Home >Documents >The-relationship-between-short-term-memory-working-memory-and-phonological-awareness-in-primary-school-children-and-the-impact-of-utilising-different...
1. Introduction 1.1 Learning to read and write Why do some children have difficulties learning to read yet some do not? This hugely debated question has been at the forefront of literacy investigations for many years. Children and adults who learn to read must discover how to decipher the symbols of their written language. English speakers learn an alphabetic script. Learning which written symbols represent the particular sounds of that script and translating this symbol into a letter-sound (grapheme-phoneme) conversion. With repeated exposure to words they build up a bank of words (vocabulary) which becomes so familiar that they are able to bypass the mechanics of grapheme- phoneme conversion, until they encounter an unfamiliar word (Pascoe, Stackhouse & Wells, 2006). However, they still retain the phonological route for unfamiliar word identification. Stage models of literacy development have guided us towards understanding how children learn to read and why some children struggle. Frith’s (1985) developmental model which proposes three stages of typical literacy acquisition: Stage 1: The logographic phase: A visual phase whereby children recognise familiar words such as their name or “STOP” on a road sign. They may be able to write their name at this stage but they may not have made a connection between the sound and the letters of words. They recognise the visual gestalt or whole word not necessarily the individual letters. Stage 2: The alphabetic phase: Children can apply letter-sound rules to decode new words. They are now able to recognise individual sounds or segments in words and then try to blend them together to make a word. At this stage it is often possible to decipher what a child is trying to write even though the spelling may not be correct, e.g., /cat/ may be written with a /k/ as the child does not yet know the conventions of English spelling. Stage 3: The orthographic phase: The child now has the conventions of English orthography and is able to recognise larger chunks of words. Children start to increase their phonological awareness skills, e.g., /sh/ at the end of the word 1
Transcript
1. Introduction
1.1 Learning to read and write
Why do some children have difficulties learning to read yet some do not? This
hugely debated question has been at the forefront of literacy investigations for
many years.
Children and adults who learn to read must discover how to decipher the
symbols of their written language. English speakers learn an alphabetic script.
Learning which written symbols represent the particular sounds of that script and
translating this symbol into a letter-sound (grapheme-phoneme) conversion. With
repeated exposure to words they build up a bank of words (vocabulary) which
becomes so familiar that they are able to bypass the mechanics of grapheme-
phoneme conversion, until they encounter an unfamiliar word (Pascoe, Stackhouse
& Wells, 2006). However, they still retain the phonological route for unfamiliar
word identification.
Stage models of literacy development have guided us towards
understanding how children learn to read and why some children struggle. Frith’s
(1985) developmental model which proposes three stages of typical literacy
acquisition:
Stage 1: The logographic phase: A visual phase whereby children recognise
familiar words such as their name or “STOP” on a road sign. They may be able to
write their name at this stage but they may not have made a connection between
the sound and the letters of words. They recognise the visual gestalt or whole
word not necessarily the individual letters.
Stage 2: The alphabetic phase: Children can apply letter-sound rules to
decode new words. They are now able to recognise individual sounds or segments
in words and then try to blend them together to make a word. At this stage it is
often possible to decipher what a child is trying to write even though the spelling
may not be correct, e.g., /cat/ may be written with a /k/ as the child does not
yet know the conventions of English spelling.
Stage 3:The orthographic phase: The child now has the conventions of English
orthography and is able to recognise larger chunks of words. Children start to
increase their phonological awareness skills, e.g., /sh/ at the end of the word
1
/fish/ is not read as two separate letters with separate sounds but as one
phoneme /sh/.
1.2 How do we learn to read?
Ehri (1991, 2000) uses the earlier work of Chall (1983) to suggest four
stages of reading development in an alphabetic script. Smith (2005) slightly
modifies them to:
1) Pre-Alphabetic stage – also called Emergent stage, children learn the
basics about reading e.g., front to back, word by word, left to right etc.
