A third grader reading a passage about animals during small group instruction comes to the word desert and pronounces it like dessert, which gets a giggle from the student next to him. But the sentence is about where camels live, not something sweet after dinner. He pauses, looks again, and shifts the stress to the first syllable. Now the sentence sounds right. He keeps reading, holding onto the meaning of the paragraph while sounding out the next unfamiliar word and tuning out the still-giggling classmate beside him. In that brief moment, he has drawn on three critical cognitive skills at once: cognitive flexibility to shift between pronunciations when his first attempt didn’t make sense, working memory to hold onto meaning while continuing to decode, and inhibitory control to block out distractions and stay focused on the text.
Last month’s blog post outlined the essential skills under the umbrella of executive function (EF)—cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control—that make the goal-directed activity of reading possible. It also delved into the EF processes called upon across reading demands, reinforcing the importance of coordination among the neural pathways that process written language and those that govern attention, planning, and working memory. Continuing our series on EF and reading, this article takes a deeper dive into cognitive flexibility, how it relates to reading, and how educators can support its development.
A Deep Dive Into Cognitive Flexibility
Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to switch between multiple tasks, operations, and mental sets (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2017). In reading, this plays out at every level—from decoding words to making meaning across texts.
At the word level, students with strong cognitive flexibility can try alternate word attack strategies when one approach doesn’t work. Some words may require flexing a vowel sound (e.g., in epitome where the silent-e rule does not apply) or stress within a word (e.g., subject vs. subject) to read correctly. Encountering homographs like lead or tear may require students to shift between pronunciations based on context. If a student gets stuck on a word and is unable to transition to a new strategy, that can signal a breakdown in cognitive flexibility. Teachers can offer a few decoding options, modeling their use, and providing time for the student to practice selecting the right approach.
At the fluency level, proficient readers adjust pacing, tone, and emphasis, and they self-correct when something doesn’t sound right. Automatic word reading may free up working memory, but automaticity alone does not ensure that readers can coordinate decoding with meaning (Cartwright & Palin, 2024). Challenges in this area present as choppy reading, inattentiveness to punctuation, and reading that does not make sense. Teachers can model fluent reading of meaningful phrases or chunks of text and offer resources to remind students of different types of punctuation to improve overall fluency and prosody.
At the comprehension level, readers must shift between literal and inferential understanding and move between different perspectives to integrate ideas and synthesize information. Teachers can use specific prompts to help students select the most important information, clearly identify perspectives, and make connections across texts. Teaching and modeling multiple comprehension strategies provides students with clear examples of how to apply these skills independently.
Why Reading-Specific Support Matters
Not all EF interventions improve reading equally. Cartwright and Palin (2024) found that reading-specific EF interventions—such as teaching cognitive flexibility in vowel pronunciations during decoding or in processing multiple word meanings—yielded significant effects on reading. Ruffini et al. (2024) found that embedding EF activities within reading comprehension tasks promoted comprehension and working memory in primary students as opposed to isolated interventions. Students learn to manage reading by practicing that management during reading itself.
How Classroom Tools Can Support Cognitive Flexibility
Teachers can build cognitive flexibility support into instruction through explicit modeling and scaffolded practice. As teachers use tools and strategies within the reading task, they should think aloud to walk students through the process and check for understanding along the way. Then, they can provide ample opportunities for guided use of the tool or strategy to make sure students are ready to engage with them independently later.
Practical tools like reading bookmarks give students concise reminders—”Does the word look right? Does it sound right? Does it make sense?”—along with strategies like flexing the vowel sound or chunking differently. Leaving blank space on the bookmark lets students add new strategies and self-monitoring skills as they learn them, building ownership over their own flexibility. The goal is to make the resources easy to use and readily available anytime there is a breakdown in cognitive flexibility.
As students become more proficient readers, the demands on their executive function skills within foundational tasks may decrease, freeing up cognitive space for deeper comprehension and more complex literacy tasks. Getting there, however, requires intentional support. By understanding how working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility operate within reading—and by embedding targeted tools, scaffolds, and strategies directly into daily instruction—teachers can help students build the self-regulatory skills that make independent reading possible. EF is not a separate skill to train in isolation; it is part of reading itself. And when we teach it that way, we set students up not just to decode but to truly comprehend.
References
Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2017). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension, Educational Psychology Review, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6.
Cartwright, K. B., & Palian, S. R. (2024). Considering roles of executive functions in the science of reading: A meta-analysis highlighting promises and challenges of reading-specific executive functions, Educational Psychologist, 1-28, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418392.
Ruffini, C., Pizzigallo, E., Pecini, C., Bertolo, L., & Carretti, B. (2025). Integrating executive function activities into a computerized cognitive training to enhance reading comprehension in primary students, Reading Research Quarterly, 60, 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70006.
