Identifying Working Memory Capacity

Identifying Working Memory Capacity: A Study of Two Working Memory Assessment Tools by Dana Davis A Research Paper Submitted in Patiial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Degree In

Education

Approved: 2 Semester Credits

Ruth Nyland

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout March,2011

2

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout Menomonie, WI

Davis, Dana S.

Author:

Identifying Working Memory Capacity: A Study of Two Working Memory

Title:

Assessment Tools

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education Research Adviser:

Ruth Nyland, Ph.D.

MonthrYear:

March, 2011

Number of Pages:

49

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6 th edition Abstract Working memory is the ability of the brain to hold and manipulate information for very brief periods of time. Working memory capacity directly impacts an individual's performance on cognitive tasks and, consequently, influences a student's performance in school. Currently, the teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, Wisconsin have no readily available method to identify students who struggle with limited working memory capacity. Two working memory assessment tools, the Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS, Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot, 2009) and the Automated Working MemOlY Assessment, North American Version (AWMA, Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot, 2008), were field tested to determine if the behaviors described in the WMRS were accurate predictors of working memory deficits. In addition, the results were compared to determine if higher WMRS scores were associated with lower A WMA scores.

3 Teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School administered the WMRS to 51 students in kindergarten through fifth grade and 12 students were selected from this group to take the A WMA. The results from this study indicate that a negative correlation exists between the WMRS and the A WMA. However, the data supporting behavioral observation as an accurate indicator of working memory deficits is inconclusive.

4

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin Stout Menomonie, WI

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Nyland for her help and guidance through this research process. In addition, I would like to thank my husband, Matt, for his endless support, encouragement and invaluable feedback. Tim, Michael and Eric, thanks for your patience and understanding.

5 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................... 10 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... l 0 Research Hypothesis .......................................................................................................... 10 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 11 Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 11 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 11 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 13 The Function of Working Memory .................................................................................... 13 Common Characteristics of Children with Limited Working Memory ............................. 16 Assessing Working Memory Capacity .............................................................................. 19 Classroom Support for Children with Low Working Memory Capacity .......................... 23 Chapter III: Methodology .......................................................... , '" ................................................ 28 Selection and Description of the Sample ........................................................................... 28 Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 29 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 31 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 32

6

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................ 33 WMRS Results ................................................................................................................... 33 A WMA Results .................................................................................................................. 33 WMRS and A WMA Comparative Results ........................................................................ 34 Figure 1: WMRS T Score vs. Verbal. ................................................................................ 35 Figure 2: WMRS T Score vs. SpatiaL ............................................................................. 36 In Depth Qualitative Results .............................................................................................. 36 Accuracy of WMRS Behavioral Characteristics ............................................................... 37 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 39 Chapter V: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 40 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 40 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 41 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 42 References ...................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A: Parent Consent Form ................................................................................................ 46 Appendix B: Child Assent Form ................................................................................................... 49

7

List of Tables Table 1: WMRS Results-T Score Distribution ............................................................................ 33 Table 2: AWMA Results-Verbal Working Memory and Visual-Spatial Working Memory ....... 34 Table 3: The Correlation Coefficients for WMRS and AWMA Test and Subtests ....................... 35 Table 4: Comparison of Groups - WMRS, A WMA Verbal, A WMA Visual-Spatial ................. 38

8

Chapter I: Introduction Working memory, the capacity of the brain to store and manipulate information for very brief periods of time, is critical in many real-world activities. (Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot,2008). Following directions, mentally adding up the total amount spent while selecting items from the supermarket shelves and remembering to measure and combine the correct ingredients when the recipe is no longer in sight are all examples of tasks that depend on working memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). In addition, mathematical problems require remembering numeric totals while combining results and performing other operations. Similarly, reading requires an individual to hold important information in memory while decoding text and comprehending implicit meanings. Working memory is considered the "workbench of cognition" and, consequently, working memory capacity directly impacts an individual's performance on high-level cognitive activities (Jarrold & Towse, 2006, p.40). Because working memory affects individual outcomes on cognitive tasks, it follows that working memory capacity will also influence a child's performance in school. Gathercole, Pickering, Knight & Stegmann (2004) found a direct correlation in the United Kingdom between students' scores on working memory assessments and national curriculum tests. Because working memory capacity is not dependent on environn1ental factors or learned skills, researchers found working memory, not IQ, to be the purest indicator of a child's future success in school. Cain (2006) wrote, "Between the ages of eight and 11 years, working memory capacity explains variance in reading comprehension over and above that explained by verbal ability, vocabulary knowledge and word reading skill" (p. 87). Researchers from Durham University surveyed over three thousand children and found that 10% of school children across all age ranges suffered from poor working memory seriously affecting their learning as evidenced by scores on standardized tests (Durham University, 2008).