2) Decoding or Alphabetic Stage – the link between specific grapheme and
phoneme elements is established e.g., sounding out /c/ /a/ /t/ to make /cat/.
3) Fluency stage – skills are built on and attention turns to larger units such
as recognising high frequency words like /the/ as well as word segments as a
single unit, e.g., –tion, -ing etc.
4) “Reading to learn” stage – skills of the previous stages are now automatic
and rapid. The focus is now on learning from what is being read and the process
of reading is secondary to the aim of reading.
To achieve this complex task of learning to read, research has
shown that two skills appear to be particularly important: memory and
phonological awareness skills. These skills are both critical and multidimensional.
They are also likely to be interconnected while their relationship to literacy
development changes over time. The research reported here focused on these two
components and compared performance of typically developing children1 on short
term memory, working memory and phonological awareness tasks across two
response modalities.
1.3 Short term memory (STM)
James (1890) proposed two different types of memory – primary
and secondary. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, the prominent
view was that of a single memory system. In 1949, Donald Hebb speculated that
there may be two types of memory, short term and long term, and this view was
supported by Brown (1958) in the UK and Peterson and Peterson (1959) in the USA.
Controversy over this ensued for many years with some researchers such as Melton 1 between ages 5;2 and 7;7
2
(1962) demonstrating that immediate serial recall of a string of digits (digit span
tasks) also had a long term component and suggested that there was no need to
divide short term and long term memory.
In 1968, Atkinson and Shiffrin introduced a sequence of three
stages in memory: Sensory memory (SM); Short-term memory (STM); Long-term
memory (LTM). Their model was the most influential of its time and was termed
the modal model which, as acknowledged by the authors, had some similarities to
an earlier model by Broadbent (1958).
Atkinson and Shiffrin’s view of memory was that the only way to
commit new material to long term memory was via the short-term store, through a
method of subvocal rehearsal, whereby an item is repeated over and over
subvocally. However, this view was questioned when patients with brain damage
appeared to have very poor short term memory even though their long term
memory remained unimpaired (Shallice and Warrington, 1970). By the early
1970’s, Atkinson and Shiffrin’s model was overshadowed by Craik and Lockhart’s
(1972) approach which related to levels of processing.
More recently, Baddeley (2007;7) states “The term STM continues
to be used to describe tasks in which the immediate recall of small amounts of
information is required with the term working memory being used to refer to a
broader system typically involving attentional control and allowing the
manipulation of information held in short-term storage.”
1.4 Working memory (WM)
An example of an everyday WM task includes remembering a telephone number
while dialling the number. Processes related to WM and STM have been among the
most researched cognitive processes in children with reading disabilities for the
past 30 years. (Swanson, Cooney & McNamara, 2004).
Baddeley and Hitch proposed a model of WM in 1974. It is
composed of three main components; the Central Executive and two main slave
systems known as the Phonological Loop and the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad. In 2000,
Baddeley added a third slave system to his model: the Episodic Buffer. Baddeley
(1996) holds that at the heart of the model lies the Central Executive, which is a
system responsible for a range of regulatory functions including attention, the
3
control of action, and problem solving. The Phonological Loop consists of a
phonological short-term store and a sub vocal rehearsal process (Baddeley, 1986).
The Visuo-spatial Sketchpad stores materials in terms of its visual or spatial
features. (Baddeley & Lieberman 1980; Logie, 1986). The Episodic Buffer is a
multidimensional representation system, capable of integrating temporary
representations from other cognitive systems including components of working
memory (Baddeley, 2000)
Figure 1: A schematic of Baddeley’s (2000) model:-
If we consider this model in memory in relation to literacy, it seems clear how all
of the components that make up this model may be active and interactive to help
a child towards literacy. A child looking at text uses long-term memory to
recognise familiar words and then the rate of reading increases, making a more
fluent reader. They must also remember the shapes of letters and how text is put
together when they write. They revert back to sound knowledge and other
phonological skills such as rhyming, phoneme segmentation and synthesis if they
do not recognise a word, at all times having to rely on their WM to assist them.
Swanson, Zheung, & Jerman (2009) examined research that
compared children with and without reading difficulties on measures of STM and
4
WM. The results indicated that the children with reading difficulties were
distinctly disadvantaged compared with average readers on:-
1) STM measure requiring the recall of phonemes and digit sequences and
2) WM measures requiring simultaneous processing and storage of digits within
sentence sequences and final words from unrelated sentences.
1.5 Phonological Awareness (PA)
Philips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan (2008;3) state that “regardless of other types
of language and cognitive difficulties, a problem in performing and applying
phonological awareness capabilities is at the core of most children’s reading
problems.” PA is the ability to detect and manipulate the sound structure of words
independent of their meaning. Dodd & Gillon (2001) propose that PA skills
phoneme awareness, phoneme segmentation and letter knowledge.
PA is an increasingly sophisticated capability that is highly
predictive of, and causally related to, children’s later ability to read (Ehri et al.,
2001). Anthony and Lonigan (2004;43) state “Current definitions of phonological
awareness can be considered on a continuum of generality from highly exclusive to
highly inclusive of different types of phonological skills.” PA skills include
phoneme identification, substitution, and deletion involving different sizes of
phonological units, syllable, intrasyllable and phonemic. These skills develop over
time and the ability to consciously reflect on phonemes, or phonemic awareness,
is a metalinguistic ability that develops alongside general metacognitive control
processes during middle childhood (Tunmer & Rohl, 1991).
There is considerable evidence showing that measures of
phonological awareness are good predictors of the ease with which children learn
to read (Hulme and Snowing 1994). It is important not to confuse PA and phonics.
PA is an ability that different children can possess in small or large amounts and
phonics is a method of teaching reading that focuses on the associations of letter
sounds with printed letters or groups of letters. A child who has strong
phonological awareness skills benefits more from phonics instruction (Phillips et
al., 2008).
5
It is also important to distinguish between PA and phonemic
awareness. Phillips et al., (2008) suggest that PA represents a range of
manipulation and detection skills across different sizes of sound units. Phonemic
awareness, however, specifically refers to the ability to manipulate and detect the
smallest sound pieces in words, the phonemes (e.g. /b/, /s/ and /th/ are all
phonemes). Goswami & Bryant (1990) argue that during the preschool and early
school years, children progress through three levels of PA, from awareness of
syllables to awareness of onsets and rimes and finally to phoneme awareness.
Therefore, this research focused on this latter level of phoneme awareness.
1.6 Why do some children have difficulty learning to read?
This is not a question that can be easily answered. Research has shown that some
children struggle in developing phonological awareness and working memory skills
and these deficits are known to impact on their ability to learn to decode. The
most vulnerable group seem to be children with language difficulties, and
assessing these children is not always easy or straightforward. A particularly
challenging group are children with severe speech and physical impairments.
There are many tools to measure WM and PA in speaking children. However, these
tools rely on spoken response and for children with speech impairments, this
response mode may be unavailable. When assessing this client group tools may
need to be adapted e.g. providing a visual aid such as a number grid. If they are
adapted it is important to be certain that the measure achieved is comparable to
the measure achieved from typically developing children.
1.7 Summary of key points
• Some children learn to read easily and some do not.
• Children need PA and WM skills to develop the ability to decode.
• Baddeley’s (2000) memory model is very useful when examining
literacy acquisition. It illustrates how important the connections
between the different components are.
6
• PA is a good indicator of typically developing children’s future reading
ability.
• PA encompasses skills such as syllable segmentation, rhyme awareness,
alliteration awareness, phoneme awareness, phoneme segmentation and
letter knowledge.
• There is a phonological component to working memory that may be
crucial to the acquisition of language abilities in children.
• An appropriate test of STM is a range of tasks such as digit span.
