classroom
context (Hughes, 2011) and when including strategies that stimulate EFs both
directly and indirectly (e.g., increasing children’s enjoyment and comfort by
improving teacher sensitivity; Diamond, 2012).
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
References marked with a double asterisk are also included in the meta-analysis.
**Abenavoli, R. M., & Greenberg, M. T. (2014, March). Patterns of school readiness
among low-income kindergartners. Paper presented at the Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562745.pdf
Ahnert, L., Harwardt-Heinecke, E., Kappler, G., Eckstein-Madry, T., & Milatz, A.
(2012). Student-teacher relationships and classroom climate in first grade: How do
they relate to students’ stress regulation? Attachment & Human Development, 14,
249–63. doi:10.1080/14616734.2012.673277
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working
memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
106, 20–29. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during
childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71–82. doi:10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
Anderson, V., Jacobs, R., & Anderson, P. J. (2008). Executive functions and the frontal
lobes: A lifespan perspective. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
*Araujo, M. C., Carneiro, P., Cruz-Aguayo, Y., & Schady, N. (2016). Teacher quality
and learning outcomes in kindergarten. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, 1415–
1453. doi:10.1093/qje/qjw.016
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory: The interface between memory and cognition.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 282–288. doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.281
31
Vandenbroucke et al.
**Bailey, C. S., Denham, S. A., Curby, T. W., & Bassett, H. H. (2016). Emotional and
organizational supports for preschoolers’ emotion regulation: Relations with school
adjustment. Emotion, 16, 263–279. doi:10.1037/a0039772
Barbarin, O. (2013). A longitudinal examination of socioemotional learning in African
American and Latino boys across the transition from pre-K to kindergarten.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 156–164. doi:10.1111/ajop.12024
Bari, A., & Robbins, T. W. (2013). Inhibition and impulsivity: behavioral and neural
basis of response control. Progress in Neurobiology, 108, 44–79. doi:10.1016/j.
pneurobio.2013.06.005
**Berry, D. (2012). Inhibitory control and teacher–child conflict: Reciprocal associations across the elementary-school years. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 33, 66–76. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.10.002
Bertram, T., & Pascal, C. (2002). Early years education: An international perspective.
Washington, DC: National Foundation for Educational Research.
Bierman, K., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008).
Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and
mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Developmental Psychopathology, 20,
821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394
Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills-Koonce, R., Cox, M., Greenberg, M.
T., . . . Fortunato, C. K. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates the effects of poverty and
parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development, 82, 1970–
1984. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2015). School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 711–731.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221
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, 647–663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x
Bock, A. M., Gallaway, K. C., & Hund, A. M. (2015). Specifying links between executive functioning and theory of mind during middle childhood: Cognitive flexibility
predicts social understanding. Journal of Cognition and Development, 16, 509–521.
doi:10.1080/15248372.2014.888350
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586.
Brunnekreef, A., De Sonneville, L. M., Althaus, M., Minderaam, R. B., Oldehinkel, A.
J., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). Information-processing profiles of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems: Evidence from a population-based sample of preadolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 185–193.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01695.x
**Cadima, J., Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., & Buyse, E. (2015). Child engagement in
the transition to school: Contributions of self-regulation, teacher-child relationships
and classroom climate. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2015.01.008
*Cadima, J., Enrico, M., Ferreira, T., Verschueren, K., Leal, T., & Matos, P. M. (2016).
Self-regulation in early childhood: The interplay between family risk, temperament
and teacher-child interactions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13,
341–360. doi:10.1080/17405629.2016.1161506
32
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
**Cadima, J., Verschueren, K., Leal, T., & Guedes, C. (2016). Classroom interactions,
dyadic teacher-child relationships and self-regulation in socially disadvantaged
young children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 7–17. doi:10.1007/
s10802-015-0060-50
Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Effects of variation in teacher
organization on classroom functioning. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 61–85.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2004.12.002
Canas, J. J., Quesada, J. F., Antoli, A., & Fajardo, I. (2003). Cognitive flexibility and
adaptability to environmental changes in dynamic complex problem-solving tasks.
Ergonomics, 46, 482–501.