9

Students with a healthy working memory concentrate on tests and are equipped for important subjects like math and reading because they can retain information and prioritize the steps needed to solve problems (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Children with low working memory capacity often exhibit low abilities in reading and numeracy, frequently fail to complete instructions, and often fail to complete learning activities. In addition, many students with poor working memory go undiagnosed' and are instead labeled by teachers as being inattentive, unmotivated and having lower intelligence levels (Durham University, 2008). As a result, classroom practices are not adjusted to address working memory problems and students are not presented with oppOliunities to improve their working memory capacity. Traditionally, working memory difficulties have been identified using cumbersome assessment tools usually administered by specialists. The Automated Working Memory Assessment, North American Version (A WMA, Alloway et aI., 2008) is the "first standardized

tool for non-specialist assessors such as classroom teachers to use to screen their pupils for significant working memory problems quickly and effectively" (p. 726). The computerized test requires participants to access the phonological loop, visual-spatial sketchpad and episodic buffer to recall verbal information and visual sequences. The participant must process and store larger amounts of information until a recall error is made. This test can be used to screen individuals from 4-22 years of age. In addition to the A WMA, researchers created the Working A1emOlY Rating Scale (WMRS, Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot, 2009). This screening tool enables teachers to identify students at risk of the learning difficulties commonly associated with working memory problems. The WMRS consists of20 descriptions of behaviors that children with working memory problems often demonstrate. Teachers rate how typical these behaviors are for

10 the student to exhibit on a four-point rating scale. Examples of the descriptions include: "'the child raised his hand but when called upon, he had forgotten his response'; 'she lost her place in a task with multiple steps'; and 'the child had difficulty remaining on task'" (Alloway et aI., 2009, p. 243). After being identified with the WMRS, students take the A WMA to determine if a working memory problem exists.

Statement of the Problem Currently, teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, Wisconsin have no method available to them to identify students who struggle with limited working memory capacity. If the WMRS and the AWMA are determined to be effective, teachers will have unprecedented access to two assessment tools to help them quickly and easily identify working memory problems so that appropriate accommodation and remediation can be made for students.

Purpose of the Study The study determined if a negative correlation existed between the WMRS scores of students and the assessment scores of these students on the A WMA. Teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School pre-screened their students by observing student behavior and completing the WMRS. Students were grouped into three categories based on their results on the WMRS and students were selected from each group to take the A WMA. The data collected from the WMRS was compared to the student results on the A WMA to determine if a negative cOl1'elation between the two assessment tools existed.

Research Hypotheses Several studies have examined the connection between classroom behavior and working memory problems, as well as the effectiveness of the A WMA and WMRS (Alloway et aI., 2008; Alloway et aI., 2009). The following hypotheses are based on the results of these studies.

11 1. The observed behaviors described in the WMRS are reliable indicators of a working

memory problem. 2. Higher teacher ratings on the WMRS are associated with lower memory scores on the A WMA resulting in a negative statistical conelation. Definition of Terms Working memory. The ability of the brain to hold and manipulate information for brief

periods of time. Central executive. The part of working memory that controls attention and processing. Phonological Loop. The verbal storage system in the working memory model. Visual Spatial Sketchpad. The system responsible for processing and maintaining

information that can be represented with visual or spatial characteristics. Episodic Buffer. The temporary storage system in the working memory model that

integrates information from a variety of sources. Assumptions

This study was founded on several assumptions. First, the WMRS and A WMA were valid instruments, conectly designed to measure working memory levels. Second, each classroom teacher administered the WMRS correctly. Finally, the identified students gave their best effort when taking the A WMA. Limitations

The homogeneous population of the school was a limitation in this study. The school had an enrollment of 110 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Because of the small enrollment and the lack of diversity in the school population, the research may not result in enough data to adequately address the research problem.

12

Methodology The teachers of grades kindergmien through fifth grade observed their students' behavior and completed a WMRS form for each student for whom parental consent was obtained. The scores of the WMRS were tallied and the results analyzed. Students were selected from three categories of WMRS results: average classroom behavior, average classroom behavior-low, and classroom behavior indicating working memory impairment. Individual results on the A WMA were compared to results on the WMRS to determine if the two tests were negatively correlated.

13

Chapter II: Literature Review Researchers have been trying to understand the factors that contribute to children's successes and failures in learning for many years. Recent studies investigating the role that working memory plays in educational achievement have discovered that deficits in a child's ability to store and manipulate information for brief periods of time can significantly impact the child's performance in school. This thorough review of recent literature will examine the function of working memory in processing information, describe common characteristics of children with poor working memory, investigate the development of working memory assessment tools and discuss classroom support options for these students.

