The Role of Executive Function in an Integrated Writing Task: A Critique

Integrated writing (IW) is a complex process that requires students to synthesize information from multiple sources while managing various cognitive and linguistic demands. Research has shown that executive function (EF) skills—such as working memory, inhibition, and planning—play a crucial role in students' ability to organize and produce coherent written responses. This study by Liao and Zhao explores the relationship between EF and IW performance, highlighting how cognitive skills influence the writing process beyond language proficiency alone.

Xian Liao and Pengfei Zhao, researchers at the Centre for Research on Chinese Language and Education (CRCLE) at The Education University of Hong Kong, specialize in studying cognitive and linguistic processes in Chinese language education, with a focus on language learning and cognition.

If we were to break this down for someone new to research critique, we would start by making sense of the key ideas first. Integrated writing differs from simple opinion essays or personal narratives because it requires synthesizing information from multiple sources, such as reading an article, listening to a lecture, or analyzing various texts. This process demands not only comprehension of each source individually but also the ability to connect ideas, compare viewpoints, and structure a cohesive response. Since this task involves managing multiple pieces of information simultaneously, executive function (EF) skills play a crucial role in determining writing performance. EF refers to a set of cognitive abilities that aid in planning, remembering information, switching between tasks, and maintaining focus. Key EF components in writing include working memory, which helps writers retain and manipulate information while drafting; cognitive flexibility, which enables smooth transitions between different ideas or perspectives; inhibition, which allows students to filter out irrelevant details and stay on track; and planning and organization, which contribute to a logical and well-structured response. In their study, they explored the impact of EF on university students’ integrated writing performance, finding that visual-spatial working memory plays a significant role. Their research suggests that students who can effectively organize and shift between different sources—such as comparing a lecture’s arguments with a reading passage—tend to produce better-integrated writing. These findings support cognitive models that emphasize the importance of simultaneous information processing in writing, reinforcing the idea that EF is fundamental to managing complex academic tasks.

To investigate the relationship between executive function and integrated writing performance, the study involved 135 Chinese undergraduate students who completed a series of tests. A computerized integrated writing task was used to measure their writing performance, while five executive function (EF) tests assessed different cognitive skills. These tests evaluated inhibition, which involves controlling impulses and avoiding distractions; cognitive flexibility, or the ability to switch between ideas or perspectives; and working memory, both auditory-verbal and visual-spatial, which help retain and use information. Additionally, planning skills were assessed to determine how well students could organize their thoughts and structure their writing. The researchers also tracked how students switched between source texts while listening, providing insight into how they processed information during the writing task.

We found that inhibition, visual-spatial working memory, and planning skills directly influenced students' writing performance. Those who could control distractions, retain visual information, and structure their work performed better in integrated writing. We also noticed that visual-spatial working memory had an indirect impact—students who were better at remembering visual information could switch between sources more effectively while listening, which helped them organize their responses more efficiently.

By identifying these connections, the study provides valuable insights into the role of cognitive abilities in integrated writing. The authors also discuss potential teaching strategies, which could help educators design better writing instruction by supporting students in developing these EF skills. This research gives me a clearer understanding of how writing is not just about language ability—it’s also about how well students process and manage information. It makes me think about whether writing difficulties in students could be linked to weaknesses in these cognitive areas rather than just poor grammar or vocabulary. That’s something worth considering when critiquing this study further.

Based on the review of related literature in Liao and Zhao’s study, we have encountered several new concepts and arguments that shape my understanding of integrated writing and executive function. Here are three key takeaways: (1) One of the most striking ideas is that IW tasks are not just a combination of reading, listening, and writing skills; rather, they require integration skills that go beyond simply summarizing sources (Cumming et al., 2016; Plakans & Gebril, 2013; Van Steendam et al., 2022). This challenges our previous assumption that IW is merely a test of comprehension. Instead, the literature suggests that students must actively select, organize, and connect information across different materials to create a coherent written response (Nelson & King, 2022; Spivey, 1997). The complexity of this process helps explain why IW tasks are often cognitively demanding; (2) The study introduces various models of writing, such as the three-level writing model (Hayes & Berninger, 2014) and the Writer(s)-Within-Community model (Graham, 2018, 2021), both of which emphasize EF as a central process in writing. EF is not just a background skill but an active mechanism that helps writers direct attention, plan, and switch between sources (Ruffini et al., 2023). This shifts our  perspective on writing difficulties—perhaps poor writing performance is not just about weak language skills but also about limitations in EF components like inhibition and working memory (Diamond, 2013; Miyake et al., 2000); (3) The literature also presents an interesting argument: students who switch between sources more frequently tend to produce better writing (Leijten et al., 2019; Vandermeulen et al., 2020). This challenges my initial belief that switching between materials might indicate confusion or inefficiency. Instead, studies suggest that high-performing writers strategically switch sources to integrate ideas effectively (Du & List, 2020; Van Steendam et al., 2022). This raises an important pedagogical question—should educators teach students how to manage their integration activities rather than just focusing on summarization skills?

Liao and Zhao’s (2024) study reinforces my understanding of how executive function (EF) skills shape students' integrated writing (IW) performance. Their findings make it clear that inhibition, visual-spatial working memory, and planning skills are key factors in writing success. We find it particularly interesting that inhibition helps students stay focused by filtering out irrelevant information, while visual-spatial working memory allows them to manage and organize details from multiple sources effectively. Most importantly, the study highlights that planning skills are the strongest predictor of IW performance, emphasizing the need for structured thinking and organization in writing.

Beyond these direct effects, we also see how visual-spatial working memory has an indirect impact on writing by supporting source-switching while listening. This suggests that students with stronger working memory are better at navigating between different materials, which ultimately improves their ability to integrate and synthesize information. The study also points out that students who engage in more frequent and strategic source-switching tend to produce better writing, showing that active interaction with source materials is a key element of IW success.

Overall, this study strengthens our understanding of how EF skills directly and indirectly influence IW tasks, particularly those that require listening, reading, and writing at the same time. The findings highlight the importance of developing students' planning, working memory, and inhibition skills to improve their writing performance. we see valuable pedagogical implications here, as it suggests that targeted instruction in these cognitive areas could help students handle complex writing tasks more effectively.

Liao and Zhao’s (2024) study stands out to us because of its unique methodological approach in exploring the connection between executive function (EF) and integrated writing. Unlike many previous studies that rely only on writing quality ratings or observational analysis, this research takes a more objective route by incorporating both direct and indirect cognitive assessments. The use of a computerized writing platform, along with tasks like the Stroop test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, and Tower of London task, provides strong empirical evidence of the cognitive mechanisms involved in writing performance. We find this approach particularly valuable because it moves beyond surface-level writing evaluation and delves into the cognitive processes that shape writing outcomes.

Another aspect we appreciate is the study’s real-time tracking of integration activities through a custom-built online writing platform. This method offers a clearer picture of how students switch between source texts, shedding light on how working memory and cognitive flexibility influence the writing process. Additionally, the use of path analysis strengthens the study by revealing both direct and mediated effects of EF on writing performance, a step beyond traditional regression models. we think this adds depth to the research, making it easier to understand not just which cognitive skills matter but how they interact to shape writing quality.

The study heavily emphasizes EF as a crucial determinant of IW success, highlighting skills like working memory, inhibition, and planning as direct predictors of writing performance (Miyake et al., 2000; Diamond, 2013). While we acknowledge that EF plays a role in organizing and managing multiple sources, we find myself questioning whether it is the most critical factor in IW. Based on my observations of student writing, other elements—such as prior knowledge and topic familiarity—seem to play an equally important role. Research suggests that students who already have background knowledge on a topic integrate information more efficiently and produce higher-quality writing (Kim & Park, 2019). Yet, this study does not seem to account for the potential impact of students' prior knowledge on their ability to process sources.

The study aligns with previous findings that frequent source-text switching improves IW performance (Leijten et al., 2019; Vandermeulen et al., 2020). However, we are skeptical of this assumption because, in my experience, excessive switching can sometimes indicate a lack of focus or difficulty in synthesizing information rather than a strategic writing process. While skilled writers may use switching to integrate key ideas, struggling students often switch erratically, not knowing what to prioritize. Research by Plakans (2008) also suggests that less experienced writers may struggle with over-relying on sources rather than integrating them effectively, which can lead to a fragmented response. We agree that source-switching is a factor, but we think its effectiveness depends on how strategically it is used, which this study does not fully explore.

The study presents IW tasks as an authentic measure of students' academic literacy because they reflect real-world writing demands (Cumming et al., 2016; Ye & Ren, 2019). While we agree that IW tasks mimic the research-based writing students will encounter in higher education, we question whether they are the best measure of a student's writing ability. Many IW tasks are highly structured, requiring students to follow a specific response format. This does not necessarily reflect a student’s ability to engage in critical thinking or independent argumentation, which are equally crucial in academic writing (Cho & Choi, 2018). Additionally, IW tasks often assess how well students use external sources, but they may not capture their ability to generate original ideas—a key skill in disciplines that require more subjective analysis.

While we appreciate the study’s focus on EF and its connection to IW, we believe it could have provided a more balanced discussion by considering other factors like prior knowledge, strategic source use, and originality in writing. we agree with some of the findings, especially regarding the role of planning and working memory in writing success, but we remain unconvinced that source-switching alone is an indicator of high-quality writing. In future studies, we would like to see a more detailed analysis of how different types of students approach IW tasks—particularly whether struggling writers benefit from EF training or if other instructional approaches might be more effective.

Executive functions (EF), including inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning, are essential cognitive processes that contribute to various aspects of writing. The studies analyzed in this paper explore how EF influences different writing tasks, including integrated writing, narrative writing, second-language (L2) writing, and early childhood literacy development. Despite their shared focus on EF, these studies differ in their target populations, writing types, theoretical perspectives, and methodological approaches, providing a comprehensive understanding of EF’s role in writing across different age groups and linguistic contexts.

The study by Liao and Zhao (2024) examined EF’s role in integrated writing among Chinese undergraduates, focusing on how students synthesize information from multiple sources while writing. Their findings indicate that visual-spatial working memory significantly influences writing performance, both directly and indirectly through source-text switching. This means that students who can efficiently shift between different sources while reading and listening produce better-integrated writing. The study reinforces dual-task cognitive models, which emphasize the simultaneous processing of multiple information streams during complex writing tasks.

Drijbooms et al. (2015) investigated the role of EF in narrative writing among fourth-grade children and found that inhibition and updating (working memory) were critical predictors of writing performance. However, their study did not find a strong link between planning and writing ability, which contrasts with Liao and Zhao’s (2024) findings. Instead, they discovered that handwriting fluency played a significant mediating role, suggesting that for young writers, basic transcription skills are essential for writing fluency and complexity. This indicates that EF’s role in writing evolves with age, with younger writers depending more on lower-level motor and cognitive skills, while older writers require higher-order planning and integration skills.

Haake (2025) focused on the relationship between EF and writing fluency in L2 learners. The study found that shifting and updating skills were more relevant than inhibition in predicting L2 writing fluency. Additionally, EF’s impact was task-dependent, with stronger effects observed in argumentative writing than in descriptive writing. Unlike the previous studies that emphasized the direct role of EF, Haake (2025) demonstrated that language proficiency moderates the impact of EF, meaning that higher-proficiency L2 writers benefit more from strong EF skills. These findings suggest that EF plays a different role in first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) writing, with linguistic competence influencing the degree to which cognitive resources can be effectively utilized.

Cordeiro et al. (2019) explored the role of EF in early childhood writing quality, specifically among second graders. Their findings suggest that verbal fluency and cross-text elaboration strategies are key predictors of writing performance. Unlike Drijbooms et al. (2015), who focused on transcription skills, Cordeiro et al. (2019) emphasized higher-order EF functions such as text integration and self-regulation. This highlights that as children develop, EF shifts from supporting basic writing mechanics to more advanced cognitive operations like planning and organization.

Follmer and Tise (2022) investigated the impact of EF-based instructional interventions on writing and reading comprehension. Their study found that students who received EF-based training in metacognitive monitoring, self-regulation, and elaborative rehearsal performed significantly better in comprehension-integration tasks. These findings align with Liao and Zhao’s (2024) research on source-text switching, suggesting that EF training can enhance students’ ability to integrate multiple sources in writing. However, unlike the other studies that primarily examined natural cognitive development, Follmer and Tise (2022) demonstrated that explicit EF training can improve writing performance, making a strong case for incorporating EF-based instructional strategies into writing education.

Pan and Lin (2022) explored EF’s role in early Chinese reading and writing, focusing on how EF influences word recognition and orthographic processing in kindergarteners. Their study found that working memory and inhibition control were critical for learning Chinese characters, with morphological awareness acting as a mediator. Unlike the other studies that primarily examined composition and fluency, this research highlights EF’s role in literacy acquisition, suggesting that EF is not only important for writing quality but also for early reading development, particularly in logographic writing systems like Chinese.

While all studies confirm that EF is critical for writing, they offer different perspectives on how EF interacts with writing tasks across age groups, cognitive development stages, and linguistic contexts. The research suggests that EF’s role in writing evolves over time—from supporting transcription fluency in early writers (Drijbooms et al., 2015) to helping with complex text integration in university students (Liao & Zhao, 2024). Additionally, studies like Haake (2025) and Pan and Lin (2022) highlight that language proficiency and writing system characteristics influence EF’s role in writing.

These findings have significant educational implications. While EF naturally develops with age, studies like Follmer and Tise (2022) suggest that explicit EF training can improve writing performance, reinforcing the need for cognitive-based instructional strategies. Future research should explore targeted EF interventions for different populations, ensuring that writing instruction aligns with students’ cognitive and developmental needs. Overall, these studies illustrate that writing is not merely a linguistic skill but a cognitively demanding process shaped by EF development. Whether in early childhood, second-language acquisition, or university-level writing, EF plays a foundational role in structuring, organizing, and integrating ideas. Understanding these cognitive mechanisms can help educators design more effective writing interventions, ensuring that students across all age groups can harness their executive function skills for academic success.