Cappella, E., Hamre, B. K., Kim, H. Y., Henry, D. B., Frazier, S. L., Atkins, M. S.,
& Schoenwald, S. K. (2012). Teacher consultation and coaching within mental
health practice: Classroom and child effects in urban elementary schools.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80, 597–610. doi:10.1037/
a0027725
Cartwright, K. B., Coppage, E. A., Lane, A. B., Singleton, T., Marshall, T. R., &
Bentivenga, C. (2017). Cognitive flexibility in children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 33–44.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.01.003
**Choi, J. Y., Castle, S. C., Williamson, A. C., Young, E., Worley, L., Long, M., &
Horm, D. M. (2016). Teacher-child interactions and the development of executive
function in preschool-age children attending head start. Early Education and
Development, 27, 751–769. doi:10.1080/10409289.2016.1129864
**Commodari, E. (2013). Preschool teacher attachment and attention skills. Springer
Plus, 2, 673–685. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-673
**Conradt, E., Abar, B., Lester, B. M., LaGasse, L. L., Shankaran, S., Bada, H., . . .
Hammond, J. A. (2014). Cortisol reactivity and social stress as a mediator of early
adversity on risk and adaptive outcomes. Child Development, 85, 2279–2298.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12316
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are
effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143.
doi:10.3102/003465430298563
Cragg, L., & Gilmore, C. (2014). Skills underlying mathematics: The role of executive
function in the development of mathematics proficiency. Trends in Neuroscience &
Education, 3, 63–68. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.12.01
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student–teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist,
38, 207–234. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3804_2
**de Wilde, A., Koot, H. M., & van Lier, P. A. (2016). 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, 19–30. doi:10.1007/
s10802-015-0053-4
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young
adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. In D. Stuss & R. Knight
(Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive
functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335–341.
doi:10.1177/0963721412453722
33
Vandenbroucke et al.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4-12 years old. Science, 333, 959–964. doi:10.1126/science.1204529
Doumen, S., Verschueren, K., Buyse, E., De Munter, S., Max, K., & Moens, L. (2009).
Further examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the StudentTeacher Relationship Scale. Infant and Child Development, 18, 502–520.
doi:10.1002/icd.635
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, 699–723. doi:10.1080/10409
289.2010.497453
Driscoll, K. C., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Banking time in head start: Early efficacy of an
intervention designed to promote supportive teacher–child relationships. Early
Education and Development, 21(1), 38–64. doi:10.1080/10409280802657449
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., & Spinrad, T. L. (2011). Effortful control. Relations with
emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In K. D. Vohs & F.
Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications
(2nd ed., pp. 263–283). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Engen, H., & Kanske, P. (2013). How working memory training improves emotion
regulation: Neural efficiency, effort and transfer. Journal of Neuroscience, 33,
12152–12153. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2115-13.2013
*Ertürk Kara, H. G., Gönen, M. S., & Pianta, R. (2017). The examination of the relationship between the quality of teacher-child interaction and children’s self-regulation skills. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32, 880–895. doi:10.16986/
HUJE.2016018694
Ferrier, D. E., Bassett, H. H., & Denham, S. A. (2014). Relations between executive
function and emotionality in preschoolers: Exploring a transitive cognition–emotion
linkage. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 487. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00487
**Finch, J. E., Johnson, A. D., & Phillips, D. A. (2015). Is sensitive caregiving in child
care associated with children’s effortful control skills? An exploration of linear and
threshold effects. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 125–134. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2014.12.007
Fitzpatrick, C., & Pagani, L. S. (2012). Toddler working memory skills predict kindergarten school readiness. Intelligence, 40, 205–212. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.007
Friso-van den Bos, I., van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., & van Luit, J. E. H.
(2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29–44. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.003
**Fuhs, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Nesbitt, K. T. (2013). Preschool classroom processes
as predictors of children’s cognitive self-regulation skills development. School
Psychology Quarterly, 28, 347–359. doi:10.1037/spq0000031
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: a
review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31
Gathercole, S. E., Durling, E., Evans, M., Jeffcock, S., & Stone, S. (2007). Working
memory abilities and children’s performance in laboratory analogues of classroom
activities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1019–1037. doi:10.1002/acp.1407
34
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
Hackman, D. A., Gallop, R., Evans, G. W., & Farah, M. J. (2015). Socioeconomic
status and executive function: Developmental trajectories and mediation.