The Function of Working Memory Working memory model. The commonly accepted model of working memory was developed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) and then expanded by Baddeley (2000). The model consists of a central executive that controls attention, processing and three subsystems: the phonological loop, the visual-spatial sketchpad and the episodic buffer (Alloway,Gathercole, Willis & Adams, 2004). According to Dehn (2008), the central executive has several core functions. The first function, selective attention, is the ability to focus on the relevant information while inhibiting disruptions. Switching, the second function, is the capacity to coordinate several cognitive activities at once. The central executive also has the ability to allocate resources to other pmis of working memory and the ability to temporarily retrieve, store and manipulate infonnation from long-term memory One of the subsystems controlled by the central executive is the phonological loop. The phonological loop is a limited-capacity verbal storage system. Dehn (2008) analogized the phonological loop to an audio tape recorder loop of a certain length. Orally presented verbal

14 information is recorded on the loop until it decays or is recorded over by new auditory information. Unless the information is rehearsed or stored in long-term memory, the phonological loop will only store verbal information for 2 seconds or less. The visual-spatial sketchpad is responsible for processing and maintaining information that can be represented with visual or spatial characteristics. The visual-spatial sketchpad plays an important role in reading as it visually encodes print while maintaining a frame of reference that allows the reader to backtrack and keep his or her place in the text (Dehn, 2008). The visual-spatial sketchpad also pmiicipates in the generation and manipulation of mental images. Similar to the phonological loop, information is quickly forgotten unless it is rehearsed or stored in long-term memory. The episodic buffer is a temporary storage system that accesses long-term memory in order to construct representations based on the new information (Baddeley, 2000). The episodic buffer also encodes new information into long-term memory. According to Dehn (2008), the episodic buffer combines visual and verbal codes and links them to representations in the longterm memory.

Comparing short term memory and working memory. Although the terms 'ShOli term memory' and 'working memory' are often used interchangeably, it is the manipulation and integration of information to achieve a cognitive goal that differentiates working memory from ShOli term memory (Janold & Tow'se, 2006). For example, short term memory can be tested by presenting participants with a series of visual-spatial or verbal items that must be recalled in conect serial order. The individuals must store the items for a short time, but are not asked to manipulate the information in any meaningful way. These assessments are often called simple span tasks. In contrast, working memory tests present the pmiicipants with a series of items that

15 they must maintain in storage while carrying out additional processing tasks. Such tests are often called complex span tasks. Individuals who perform well on working memory tests are able to store information efficiently while rapidly processing and retrieving information to solve complex problems. Because working memory's storage capacity is limited, it can often fail individuals. Two of the most common situations that lead to working memory failure are distractions and doing something else while trying to hold information in working memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Information that is lost from working memory cannot be recovered. The only option in this situation is to begin again.

Individual differences in working memory. The study of individual differences and variances in working memory has helped to shed some light on why working memory performance varies in individuals (Jarrold & Towse, 2006). Each person has a limit to working memory and this capacity remains relatively fixed and consistent over different occasions (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Some variance in working memory can be attributed to the normal cognitive development of individuals as they age. "Working memory capacity increases from childhood through adolescence, when adult levels are reached" (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009, p. 32). For example, the longest sequence of numbers that an average four year old would be expected to remember in reverse sequence is two digits. An average fifteen year old would be expected to remember four digits in reverse sequence, possibly even five digits. However, atypical variances may be accounted for by an individual's ability to process information. Some people process information quickly and efficiently, thereby lessening the amount of time information must be held in storage. Others process information slowly which impacts the time the information must be stored. In addition, some individual differences in

16

working memory can be explained by storage capacity. "A fundamental characteristic of working memory is that it has a limited capacity, which constrains cognitive performance" (Conway, Jarrold, Kane, Miyake & Towse, 2007, p. 4). Individuals with a greater capacity tend to perform better on cognitive tasks than individuals with a lesser capacity. Finally, differences in the central executive system that coordinates both processing and storage may also account for the working memory variances that occur on high-level cognitive tasks. Common Characteristics of Children with Limited Working Memory Capacity Behavioral characteristics. Children with poor working memory share several common

behavioral characteristics. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) reported children with poor working memory in their study usually had normal social relationships with their peers. However, they were often reserved during larger group activities in the classroom that involved teacher-led discussions. These students rarely raised their hands to answer questions. They did not engage in classroom discussions and often appeared to be distracted and uninterested. In a study by Gathercole, Alloway and Lamont (2006), students did not display oveli behavioral problems and were socially well-adjusted. Researchers expanded this finding in a 2009 study that found students with low working memory did not exhibit high levels of hyperactivity or impulsivity (Alloway et al.). Teachers described students with poor working memory as inattentive with low attention spans and a high level of distractibility (Alloway et aI., 2009). In addition, teachers repOlied that the students often forgot what they were cUlTently doing and the things they had learned, failed to remember instructions and failed to complete tasks. These behavioral characteristics were consistently observed in children with poor working memories.

17

Learning characteristics. In addition, children with impaired working memories typically display similar learning characteristics. Gathercole et aI. (2006) reported students failed to complete tasks that required storing information while engaging in demanding processing activities. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) observed this characteristic in a child identified with low working memory capacity. The child's teacher wrote a sequence of numbers on the board that had some numbers missing. The child was asked to identify the missing numbers. In each sequence there was more than one missing number such as in the sequence 0,1,2,4,5,7,8,9. To complete this task, students needed to retrieve knowledge of numbers and store the missing numbers until the end of the sequence. In the study, the observed child failed at each attempt because he was unable to both retrieve and store the missing numbers. In addition, students with impaired working memory often lost their place in complicated tasks (Gathercole et aI., 2006). According to the research, students with poor working memory had difficulty copying information from the board because the task required students to keep track of their place and then write the information on their paper. Because place-keeping is so difficult, the child with poor working memory will often make multiple errors when copying information. Gathercole et aI. (2006) also noted another similarity in students with poor working memory. These students prefelTed t{) simplify tasks when possible. In one instance, a child was taught a five-step process for learning his spelling words. He was told to "look, say, cover, write, check" (p. 231). Instead of following this multi-step process, the student avoided the memory element of this procedure and did not look, say or cover the word. Instead, he simply copied the word a second time with the target word in full sight. As a result of simplifying this process, the child missed the oPPOliunity to practice the memory aspect of the learning activity.

18 Because the memory aspect of the activity was skipped, the child's perfOlmance on the spelling test was impacted. Gathercole et al. (2006) summarized that students with low working memory frequently displayed four learning failures: "forgetting instructions, failing to meet combined storage and processing demands, losing track in complex tasks and forgetting from episodic long-term memory at high rates" (p. 237). These common learning characteristics affect the academic progress of students with low working memory capacity.

Attention difficulties. Maintaining attention to the task at hand is one of the foremost operations of working memory (Dehn, 2008). According to Gathercole and Alloway (2009), when teachers were asked to describe students who had been identified with impaired working memory, they rarely described the students as having memory problems. Instead, teachers commonly used phrases like '''he's in a world of his own', 'he doesn't listen to a word I say', 'she's always day-dreaming', and 'with him, it's in one ear and out the other'" (p. 62). Comparisons between groups rated by teachers as having good or poor attention have shown differences in working memory function (Cornish, Wilding & Grant, 2006). Attention seems to be linked to the central executive system of working memory.

In a study of young adults, Kane et al. (2007) found individuals with low working memory were more likely to engage in mind-wandering when attempting difficult cognitive tasks. Kane called this phenomenon "zoning out" and determined that these attention problems were more likely to occur when the working memory was overloaded. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) found that students with poor working memory typically started a learning activity purposefully, performing well at the beginning of the task. However, after making mistakes, the students lost attention, became distracted and failed to complete the task. The short attention

19 span of students with poor working memory makes successfully completing leaming tasks very difficult. Students with low working memory capacity exhibit similar behavioral and leaming characteristics. In addition, children with working memory impairments typically have difficulty maintaining attention when cognitive tasks cause working memory overload. Understanding the common characteristics of students with limited working memory capacity can help educators identify struggling students and implement strategies for remediation and accommodation. Assessing Working Memory Capacity Viliually everything that must be leamed or remembered must pass through the working memory. Dehn (2008) wrote, "Classroom performance and the development of verbal and academic skills, such as reading decoding, reading comprehension, mathematics, and written expression depend heavily on the adequate functioning of working memory" (p.92). If working memory tests measure a capacity that is critical for academic leaming, then working memory measures should be an essential part of every assessment for cognitive abilities (Dehn, 2008). Even if working memory scores are not used to diagnose specific leaming disabilities, they can still provide a better understanding of a student's strengths and weaknesses. The span task. Assessing memory has been of interest to scientists for 100 years (Pickering, 2006). Over the last century, the span task has remained the most commonly used measure of memory. Dehn (2008) defined memory span as "the maximum amount of sequential information an individual can remember accurately" (p. 132). Joseph Jacobs, a London teacher, developed the first digit span test in the 1880s to measure the mental abilities of his students. In a span task, the examiner is careful to present the numbers, letters or words in a steady and even

20 monotone. Doing this discourages any kind of chunking based on the tone in which the information is presented. Span activities can be classified as simple span or complex span tasks. Simple span measures short term memory and complex span is considered to measure working memory (Dehn, 2008). Simple span tasks require the individual to retain information passively. The serial recall of digits, letters, words and nonwords are examples of simple span tasks. Complex span tasks require an individual to process information while attempting to retain a list of items for a short interval. Complex span tasks measure verbal and executive working memory and require the storage and processing of information. Because the simple span task is simple and easy-to-administer, it is widely used to measure the capacity of an individual to hold information in memory for a short period of time. However, there are limitations to the simple span task. First, because ofthe inherent structure of the task, it restricts the measure of memory to short term verbal information only (Pickering, 2006). Second, the digits (1-9) and letters are already well established in the individual's long term memory. As a result of this familiarity, long term memory supports the phonological loop and contributes to the span obtained. Additional variables affecting an individual's performance on both simple and complex span tasks include: the extent to which the person is paying attention when the list is presented, hearing ability and capacity for speech. One way to overcome these limitations is to include a large number of trials. Doing this will allow the examiner to obtain a number of responses to sequences and will be a better indicator of an individual's memory capacity. Memory test batteries. A number of memory test batteries have been used extensively

for years. According to Pickering (2006), the Rivermead Behavioral MemOlY Test for Children