Future studies in psycholinguistics and language learning could explore various cognitive and emotional factors influencing acquisition. One potential study could examine the role of working memory in second language learning, investigating how learners with different memory capacities process and retain vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. Another study could focus on cognitive load and code-switching, analyzing how bilinguals navigate multiple languages in real-time communication and how factors like proficiency and cognitive strain influence spontaneous language shifts. Additionally, research on the impact of emotional states on language processing could provide insights into how anxiety, excitement, or frustration affect comprehension and retention, offering strategies to optimize emotional conditions for better learning outcomes. These studies could contribute to a deeper understanding of the cognitive and affective mechanisms underlying language acquisition.

Liao and Zhao’s (2024) study sheds light on the relationship between executive function (EF) and integrated writing (IW), highlighting how cognitive skills such as inhibition, visual-spatial working memory, and planning contribute to writing success. Their research suggests that students who struggle with IW may not necessarily lack language proficiency but may face difficulties in managing multiple sources, organizing ideas, and sustaining attention throughout the writing process. Inhibition, for instance, plays a critical role in filtering out irrelevant details and maintaining focus on key arguments, preventing cognitive overload. Meanwhile, visual-spatial working memory enables students to hold and manipulate information from various texts and lectures, ensuring coherence and logical flow in their writing. Planning skills further support the structuring of responses, allowing writers to effectively integrate and articulate complex ideas. These findings challenge traditional notions that writing difficulties are solely linguistic and instead propose that cognitive processing limitations could be an underlying factor. As a result, educators can take a more holistic approach to writing instruction by incorporating EF-based strategies, such as structured scaffolding, guided note-taking, and explicit teaching of organizational techniques. While Liao and Zhao’s study presents a strong methodological framework, future research could expand on their findings by examining additional influences on IW development, such as students’ prior knowledge, topic familiarity, and real-world writing demands. Investigating how EF interacts with different academic disciplines and professional writing contexts could further refine instructional approaches, ensuring that students develop both linguistic and cognitive skills necessary for effective communication.

Liao and Zhao’s (2024) study provides valuable insights into the role of executive function (EF) in integrated writing tasks, highlighting how cognitive skills like inhibition, working memory, and planning shape students' ability to synthesize information effectively. However, future research can further explore this relationship by addressing key questions. First, how does the strength of a student’s executive function influence their ability to manage multiple sources during an integrated writing task? Second, how does executive function operate across different writing tasks beyond integrated writing? Third, what factors contribute to the malfunction of executive function in writing tasks, and what tools or assessments can effectively identify these cognitive challenges? Finally, is there other approach or form of assessments that researchers can employ or use to identify the strength of the executive function of the students? Investigating these areas will deepen our understanding of the cognitive processes behind academic writing and inform strategies to support students in developing stronger, more structured writing skills.

References:

Bittermann, A., McNamara, D., Simonsmeier, B. A., & Schneider, M. (2023). The landscape of research on prior knowledge and learning: A bibliometric analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09775-9

 

Cordeiro, C., Limpo, T., Olive, T., & Castro, S. L. (2019). Do executive functions contribute to writing quality in beginning writers? A longitudinal study with second graders. Reading and Writing, 33(4), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09963-6

Dimitrios Vlachopoulos and Agoritsa Makri (2024). A systematic literature review on

authentic assessment in higher education: Best practices for the development of 21st century skills, and policy considerations. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 83

Drijbooms, E., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). The contribution of executive functions to                      narrative writing in fourth grade children. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 989–1011.                                    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9558-

 

Follmer, D. J., & Tise, J. (2022). Effects of an executive function-based text support on strategy use and comprehension–integration of conflicting informational texts. Reading and Writing, 35(7), 1731–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10257-7

Haake, L. (2025, January 24). Does the relationship between executive functions and L2 writing depend on language proficiency? https://www.jowr.org/jowr/article/view/1388

Liao, X., & Zhao, P. (2024). The role of executive function in an integrated writing task. Written Communication, 41(2), 230–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883231222950

Ozan, C. (2019). Authentic assessment increased academic achievement and attitude

towards the educational measurement of prospective teachers. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(2), p.299-322. doi:https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i2.18564.

 

Pan, D. J., & Lin, D. (2022). How do executive functions explain early Chinese reading and writing? Reading and Writing, 36(3), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10314-1

AUTHORS: 

ALPRINCE KING A. BIRI, LPT

DANIEL J. CABUGSA, LPT