Why “Math Struggles” Are Often Not Just About Math
In district meetings, I hear a familiar concern from teachers and families: “My student understands the concept, but they rush, freeze, forget steps, or melt down when the problem changes.” In many cases, what we are seeing is not simply a gap in math instruction. We are seeing a gap in the cognitive control skills that allow students to access what they know.
Those cognitive control skills are commonly called Executive Functions (EF). EF are domain-general skills that help students regulate attention, behavior, and emotions to reach a goal. They are especially critical in early elementary years, when academic tasks are new, complex, and not yet automatic.
A 2024 pilot study published in Mind, Brain, and Education explored a practical question schools are asking more and more: Can we improve math outcomes by embedding executive function practice directly into math instruction—without disrupting the curriculum?
Executive Functions: The Three Skills That Quietly Drive Math Success
The study uses a widely accepted model (Diamond, 2013) that describes three foundational EF components:
- Inhibition: resisting impulsive responses and ignoring distractions (including “interference control” and “response inhibition”).
- Working memory: holding and manipulating information in mind (and updating it as new information comes in).
- Cognitive flexibility: shifting strategies or rules when the task changes.
In real classroom terms, these show up when a student:
- Stops and checks their work instead of blurting an answer (inhibition).
- Keeps track of multi-step directions or a multi-part word problem (working memory).
- Switches from one strategy to another when the first one fails (cognitive flexibility).
The research base has been clear for years: EF supports math development, and the relationship can be reciprocal—high-quality math instruction can also strengthen EF. The challenge is that EF training sometimes improves EF tasks but does not always “transfer” to academics unless the intervention is embedded in the academic context.
The Pilot Study: What They Tried (and Why It Matters to Schools)
Ruffini and colleagues designed an intervention for second graders that intentionally addressed common limitations of prior EF programs. Their approach included:
- Embedding EF practice within math content (not treating EF as a separate “brain training” block).
- Using both digital and paper-and-pencil activities to combine novelty and engagement with classroom collaboration.
- Integrating home and school components to increase intensity while keeping school time realistic.
Who Participated?
The final analysis included 104 typically developing second-grade students in Italy:
- Trained Group: 58 students
- Control Group: 46 students
The training lasted 8 weeks and was designed to be compatible with typical school routines.
What Did the Training Look Like?
The intervention had two coordinated parts:
1) School-Based (Paper) Problem-Solving Sessions
Once per week for about 2 hours, the class worked through structured problem-solving tasks. Students reasoned individually, then discussed in pairs, and then engaged in whole-class discussion. Importantly, the emphasis was not just on “the right answer,” but on explaining reasoning and comparing strategies.
2) Home-Based (Digital) EF Practice Embedded in Math
Four days per week, students completed about 15 minutes of digital activities at home using platforms like LearningApps and Wordwall. The activities targeted:
- Inhibition (for example, choosing the “wrong” answer intentionally to practice monitoring and resisting automatic responses)
- Working memory (ordering number sequences and identifying missing elements)
- Cognitive flexibility (switching rules such as “true for addition, false for subtraction,” then reversing the rule based on correctness)
Feasibility: Could Schools Actually Do This?
As a director, feasibility is where many promising interventions fail. This study explicitly measured feasibility through teacher interviews before and after implementation.
Key feasibility findings included:
- Teachers reported high enthusiasm and felt the training aligned with educational goals and could be integrated into the math curriculum.
- Students enjoyed the activities, especially the collaborative problem-solving approach, which felt “new and unusual” compared to linear procedures.
- Home access was mostly manageable, but not perfect: about 5% of families initially reported limited device access. By the end, eight students did not complete home activities due to device inaccessibility or family commitments.
- Among participating students, average completion of digital exercises was about 70.71%.
From a systems perspective, this is a critical reminder: digital home components can widen access for many students, but they can also expose inequities. Any district considering a home-based digital element needs a plan for device access, connectivity, and family support.
Outcomes: What Improved for the Trained Group?
The results were nuanced—and that’s a good thing, because they reflect what we often see in schools: some gains show up in classroom behavior and math performance even when standardized EF tasks do not show dramatic group differences.
1) Behavioral Self-Regulation Improved (Teacher Ratings)
Teachers completed a questionnaire measure of executive functioning in the school context (QUFE). The study found a significant improvement for the Trained Group compared to the Control Group in behavioral self-regulation.
In practical terms, teachers observed students becoming more able to listen to peers, collaborate, and manage themselves during group work—skills that matter across the school day, not only during math.
2) Math Skills Improved
Compared to the Control Group, the Trained Group showed stronger improvement in several math areas, including:
- Mental calculation accuracy (fewer errors)
- Mental calculation speed (trend toward improvement)
- Enumeration speed (significant improvement)
- Arithmetic facts accuracy (trend toward improvement)
These are foundational second-grade skills tied to number sense, fluency, and the ability to manipulate quantities mentally—often the very skills that become bottlenecks for later multi-step problem solving.
3) Problem-Solving Skills Improved Substantially
Within the Trained Group, students improved in multiple dimensions of problem solving, including:
- Understanding the problem text
- Explaining reasoning with better organization and connectors (“because,” “therefore”)
- Integrating oral and written explanation
- Describing solution processes and decision strategies
Notably, improvements were not significant for the “graphic representation” indices, which may suggest that drawing/modeling requires additional explicit instruction or longer practice.
The Individual Difference Finding Districts Should Not Ignore
One of the most actionable findings was this: students with higher working memory at baseline benefited more from the training. Working memory (measured by an N-back task) predicted gains in mental calculation and enumeration speed/accuracy.
This matters for MTSS and special education planning. It suggests that for students with weaker working memory—often seen in ADHD, learning disabilities, and other neurodevelopmental profiles—schools may need:
- More explicit scaffolds during math instruction
- Additional supports targeting working memory demands
- Therapy-informed strategies that reduce cognitive load (visual supports, chunking, rehearsal routines)
What This Means for Schools (and Where TinyEYE Fits In)
As districts navigate staffing shortages—especially in school psychology, OT, and SLP—there is growing interest in service models that support both learning and self-regulation without pulling students from core instruction unnecessarily.
This study reinforces several leadership takeaways:
- Embedding self-regulation supports inside academic routines may improve both learning and classroom functioning.
- Hybrid models (digital + paper, home + school) can be feasible, but require equity planning.
- Teacher partnership is essential; the intervention succeeded in part because it respected instructional time and curriculum goals.
For providers like TinyEYE that deliver online therapy services to schools, the implications are clear: telepractice can support assessment, intervention coaching, and implementation fidelity—especially when interventions involve structured routines, progress monitoring, and coordination across home and school.
For more information, please follow this link.