21 (Wilson, Ivani-Chalian, & Aldrech, 1991), The Wechsler MemOlY Scale III (Wechsler, 1997),

The Test of A1emOlY and Learning (Reynolds & Bigler, 1994), and The Children's A1emOlY Scale (Cohen, 1997) provide the user with a range of subtests to measure a child's memory performance. The subtests provide information about different types of memory including both long term memory and short term memory. Users interested in a range of memory scores will find the information gathered from these memory batteries helpful. However, according to Pickering (2006), individuals interested in measuring working memory with these batteries will find that the tests only have limited application for two reasons. First, these batteries include subtests that measure all aspects of memory and, as a result, the number of subtests devoted to the measurement of working memory is, out of necessity, limited. Second, the subtests included in these batteries are not always based on well-established and well-researched models of memory functioning.

Verbal working memory subtests. Verbal working memory is required when the information is long, complex and needs to be manipulated. Dehn (2008) wrote, "Verbal working memory tasks also depend on knowledge and processes beyond working memory" (p. 135). The following subtests measure the verbal component of working memory.

Memory for sentences. This subtest may be the purest form of verbal working memory because the processing task does not enlist the executive working memory (Dehn, 2008). A sentence is read aloud and the examinee is asked to recall the sentence.

Memory for stories. Immediately after hearing a story, the examinee is directed to retell as much of the story as possible (Dehn, 2008). Points are awarded for each key element and paraphrasing is allowed.

22

Reading span. This subtest is found in most measures of verbal and executive working memory (Dehn, 2008). The examinee reads a series of sentences and then, sequentially, recalls the final word in each sentence.

Listening span. The examiner reads a series of sentences and then the examinee recalls the final word of each sentence (Dehn, 2008). The examiner makes the task more challenging by inseliing a question before the examinee recalls the final word in the sentence. For example, the sentence might be, "Apples live in water." The examinee is asked if the sentence is tlUe and then asked to recall the final word in the sentence.

Operation span. Examinees solve a simple math problem before being given a stimulus word (Dehn, 2008). After completing a set, the examinee must recall the stimulus words in the correct sequence.

Visuospatial working memory subtests. These subtests measure the ability of an individual to process and maintain information that can be represented with visual or spatial characteristics.

Backward block recall. Nine identical blocks are placed on a board in a fixed random arrangement (Dehn, 2008). The examiner taps two to nine blocks in a preselected random sequence. The examinee must then tap the same blocks in reverse order.

Mazes memory. This subtest consists of two-dimensional mazes presented to the examinee (Pickering, 2006). A route is shown through the maze in red and the examiner traces the route with his or her finger. The examinee is asked to draw the exact route that was just observed on an identical, but empty, maze.

Visual patterns test. This task involves the recall of matrix patterns (Pickering, 2006). Patterns consisting of equal numbers of black and white squares in a matrix are presented

23 to the examinee for 3 seconds. Then, the pmiicipant is asked to recall the location of the black squares by marking an empty matrix.

Executive working memory subtests. Dual-task techniques are the classic method for assessing executive working memory (Dehn, 2008). Dual-task activities require the examinee to perform two tasks at the same time. The primary task is usually the short-term storage of information. The secondary task is designed to interfere and disrupt any strategy to maintain the information. Interference requires the involvement of the executive working memory.

Counting recall. The examinee is asked to recall dot tallies while counting other arrays of dots (Pickering, 2006). The participant is presented with a card on which there are dots. The examinee is asked to count the dots one at a time by placing a finger on the dot and counting out loud. This process is repeated until all of the dot cards are counted. The individual is then asked to recall the tallies of each card in the order that they were encountered.

Stroop task. The Stroop task requires an individual to read a list of color words that are printed in ink colors unrelated to the printed word (Dehn, 2008). For instance, the word

green may be printed in red ink. This task measures the ability of the executive working memory to focus attention and disregard irrelevant information.

Classroom Support for Children with Low Working Memory Capacity Because students with poor working memories face substantial learning difficulties, it is critical that teachers understand the techniques that they can use to minimize working memory failures and enhance the learning oppOliunities for these children. While much has been written about working memory training and intervention strategies (Beck, Hanson, Puffenberger, Benninger & Benninger, 2010; Dahlin, Backman, Neely & Nyberg, 2009; Dehn, 2008), the

24 following practical strategies were designed for classroom teachers to use with students that struggle with working memory deficits.

Recognize working memory failures. According to Gathercole and Alloway (2009), it is important to detect the four main warning signs of working memory failure: incomplete recall, failure to follow instructions, place-keeping errors and task abando1Unent.

Monitor the child. In addition, teachers should regularly monitor students with poor working memories during mentally demanding activities (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Teachers should look for signs of working memory overload. Often, working memory failures lead to inactivity and may not attract the attention of a busy teacher. Another strategy for monitoring the child is to ask children what they are doing and what they intend to do next. By asking questions, the teacher can quickly determine if the child's memory is overloaded. In addition, repeating important infornlation can prolong storage in working memory.

Evaluate the working memory demands of learning activities. According to Dehn (2008), "The first step in encouraging teachers to adopt more practices that support working memory is to promote more teacher awareness of the working memory loads created by classroom activities and instruction" (p.298). Teachers should be able to identify the features in a patiicular learning activity that will place considerable demands on working memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). First, activities that are excessive in length will exceed a child's capacity and will not be remembered. Children under the age of ten will struggle to store sequences of three or more unrelated items. According to Gathercole and Alloway (2009), the longer the sequence, the greater the working memory demands on the child. Second, activities that are unfamiliar and not meaningful will place heavy demands on a child's working memory because children are unable to use their existing memory (long term memory) to support their

25 performance. For example, remembering the digits 5, 9, 2 has a greater working memory load than remembering the digits 2, 4, 6 and the sequence cat, floor, car is harder to remember than mom, dad, brother because in both example there are no meaningful links to the child's long term memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Finally, demanding mental activities that require the child to perform a difficult processing task while storing information at the same time often lead to working memory overload. A fairly easy storage task may exceed a child's working memory capacity when combined with another processing activity.

Reduce working memory loads. Teachers may need to modify lesson plans to accommodate students with poor working memories. Tasks may also need to be modified as they take place if the child is exhibiting any of the warning signs of working memory failure (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Often, working memory load can be challenged by complex tasks like listening to a speaker while attempting to take notes (Dehn, 2008). Teachers can reduce the amount of material in an activity, provide more structure and make the instructions more meaningful by using actions to accompany verbal content (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009).

In addition, teachers can increase the meaningfulness and familiarity of material by linking new information to knowledge that has already been acquired by the child. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) suggested teachers simplify mental processing by using simple sentence structure for giving instructions in both general classroom procedures and learning activities. A final way to reduce working memory loads is to restructure complex tasks by breaking down multi-step tasks into separate independent steps.

Be prepared to repeat. Children with working memory difficulties benefit greatly from repetition. The repetition of classroom management instructions and task-specific instructions helps students move information from ShOli term memory to their long term memory. Dehn

26 (2008) suggested that teacher repeat instructions and directions frequently and require students to repeat information as well. It is also important to encourage children to request repetition when necessary (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). It may also be helpful to partner a child with poor working memory with a child with good memory abilities, although it is impOliant that this does not place too large of a burden on the more capable child. Encourage the use of memory aids. Providing memory aids can be a key element to help students with poor working memories (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Writing aids (wall charts, word strips, personalized dictionaries), mathematical aids (cubes, beads, blocks, number lines) and computer software (interactive whiteboards, digital notepads) are devices that can provide crucial information and reduce the working memory demands. There are two things that are impOliant for teachers to remember when encouraging the use of memory aids. First, the memory aids should be in close proximity to the child. Children are more likely to make use of aids that are within hand's reach. Often, children do not even try to attempt using memory aids that are distant, probably because the demands on working memory are increased when the child must shift from the task at hand to a distant task. Second, children are more likely to use memory aids when they have practiced with the aid and know how to use it. It is important for students to receive practice with memory aids under low load conditions (Dehn, 2008). Develop the child's use of strategies for supporting memory. In addition to adopting strategies to help students minimize working memory overload, Teachers can help students develop their own strategies to overcome memory problems. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) wrote, "Arming the child with self-help strategies will promote their development as independent learners able to identify and suppOli their own learning needs" (p. 85). Some of the strategies

27 that children can use to help themselves include the following: requesting help, rehearsal, notetaking, using long term memory and organizational strategies. When observant teachers support students within the classroom with appropriate accommodations and changes, the teachers can reduce the load demand placed on the working memory of students and decrease working memory failures. With assistance, students with poor working memories can also develop their own self-help tools to successfully complete classroom activities and proceed with learning.

28 Chapter III: Methodology This field test of the Working },;[emory Rating Scale (WMRS, Alloway et ai., 2009) and the Automated Working Mem01Y Assessment, North American Version (AWMA, Alloway et ai., 2008) was designed to determine if the behaviors listed on the WMRS are accurate indicators of working memory deficits and if a negative correlation exists between the two assessment tools. This study was dependent on a careful selection of the sample, a thorough understanding of the instrumentation, and a clear account of the data collection process and analysis. Selection and Description of the Sample The research subjects for this study were students in kindergatien through fifth grade at Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, WI. The school had 64 students enrolled in kindergarten through fifth grade with four, full-time teachers. There were three combined classrooms in the study: a combined K-4/K-5, a combined first/second grade and a combined third/fourth grade. The ethnicity of the students was predominately Caucasian and all individuals spoke English as their first language. A parental consent form was sent home with every student in kindergatien through fifth grade. The kindergarten through fifth grade classroom teachers completed a WMRS form for every student in their classes for whom signed parental consent was obtained. Students' scores on the WMRS were tallied by the investigator and the results interpreted. Based on individual results on the WMRS, students were grouped into three categories: 1) displays average classroom behavior, 2) displays average classroom behavior-low and 3) classroom behavior indicates moderate working memory deficits. A sampling of students was selected from each category. The investigator administered the A WMA to each of the selected students.

29 Instrumentation The Working Memory Rating Scale. The Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS) is a behavioral rating scale developed by researchers in the United Kingdom to facilitate easy identification of students with working memory deficits. The WMRS consists of 20 short descriptions of problem classroom behaviors characteristic of students with low working memory abilities (Alloway, Gathercole & Kirkwood, 2008). Teachers rate how typical each behavior is of the child on a scale ranging from not typical (0) to very typical (3). The WMRS takes no more than 5 minutes to complete and is easy to score and interpret. The WMRS was developed as a result of an observational study of children with low working memory. The researchers observed the low-memory students were more likely than their typical working memory classmates to forget instructions, lose track of their place on complex tasks and to struggle on tasks that involved simultaneous storage and processing (Alloway et aI., 2008). Interviews were systematically conducted with the teachers of 50 primary-age students with working memory deficits. On the basis of the interviews, the researchers eliminated redundant items and added extra items to accurately describe the common classroom behaviors that differentiate children with low and normal working memory. A total of 417 children from primary schools in England participated in a study to determine the reliability and validity of the WMRS (Alloway et aI., 2008). Schools were selected from across the United Kingdom to provide a representative sample based on national assessments. The study found a strong relationship between all of the questions on the WMRS, supporting convergent validity. In addition, the study established that the WMRS has internal reliability and construct validity.

30

The Automated Working Memory Assessment, North American Version. The Automated Working Memory Assessment was primarily created to provide classroom teachers and specialists with a tool to quickly and easily identify working memory difficulties. The tests used in the computerized A WMA battery were selected based on research "establishing that they provide reliable and valid assessments of verbal and visual-spatial ShOli term and working memory" (Alloway, 2007, p.55). All of the tests were piloted on two groups of children: young children (4-5 years) and older children (9-10 years). The tests were adjusted to ensure that both the practice and test trials were age-appropriate and extensive practice trials with visuals were included. The A WMA was field tested for two years and the feedback received from educators, psychologists and other professionals helped to refine the current version. The test reliability of the AWMA was measured on 128 students in England randomly selected across schools and age ranges (Alloway, 2007). Four weeks separated the two test administrations. There was very little change in the scores of the students between the first testing time and the second testing time, indicating that the A WMA is reliable. In addition, the researchers evaluated the validity of the AWMA by comparing student scores on the A WMA to their scores on the Weschsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth UK Edition. Alloway (2007) repOlied "75% of children with poor working memory on the basis of identification by the AWMA also obtained standard scores of 85 or less on the WISe-IV Memory Index" (p. 60). These results suppOlied the validity of the test. For the purposes of this study, the Automated Working MemOlY Assessement, North

American version was obtained. This version of the software, although not currently on the market, was released to the investigator for research purposes only with special permission from Tracy Alloway, the author of the AWMA, and Pearson Assessment. Three batteries of tests are

31 included on the A WMA software: A WMA Screener, A WMA ShOli Form and A WMA Long Form. The AWMA Screener was used for this study.

Data Collection Before the data was collected, the investigator met with the teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade. The purpose and scope of the research was explained to the teachers and their participation was requested. Each teacher signed a form indicating their agreement to participate in the study. Next, a parent consent form (Appendix A) was sent home in the weekly communication folder of every student in kindergarten through fifth grade. Of the 64 consent forms sent home, 51 forms, signed by a parent, were returned in the communication folders. The teachers

completed a WMRS form for every student for whom parental consent was obtained. Teachers placed the completed forms in an envelope, sealed the envelope and gave it to the investigator. The investigator tallied the scores and interpreted the results in an off-campus location. Based on individual results, students were grouped into three categories: 1) displays average classroom behavior, 2) displays average classroom behavior-low and 3) classroom behavior indicates moderate working memory deficits. Students in category one had a T score on the WMRS between 37 and 55. Students in category two had a T score between 56 and 60. Students in category three had a T score greater than 61 A random sampling of five students was selected from category one and all of the students in categories two and three were selected to take the A WMA. The investigator administered the A WMA Screener to the 12 selected students individually. Before each testing session, the investigator read the Child Assent Form (Appendix B) to the student. This form explained the process and assured the child that their patiicipation was strictly voluntary.

