The outcome of the above experience led us to develop a new program to value the possible impact of cognitive training on school performance more accurately. A more extensive intervention was then designed to promote cognitive control abilities in primary school 6- to 9-year-olds from first to third grade [50]. The selection of this age group was supported by a set of research studies that show this to be a sensitive period in EF development [6–9] and which report closer links between EF and school performance [58, 60].

This experience was carried out in two deprived urban schools in the province of Mendoza, with 178 disadvantaged first- to third-grade primary school children from 6 to 10 years of age. A control group and an intervention group were set up. Cognitive and school performances were quite similar at baseline.

This cognitive training program was divided into 30 sessions, each displaying activities and games targeted to achieving a synergistic stimulation of different executive functions during the same session. Activities included crossing numbers or letters out, finding differences, attentive listening, games with rules, putting cartoon sequences into the correct order, completing sequences, solving problems, classification tasks, divided attention exercises, and tasks for performance self-evaluation (see Fig. 23.2a, b). Activities were proposed for each school course, and included the participation of each responsible teacher. Contents were taken from the school monthly planning in order to integrate our program to school curricula. In addition, psychoeducational workshops for parents and teachers were held.

Results suggest that the school children who received cognitive training improved performance in terms of cognitive flexibility, planning, inhibitory control, and metacognition as compared to their baseline values and to children in the control group. These gains were supported by the teachers’ perception about the executive functioning of children in the classroom. Teachers reported that the children who participated in this training showed better abilities to plan and organize their school tasks, decreased impulsivity, and increased metacognitive capacity to think about their own school performance as compared to children who did not participate in this experience. It was further observed that trained children strengthened their competencies in regard to tasks involving word reading and writing compared to controls [50].

Finally, parents and teachers reported that their participation in psychoeducational workshops was a positive learning experience. Parents pointed out that they learned new specific guidelines and strategies to strengthen the cognitive development of their children through daily activities, such as reading a story and using educational games. They further reported that the implementation of these strategies at home was associated with better cognitive and school abilities in children. In addition, teachers said they learned new techniques, strategies, and specific games to stimulate their students’ EFs during school routines. The most valuable lesson from this experience is that teachers themselves designed activities to use with their students. Children were enriched by these practices, improved school performance, and appeared to be more attentive and focused, according to teachers’ reports [50].

In brief, these data suggest that cognitive training was effective. Ecological validity was supported by gains observed in cognitive abilities, as children actually transferred them to their daily activities at school, thus strengthening school performance. In addition, data reflect the importance of training the primary adults who live with the children as a way to supplement cognitive stimulation tasks and enhance the practices and interactions that children put at work every day.

Valuable insight has been gained from intervention programs designed to strengthen cognitive control abilities in children at social risk.

One of their primary contributions is that intensive and systematic interventions that start in the early stages of child development produce the best outcomes in terms of cognitive performance if continued over time. The effectiveness of interventions can be enhanced by adding a wide range of tasks involving different sensory stimulation paths.

Embedding interventions in school curricula is perhaps the most promising modality of these programs. Among the primary outcomes were active involvement by a larger number of children, reduced stress in the classroom, and enriched play, self-confidence, and social and emotional development. Similarly, this modality boosts EF development and school performance, as it can be initiated at an early age and sustained over the children’s full school life. Training for parents and teachers is another valuable benefit of this intervention modality.

Fully understanding the achievements of cognitive interventions involves reflecting upon their limitations. Two weaknesses deserve special attention. First, evidence shows that the positive effects of interventions tend to decrease progressively if proposed activities and learned conducts are not taken care of by means of subsequent refresher modalities. Second, gains from interventions have been reported to improve solely trained abilities, with a limited effect on other social, emotional, and academic competencies. Therefore, new methodological challenges will need to be faced when designing future cognitive stimulation programs for children.

In our view, the biggest efforts will have to advance the integral development of children at social risk by creating ecological interventions targeted to enhancing the children’s daily practices and strengthening self-regulating abilities. Intervention programs can thus become a valuable tool to bridge the persistent academic, economic, and socio-cultural gap associated with poverty.