Developmental Science, 18, 686–702. doi:10.1111/desc.12246
**Hamre, B., Hatfield, B., Pianta, R., & Jamil, F. (2014). Evidence for general and
domain-specific elements of teacher-child interactions: Associations with preschool
children’s development. Child Development, 85, 1257–74. doi:10.1111/cdev.12184
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72,
625–638. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Hatfield, B. E., Hestenes, L. L., Kintner-Duffy, V. L., & O’Brien, M. (2013). Classroom
emotional support predicts differences in preschool children’s cortisol and alphaamylase levels. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 347–356. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2012.08.001
Hatfield, B. E., & Williford, A. P. (2017). Cortisol patterns for young children displaying disruptive behavior: Links to a teacher-child, relationship-focused intervention.
Prevention Science, 18, 40–49. doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0693-9
Hatfield, B. E., Burchinal, M. R., Pianta, R. C., & Sideris, J. (2016). Thresholds in the
association between quality of teacher–child interactions and preschool children’s
school readiness skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 561–571.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.09.005
Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in
meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods,
1, 39–65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5
Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks
for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–
177.
**Hong, S. L. (2012). Effect of teacher-child interactions on low-income children’s
early self-regulation development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/06z8x5t7
Howes, C., Wishard, A., Fuligni, A., Zucker, E., Lee, L., Obregon, N., & Spivak, A.
(2011). Classroom dimensions predict early peer interaction when children are
diverse in ethnicity, race, and home language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
26, 399–408. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.02.004
Hughes, C. (2011). Changes and challenges in 20 years of research into the development of executive functions. Infant and Child Development, 20, 251–271.
doi:10.1002/icd.736
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related changes in
executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis.
Neuropsychologia, 44, 2017–2036. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologica.2006.01.010
Huttenlocher, P. R. (2002). Neural plasticity: The effect of environment on the development of cerebral cortex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that
target executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 85, 512–552. doi:10.3102/0034654314561338
*Jones, S. M., & Bailey, R. (2014, March). Preliminary impacts of SECURe PreK in
child- and classroom- level outcomes. Paper presented at the Society for Research
on Educational Effectiveness conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562750.pdf
35
Vandenbroucke et al.
*Jones, S. M., Bub, K. L., & Raver, C. C. (2013). Unpacking the black box of the
Chicago School Readiness Project Intervention: The mediating roles of teacherchild relationship quality and self-regulation. Early Education and Development,
24, 1043–1064. doi:10.1080/10409289.2013.825188
Joormann, J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2008). Updating the contents of working memory in
depression: Interference from irrelevant negative material. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 117, 182–192. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.182
Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive
Science, 14, 317–324. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.002
Kolb, B., Mychasiuk, R., Muhammad, A., Li, Y., Frost, D. O., & Gibb, R. (2012).
Experience and the developing cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17186–17193. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1121251109
Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. C. (2012).
Validating the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of
School Psychology, 50, 215–234. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.001
Kühberger, A., Fritz, A., & Scherndl, T. (2014). Publication bias in psychology: A
diagnosis based on the correlation between effect size and sample size. PLoS One,
9(9), e105825. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105825
Leijten, P., Dishion, T. J., Thomaes, S., Raaijmakers, M. A. J., Orobio de Castro, B., &
Matthys, W. (2015). Bringing parenting interventions back to the future: How
randomized microtrials may benefit parenting intervention efficacy. Clinical
Psychology Science and Practice, 22, 47–57. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12087
Le Métais, J. (2003). Transition from primary to secondary education in selected countries of the INCA website. Slough, England: National Foundation for Educational
Research.
Letho, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive
functioning: Evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
21, 59–80. doi:10.1348/026151003321164627
**Leyva, D., Weiland, C., Barata, M., Yoshikawa, H., Snow, C., Treviño, E., & Rolla,
A. (2015). Teacher-child interactions in Chile and their associations with prekindergarten outcomes. Child Development, 86, 781–799. doi:10.1111/cdev.12342
**Liew, J., Chen, Q., & Hughes, J. N. (2010). Child effortful control, teacher-student
relationships, and achievement in academically at-risk children: Additive and interactive effects. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 51–64. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2009.07.005
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lisbonee, J. A., Mize, J., Payne, A. L., & Granger, D. A. (2008). Children’s cortisol and
the quality of teacher-child relationships in child care. Child Development, 79,
1818–1832. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01228.x
Lubin, A., Regrin, E., Boulc’h, L., Pacton, S., & Lanoe, C. (2016). Executive functions
differentially contribute to fourth graders’ mathematics, reading, and spelling skills.
