Changes in university students cognitive-linguistic performance following a structured didactic intervention

Valentín Melgarejo T.F.; García Yale F.A.; Oscátegui Nájera G.J.; Ramos Pando C.; Albornoz Dávila V.L.; Malpartida Lovatón R.; Santos Hinostroza W.C.; Santiago Lázaro S.R.; Bernaldo Faustino L.K.; Matos Atanacio L.M.; Delzo Calderón I.A.; Valentín Melgarejo P.L. · Frontiers in Psychology (2026) · DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1779389

Resumen

Background – Cognitive-linguistic functioning involves the coordinated operation of executive control, language processing, working memory, and semantic organization, which are important for academic performance. Although structured educational interventions can improve specific learning outcomes, relatively few studies have examined whether such interventions are associated with coordinated changes across oral expression, written expression, and reading comprehension. Objective – This study examined changes in global cognitive-linguistic performance and its three assessed domains oral expression, written expression, and reading comprehension following a structured didactic intervention among university students. Methods – A prospective one-group quasi-experimental pre–post design was used. Twenty-six undergraduate students completed a 6-week intervention comprising 18 structured sessions that integrated cognitive activation, language-focused activities, guided practice, feedback, and metacognitive reflection. Cognitive-linguistic performance was assessed immediately before and after the intervention using a researcher-developed battery. Paired-samples tests, Holm-adjusted p-values, mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, within-participant effect sizes, and performance-level transitions were examined. Results – Global cognitive-linguistic performance increased from 45.35 ± 4.38 at baseline to 56.88 ± 5.54 after the intervention, corresponding to a mean change of 11.53 points (95% CI: 9.64–13.42; Holm-adjusted p < 0.001; Cohen’s dz = 2.46). Improvements were also observed in oral expression (mean change = 4.19; 95% CI: 3.26–5.12; dz = 1.82), written expression (mean change = 3.72; 95% CI: 2.79–4.65; dz = 1.61), and reading comprehension (mean change = 3.62; 95% CI: 2.65–4.59; dz = 1.50); all Holm-adjusted p-values were <0.001. Twenty-one participants moved to a higher performance category, five remained in the same category, and none moved to a lower category. Conclusion – Participation in the structured didactic intervention was associated with substantial improvements in global cognitive-linguistic performance and across all three assessed domains. The multidomain pattern of improvement and high implementation fidelity supports the feasibility of integrating cognitive, linguistic, and metacognitive activities within university instruction. However, the small sample, one-group design, and absence of delayed follow-up prevent definitive causal conclusions and do not establish generalized or durable cognitive transfer. Copyright

Instituciones: Universidad Nacional Daniel Alcides Carrión; Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán