When my research team interviewed Robert, a 10 year old, he was pleased to report that his memory for numbers is very good and he “can do 2, 5 and 10 times tables but 4 and 6 times tables are hard.” He said that if he can’t see the numbers he can’t remember them: “I need to have them written down because they don’t stay in my head.”
Like Robert, the student with dyscalculia has clear working memory deficits. However, the link between working memory and math skills depends on the age of the child as well as the type of math task. Verbal working memory plays a strong role in math skills in 7-year olds and is a reliable indicator of dyscalculia in the first year of formal schooling. Once children reach adolescence, verbal working memory is no longer significantly linked to mathematical skills. One explanation for this change is that verbal working memory plays a crucial role for basic arithmetic skills like learning arithmetic rules and retaining relevant data such as carried digits when they are young. However, as children get older other factors such as number knowledge and strategies play a greater role.
Visual-spatial working memory problems are also linked to dyscalculia. It has been suggested that visual-spatial memory functions as a mental blackboard to support number representation, such as place value and alignment in columns in counting and arithmetic tasks. We also use visual-spatial memory to solve multi-digit operations and problems presented visually, including those using blocks. Poor working memory is thought to be one explanation for dyscalculia because it limits their ability to remember mathematical rules, from basic concepts like counting in ascending and descending order, to more complicated algebraic functions.
What is working memory like in students with Autistic Spectrum Disoder (ASD)? Let’s first look at verbal short-term memory skills in high functioning ASD students. Their skills in this area can vary, in some cases, students can have above average short-term memory, while others perform at the same level of a student with language impairments. In my own research, I found that high functioning teenagers display a verbal short-term memory problem . The type of material they have to remember provides us with a clue to their memory profile. They struggle in particular with abstract information like nonsense words or new vocabulary. Why? The strategy they use to remember can over-burden them. Studies confirm that even high functioning individuals do not use their long-term memory or visual strategies to support immediate recall. Instead, they rehearse things over and over again to prevent forgetting. While this can be useful in remembering short sequences of information, it is ultimately a time-consuming and inefficient strategy to simply keep repeating things.
Now let’s look at their working memory profile. The majority of individuals with ASD do not have deficits in this area. In visual working memory tasks, they are shown a matrix with dots that appear in random locations and have to recall their location in backwards sequence. Both my own research as well as other studies confirms that their performance is similar to their same-aged typically developing peers, and those with the same IQ level. In the classroom, this means that they won’t have any difficulty with remembering information that is visually presented. The problem arises when they have to use their eyes to track the movements of a teacher as part of a lesson. Even high functioning individuals have trouble shifting their gaze from one thing to another and may misidentify the relevant information to focus on. Remember that one feature of ASD is their ability to concentrate on one thing at a time. In the classroom, they can find it distracting to shift their visual attention from the board to the teacher talking and back again, and as a result struggle to remember the lesson even if it is presented visually.
Verbal working memory is not impaired in individuals with ASD. Students who are low functioning can perform lower than their same-age peers but when they are compared with peers with the same IQ levels, their verbal working memory performance is similar. In some cases, psychologists have observed weaknesses in verbal working memory. However, this is likely the result of having to visually scan material to pick out the relevant information, rather than a working memory deficit per se. Studies of brain activity reveal a very interesting pattern. When a child with ASD is presented with two tasks and has to focus on one while ignoring the other distracting task, their brain activity reveals that they do not actually shift their attention to the more important information. They have a difficult time determining what information is important. In the classroom, some students with ASD might appear to struggle with certain memory-heavy activities. However, this may be connected to their difficulty in knowing what they should focus on, rather than poor working memory.
*Alloway et al (2009). Journal of Learning Disabilities READ
The 3Rs: reading, writing, and arithmetic. We all remember going to school and trying to memorize spelling words and our times tables, to write a coherent paragraph and to calculate our long division. But for some students, this clearly isn’t enough. Despite the focus on the 3Rs why do we still see so many students diagnosed with learning disabilities? Furthermore, why do these students fail to improve after one-to-one instruction or tutoring?
In a recent study that I conducted, I looked at a group of students from 8 to 11 years with learning difficulties. All the students were receiving extra educational support, like tutoring and special classes. I tested their IQ, working memory, and also looked at their grades in the 3 Rs. These students received special tutoring in small groups for the next two years. Yet, when I saw these students two years later, there were still performing at the bottom of the class! Their learning outcomes had not improved, they were still struggling. Except now they were becoming more frustrated because of their learning difficulties and this was manifesting itself as behavior problems, including truancy.
What happened to these students? Why didn’t they show any improvement?
I found that it was their working memory scores, but NOT their IQ, that determined their grades. If they had poor working memory, they struggled in reading, writing, and math. It didn’t even matter what their IQ was. Working memory was the critical skill linked to their learning.
What does this mean? Simply, that focusing on teaching reading and math isn’t enough. That ‘hard work’ without focusing on working memory is just hard work. That drilling the 3Rs without improving working memory is like entering a bike race with flat tires. This is not to say that the 3Rs are unimportant. They are! Even a child with the high working memory needs to learn the 3Rs to do well in school and life. However, if we don’t develop working memory skills, the 3Rs won’t make a difference.
*TP Alloway (2009) European Journal of Psychological Assessments. READ
I was recently invited to share my research on BBC Radio. Here are some details on the programme from the BBC website:
IQ TESTING
IQ testing has long been a controversial way of measuring intelligence, but now there are claims that there’s another, more accurate method of predicting academic success: working memory, or the capacity we have to learn. Dr Tracy Alloway, whose recent experiments showed that testing working memory predicted children’s grades more accurately than traditional IQ, speaks up for working memory. LISTEN
There is exciting research emerging on the benefit of brain training. The question is: what works? Is it enough to memorize numbers in backwards order? Previous research outlines programs where students remember number sequences for a few weeks. Although improvements in working memory were reported, there are clear limitations. Most notably, there was no transfer effect: training working memory did not improve academic attainment. This leads to the possibility that some brain training programs are just ‘training for the test’, which means you are just getting better at playing the training games.
In order to address this issue, I recently conducted a clinical trial with two groups of students: the Training group participated in a working memory training program (www.JungleMemory.com) and the Control group received targeted educational support (IEP). The two groups did not differ in their IQ, working memory, or academic scores pre-training.
Both the Training and the Control groups underwent 8-weeks of their respective training programs and then were retested on the IQ, working memory, and academic tests.
The results were dramatic. The Control group did not perform much better without intervention, and in some instances they performed even worse in math and working memory.
In contrast, the Training group demonstrated a clear improvement not only in IQ and working memory tests, but crucially in learning outcomes as well. Students on the working memory training program went from a C to a B, or a B to an A after just 8 weeks of training! This is an exciting step in demonstrating that the right brain training can significantly boost academic attainment.
There is often a greater number of dyslexics in English-speaking countries compared to countries like China, Japan, and even Spain and Italy. Why do we see this difference across countries?
The answer can be found by looking at one cause of dyslexia: a difficulty in processing and remembering the sounds of phonemes. English is a particularly complex language and one that has been described as ‘orthographically nontransparent’. This means that the phonemes do not always have the same sounds. Languages like English that are not ‘transparent’ give rise to greater difficulties in reading.
In contrast, other language such as Spanish and Italian are orthographically transparent and it is easy to match the letter with the correct sound. Languages, such as Chinese or Japanese (Kanji), that use characters require greater use of visual memory, rather than verbal memory skills.
Brain imaging studies have found dyslexics in different languages (English, French and Italian) all showed the same brain deficits involving difficulty in processing verbal information.
Some might suggest that the differences in the education system across countries lead to higher rates of dyslexia in some countries. However, studies that have looked at bilingual children have found that they can struggle in reading in one language (usually English), yet be excellent readers in another language (such as Chinese or Spanish).
Dyslexia (also referred to as ‘specific reading disability’) affects around 10% to 15% of children. One size does not fit all when describing dyslexia and different students might manifest quite distinct reading problems.
Type 1: PHONOLOGICAL DYSLEXIA
Try reading these words out aloud:
WOOGLEMIT, BLAZNAK, CRIXGO
Students with Phonological Dyslexia have difficulty sounding out nonsense words, like those you just read out, as well as ‘regular’ real words, like FRIEND or BECAUSE.
However, they can recognize irregular words (ENOUGH, YACHT) on paper.
Why? Students with Phonological Dyslexia have very poor verbal (auditory) working memory and they struggle with remembering the sequence of information that is presented out aloud, such as instructions, new vocabulary words, and even names. Their poor verbal working memory means that they have a hard time saying verbal information that is new or unfamiliar to them. This can make them embarrassed to repeat information in front of others.
Type 2: SURFACE DYSLEXIA
These students have the opposite problem: they find it very difficult to recognize words when they are written down. They usually have poor visual working memory, which means that they struggle with reading. Students with Surface Dyslexia can even have difficulty reading words they regularly use in conversation because they can’t recognize written words very well or quickly.
Evidence from brain imaging supports the idea that these different types of dyslexia are the result of problems in different areas of the brain. Verbal (or ‘auditory’) working memory problems are associated with Phonological Dyslexia and visual working memory problems are linked to Surface Dyslexia.
The Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA) is a computer-based assessment of working memory skills, with a user-friendly interface. This culture-fair tool provides a practical and convenient way for educational professionals to screen individuals for significant working memory problems. It is standardized for use with individuals from early childhood (4 years) to adulthood (22 years). To date, it has been translated into over 15 languages.
BENEFITS
1. The AWMA is quick
The Screener version is made up of 2 tests (Listening Recall and Spatial Recall) and takes less than 10 minutes to administer. The automated presentation of tests and automatic generation of a report with standard scores and percentiles make it easy to use.
2. The AWMA provides standard scores that identify students with a deficit
The AWMA is highly effective in identifying students at risk. In my own research, I have used the AWMA in a recent study to screen over 4000 students. The majority of those with poor working memory (identified using the AWMA) scored poorly on attainment measures (such as the WIAT and BPVS). Scores on the AWMA reliably identify those who need extra support in the classroom, as well as those who take longer to process information.
3. The AWMA is reliable and valid
Test reliability refers to the consistency with which a test can accurately measure what it aims to do. If an individual’s performance remains consistent over repeated trials, it is considered to be reliable. The test-retest coefficients for the AWMA are high, indicating a consistency in measuring working memory skills. These coefficients are reported in the AWMA manual.
Test validity of the AWMA was established by comparing performance to the Working Memory Index in the WISC. The findings demonstrate that the AWMA is a valid test of working memory.
4. The AWMA has been used in many published articles in high-quality peer-reviewed journals, linking working memory to learning.
The AWMA is a well-established test in assessing working memory. Published research confirms that those with low scores on the AWMA score below-average in learning outcomes and take much longer to process information.
To find out more about the AWMA, a free demo and research articles, click here.
The WISC is a standardized assessment of cognitive abilities in children aged 6 to 16 years and revised versions include the Working Memory Index.
DIGIT SPAN
The Digit Span test is a highly validated method of measuring aspects of working memory capacity, and is fast and reliable to administer. However, the method of combining forward digit span with backward digit span scores conflates verbal short-term memory and verbal working memory. This can artificially raise a student’s working memory score as they may do well on the forward digit span subtest, yet struggle in the backward digit span subtest.
LETTER-NUMBER SEQUENCING
This subtest draws heavily on the student’s knowledge of basic number skills and the alphabet. Students may perform poorly on this subtest, not because they have working memory problems, but because they struggle in remembering the alphabet or numbers in the correct sequence.
ARITHMETIC
The supplementary test, arithmetic, can also be calculated into the Working Memory Index. However, it is not clear that this test genuinely provides a direct measure of working memory measure, although it certainly would be expected that children with poor working memory would be slow to develop the necessary mathematical knowledge to support good levels of performance on this test. It is therefore not recommended that arithmetic test scores are interpreted as direct assessments of working memory.
There are other limitations to the Working Memory Index. One practical drawback is that the WISC-IV is cannot be used with children below 6 years. Another is the heavy reliance on verbal information. This raises the possibility that a student who has particular problems in handling verbal information mentally may perform at low levels on these tests simply because of the format of the material, and not because of working memory problems. For example, students who fail to develop language struggle greatly on these kinds of memory test that involve spoken language, but perform at entirely normal levels when the information that is being remembered is non-verbal - such as remembering a pattern in a grid or the location of an object on a screen. So although these children have substantial working memory problems, they are probably secondary rather than primary in nature, and they also have working memory strengths that would be undetected by administration of the WISC-IV.
Read more in Working memory and learning: A practical guide
The typical characteristics of students with poor working memory are as follows. They have normal social relationships with their peers, but are reserved in group situations in the classroom, in which they tend not to participate actively. Their academic progress is very slow, particularly in reading and maths. They struggle to meet the working memory demands of many classroom activities, and have particularly problems in remembering and following instructions, in coping with tasks that involve combining the storage of information with demanding mental processing, and in keeping track of their progress in complex tasks.
Teachers view the students as having poor attention span and being highly distractible, features that we suggest are consequences of the loss of information that is relevant to the ongoing task from working memory, resulting in task failure and loss of focus.
While these characteristics typify the majority of students with working memory problems, they are not on their own sufficient for a definitive ‘diagnosis’. Reduced working memory capacity is not the only cause of many of these classroom difficulties, although there is growing evidence that it is the most common one.
Some students can have a broader constellation of cognitive problems of which reduced working memory capacity is only one. Several relatively common developmental disorders in which working memory is impaired, including language impairment, dyslexia, ADHD, and developmental coordination disorder (dyspraxia). Importantly, these disorders have distinct working memory strengths and weaknesses that impact academic attainment.
Clear identification of working memory problems and their underlying causes is therefore a priority, and a range of methods has now been developed to support the assessment of working memory in children. I will discuss different assessments in next week’s blog.
Excerpt taken from Working memory and learning: A practical guide.