32

Data Analysis The data was examined to determine if the two assessment tools were negatively correlated. The students' T scores on the WMRS were compared to the A WMA standardized scores on both the verbal section of the battery and the visual-spatial section. A scatter plot was used to determine if a negative cOlTelation existed between the two assessments. In addition, the students' scores on the two working memory assessment tests were analyzed to determine if the behaviors rated on the WMRS were accurate indicators of working memory deficits. Scores on the WMRS were determined to be "average", "average-low" or "below average". These rankings were compared to student scores on the AWMA that were also determined to be "average", "average-low" or "below average". A percentage was calculated to determine the accuracy rate of the WMRS.

Limitations The biggest weakness in this study was that the two assessment tools were normed in the United Kingdom and not in the United States. Another weakness in the study was the lack of diversity in the research sample. Because of the small size and homogeneous composition of the student population, this study did not uncover any students with marked working memory deficits.

33 Chapter IV: Results

Early detection of students with limited working capacity enables educators to plan classroom strategies to accommodate these learners. CUlTently, the teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School (CBCS) in Wateliown, Wisconsin have no method to identify students with working memory difficulties. A field test of the Working Memory Rating Scale and the Automated Working MemOlY Assessment, North American Version would determine if the two

tests were effective assessment tools that would benefit both teachers and students at CBCS. WMRS Results

Teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade used the WMRS to assess 51 students at CBCS. The raw scores were convelied to T scores using the conversion table located in the Working Memory Rating Scale Manual (Alloway et aI., 2008). Student results were distributed

into three groups based on the T scores: average, average-low and working memory deficits (Table 1). Table 1 WMRS Results - T Score Distribution

Students (N=51)

Group l:Average

Group 2 : Average - Low

Group 3: WM Deficits

T Scores 37 - 55

T Scores 56-60

T Scores 61 +

44

3

4

A WMA Results The investigator administered the A WMA to a total of 12 students. Five randomly selected students from WMRS Group One (Table 1) and all of the students from Group Two and Group Three were given the A WMA Screener test battery. This battery assessed the verbal and

34

visual-spatial working memory of the subject. The verbal pOliion of the test was divided into two subtests: listening recall and listening processing. The visual-spatial portion of the test was also divided into two subtests: spatial recall and spatial processing. The computer program automatically converted the raw data into standardized scores and percentiles for each subtest. In addition, the program put student results on the verbal and visual-spatial pOliions of the battery into three categories: average, average-low and working memory deficits (Table 2). Table 2 AWMA Results - Verbal Working lyiemOlY and Visual-Spatial Working MemOlY Group 1: Average

Group 2: Average - Low

Group 3: WM Deficits

N=12

Scores 90 +

Scores 81-89

Scores 80 and under

Verbal

9

2

1

Visual-Spatial

7

5

o

WMRS and AWMA Comparative Results According to the Working MemOlY Rating Scale Manual (Alloway et aI., 2008), higher teacher ratings on the WMRS were associated with lower memory scores on the A WMA. To determine if this study attained the same results, WMRS scores and the A WMA scores on the verbal and visual-spatial subtests were correlated. The correlation coefficients are shown in Table 3. The WMRS scores were negatively correlated with the scores of all four memory subtests. There was a more significant negative correlation on the visual-spatial subtests than on the listening subtests. The data suppOlis this study'S hypothesis: higher teacher ratings on the WMRS are associated with lower memory scores on the A WMA resulting in a statistical negative correlation.

35 Table 3

The correlation coefficients/or WMRS and AWMA test and subtests. A WMA subtest

WMRS correlation coefficients

Listening Recall

-0.19

Listening Processing

-0.27

Spatial Recall

-0.49

Spatial Processing

-0.45

To compare individual results on the WMRS with the A WMA, student scores were plotted on an XY scatter chati. Figure 1 and Figure 2 indicated that, while there was some degree of negative correlation between the scores on the WMRS and A WMA, several sets of scores did not follow the trend line. An examination of the individual test scores explained these unanticipated results.

\V1\IRS T Score VS. A\V1\IA Vel'b~d

Figure 1 130

•• •

• ++

•

•

60 40

55 \VIHRS T Score • -

Wl\1RST ScOret'il AWl\1A'v'erbnl Linear (Wl\fRS T l:i