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 444–463. doi:10.1891/19458959.15.3.444
Lupien, S. J., Maheu, F., Tu, M., Fiocco, A., & Schramek, T. E. (2007). The effects of
stress and stress hormones on human cognition: Implications for the field of brain
and cognition. Brain and Cognition, 65, 209–237. doi:10.106/j.bandc.2007.02.007
36
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
Matte-Gagné, C., & Bernier, A. (2011). Prospective relations between maternal autonomy support and child executive functioning: Investigating the mediating role of
child language ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 611–625.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.006
McEwen, B. S., & Morrison, J. H. (2013). The brain on stress: Vulnerability and plasticity of the prefrontal cortex over the life course. Neuron, 79, 16–29. doi:10.1016/j.
neuron.2013.06.028
McGrath, M. C., Thurman, S. K., Raisch, M. M., & Lucey, E. M. (2016). Considering
individual differences and environmental influences in the assessment of temperament, self-regulation, and social skill development in young children: A framework
for practitioners. In A. Garro (Ed.), Early childhood assessment in school and clinical child psychology (pp. 183–202). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-14939-6349-2_9
McKenna, R., Rushe, T., & Woodcock, K. A. (2017). Informing the structure of executive function in children: A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging data. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 11, 154. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00154
McQuade, J. D., Murray-Close, D., Shoulberg, E. K., & Hoza, B. (2013). Working
memory and social functioning in children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 115, 422–435. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.002
Melby-Lervag, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A
meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 270–291. doi:10.1037/
a0028228
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, 395–423. doi:10.10
80/15248372.2011.585478
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington,
H., . . . Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth,
and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 108, 2693–2698. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C. C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self-regulation and academic achievement in the transition to school. In M. Posner, S. Calkins, & M. Bell
(Eds.). The developing human brain: Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 203–224). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/12059-011
Murray, C., & Murray, K. M. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher–student relationships: An examination of demographic characteristics, academic orientations, and
behavioral orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 751–762. doi:10.1002/
pits.20015
Neuenschwander, R., Rothlisberger, M., Cimeli, P., & Roebers, C. M. (2012). How do
different aspects of self-regulation predict successful adaptation to school? Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 353–371. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.07.004
Nigg, J. T. (2016). Annual research review: On the relations among self-regulation,
self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity,
risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 361–383. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12675
Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive correlates of
socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science, 8, 74–87.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00394.x
37
Vandenbroucke et al.
O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Attachment and cognitive skills: An investigation of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28,
458–476. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.06.007
Perlman, M., Falenchuk, O., Fletcher, B., McMullen, E., Beyene, J., & Shah, P. S.
(2016). A systematic review and meta-analysis of a measure of staff/child interaction
quality (the Classroom Assessment Scoring System) in early childhood education
and care settings and child outcomes. PLoS One, 11(12), e0167660. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0167660
Pianta, R. C. (2016). Teacher-student interactions: Measurement, impacts, improvement, and policy. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 98–
105. doi:10.1177/2372732215622457
Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effects sizes. Review of Educational
Research, 86, 207–236. doi:10.3102/0034654315582067
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grinning, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E.
(2011). CSRP’s Impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Selfregulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82, 362–378.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x
Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2009). The contribution of
inhibitory control to preschoolers’ social-emotional competence. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 30, 310–320. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.012
**Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Curby, T. W., Grimm, K. J., Nathanson, L., & Brock, L. L.
(2009). The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Developmental Psychology,
45, 958–972. doi:10.1037/a0015861
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of
affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493–529.
doi:10.3102/0034654311421793
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 213–231. doi:10.1080/14616734.20
12.672262
Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W. T.
(2011). Family socio-economic status and child executive functions: The roles of
language, home environment, and single parenthood. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 17, 120–132. doi:10.1017/S1355617710001335
Schoofs, D., Preuss, D., & Wolf, O. T. (2008). Psychosocial stress induces working
memory impairments in an n-back paradigm. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33, 643–
653. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.02.004
*Slot, P. L., Mulder, H., Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2014). General and specific
quality of early childhood education and care predict growth of two-year-olds’
vocabulary and attention skills. In Early childhood education and care in the
Netherlands: Quality, curriculum, and relations with child development (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, pp. 73–100). Retrieved from https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/301535
Smith, J. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510–550.
doi:10.1037/a0029312
38
Teacher–Child Interactions and Executive Functions
**Spilt, J. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2015). African American children at risk of increasingly
conflicted teacher-student relationships in elementary school. School Psychology
Review, 44, 306–314.
Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Nutley, S. B., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training
and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental
Science, 12, 106–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x
Tsujimoto, S. (2008). The prefrontal cortex: Functional neural development during
early childhood. Neuroscientist, 14, 345–358. doi:10.1177/1073858408316002
**Ursache, A., Blair, C., Bierman, K., & Nix, R. (2011, March). Executive function as
a mediator of effects on kindergarten learning behaviors one year after the pre-K
Head Start REDI intervention. Paper presented Paper presented at the Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518867.pdf
Usai, M. C., Viterbori, P., Traverso, L., & De Franchis, V. (2014). Latent structure of
executive function in five- and six-year-old children: A longitudinal study. European
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 447–462. doi:10.1080/17405629.2013.8
40578
**Valiente, C., Swanson, J., & Lemery-Chalfant, K. (2012). Kindergartners’ temperament, classroom engagement, and student-teacher relationship: Moderation by effortful control. Social Development, 21, 558–576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00640.x
Vancraeyveldt, C., Verschueren, K., Van Craeyevelt, S., Wouters, S., & Colpin, H.
(2015). Teacher-reported effects of the Playing-2-gether intervention on child externalising problem behaviour. Educational Psychology, 35, 466–483. doi:10.1080/01
443410.2013.860218
Vandenbroucke, L., Verschueren, K., & Baeyens, D. (2017). The development of executive functioning across the transition to first grade and its predictive value for academic achievement. Learning and Instruction, 49, 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2016.12.008
Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher-child relationships from an
attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 205–211. doi:10.1
080/14616734.2012.672260.
Vervoort, E., Doumen, S., & Verschueren, K. (2015). Children’s appraisal of their relationship with the teacher: Preliminary evidence for construct validity. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 12, 243–260. doi:10.1080/17405629.2014.989984
**Weiland, C., Ulvestad, K., Sachs, J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Associations between
classroom quality and children’s vocabulary and executive function skills in an
urban public prekindergarten program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28,
199–209. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.12.002
**Williford, A. P., Maier, M. F., Downer, J. T., Pianta, R. C., & Howes, C. (2013).
Understanding how children’s engagement and teachers’ interactions combine to
predict school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–
309. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.05.002
*Yildiz, T. G., Ertürk Kara, H. G., Tanribuyurdu, E. F., & Gönen, M. (2014). Examining
self-regulation skills according to teacher-child interaction quality. Education and
Science, 39(176), 329–338.
Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and cool executive function in childhood
and adolescence: Development and plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6,
354–360. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00246.x
39
Vandenbroucke et al.
Zhong, J., Rifkin-Graboi, A., Ta, A. T., Yap, K. L., Chuang, K. H., Meaney, M. J., &
Qiu, A. (2014). Functional networks in parallel with cortical development associate
with executive functions in children. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1937–1947. doi:10.1093/
cercor/bht051
Authors
LOREN VANDENBROUCKE is a PhD at the research unit of Parenting and Special
Education, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; email: loren.vandenbroucke@kuleuven.be.
Her research interests focus on the influence of children’s developmental contexts (the
classroom and home environment) on executive functioning.
JANTINE SPILT is assistant professor at the research unit of School Psychology and
Child and Adolescent Development, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; email: jantine
.spilt@kuleuven.be. Her research interests address the impact of dyadic teacher-student
relationships on children’s development and on teacher wellbeing and pedagogical
practices.
KARINE VERSCHUEREN is full professor at the research unit of School Psychology and
Child and Adolescent Development, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; email: karine
.verschueren@kuleuven.be. Her research interests include social relationships (e.g.
teacher–child relationships, parent–child attachment) as contexts for children’s development and students’ adjustment to school transitions.
CLAIRE PICCININ is a master student of the Master of Psychology: Theory and Research,
completing her internship at the research unit of Parenting and Special Education, KU
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; email: claire.piccinin@student.kuleuven.be.
DIETER BAEYENS is associate professor at the research unit of Parenting and Special
Education, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; email: dieter.baeyens@kuleuven.be. His
research interests include executive functioning, school transitions and the nature, aetiology, diagnostics and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism
spectrum disorder.
40
View publication stats