• Children with severe speech and physical impairments are vulnerable to
difficulties in learning to read and write.
• Children with SSPI cannot always respond verbally and therefore they
are more difficult to assess.
These findings lead me towards my research questions which are:
1) Do children who have good working memory skills also have good
phonological awareness skills?
2) Is the performance of children on short term and working memory
tasks affected by the mode of response – verbal or pointing?
7
2. Methodology
2.1 Aims of Study
The aims of this study are:
(i) To explore the relationship between scores on short term, working
memory and phonological awareness tasks in children between the
ages of 5;2 and 7;7.
(ii) To compare the scores achieved on short term and working memory
tasks using different modes of response:-
(a) verbal response
(b) pointing response
The hypothesis is that a participant who achieves a high score in working memory
tasks also achieves a high score in phonological awareness tasks. This study will
also assess the extent to which the results are influenced by the participants’ age.
2.2 Study Design
This research is a quasi-experimental design. It involves investigating correlations
between a range of measures:-
(1) Phonological awareness (PA) and age.
(2) Short term memory (STM) and age.
(3) Working memory (WM) and age.
(4) Short term memory (STM) and Working memory (WM).
(5) Short term memory (STM) and Phonological awareness (PA).
(6) Phonological Awareness (PA) and Working memory (WM).
8
(7) Phoneme Identification (PAI) and age.
(8) Phoneme Substitution (PAS) and age.
(9) Phoneme Deletion (PAD) and age.
It involves quantitatively comparing sets of scores between performance:
(1) STM scores achieved using verbal and pointing
responses.
(2) WM scores achieved using verbal and pointing responses.
Due to restrictions on time and resources, the sample size of this study was small,
with 20 participants. Small samples are more likely to show signs of bias and may
not be representative of the population as a whole. (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007).
Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES: The scores of STM and WM tasks and PA tasks.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: The different methods of response (verbal and
pointing), and the children’s age.
2.3 Participants
The participants in this study were twenty children from a co-educational primary
school. The researcher visited the school to meet with the school principal and
provided her with an information sheet. Written consent was obtained from the
Board of Management and the Principal (Appendix B) and from the Parents
(Appendix C) of the children involved. The children were in Junior (n= 3) and
Senior infants (n=12) and 1st Class (n=5) with a mean age of 6;55 (SD= 0.74 range
5;2 – 7;7). All participants spoke English as their first language and were identified
by their class teacher as having no significant learning disabilities, no significant
speech or language impairments, no significant reading difficulties and corrected
hearing and vision within the normal range.
9
Table 1: Research participants characteristics
Date sampled Child ID Age Class Gender11th June 2010 CH1 5;2 Junior Infants Female11th June 2010 CH2 5;3 Junior Infants Female11th June 2010 CH3 5;7 Junior Infants Male10th June 2010 CH4 6;0 Senior Infants Male10th June 2010 CH5 6;0 Senior Infants Female10th June 2010 CH6 6;2 Senior Infants Male10th June 2010 CH7 6;2 Senior Infants Female9th June 2010 CH8 6;5 Senior Infants Female9th June 2010 CH9 6;6 Senior infants Female9th June 2010 CH10 6;6 Senior Infants Female9th June 2010 CH11 6;6 Senior infants Female8th June 2010 CH12 6;6 Senior Infants Female8th June 2010 CH13 6;9 Senior Infants Male8th June 2010 CH14 7;1 Senior Infants Female8th June 2010 CH15 7;1 1st Class Male7th June 2010 CH16 7;3 1st Class Female7th June 2010 CH17 7;5 1st Class Male7th June 2010 CH18 7;7 1st Class Male7th June 2010 CH19 7;7 1st Class Male7th June 2010 CH20 7;7 1st Class Male
2.4 Materials
The materials in this study for digit recall verbal response (DRV) and phonological
awareness (PA) were taken from CELF4–UK(Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2006) and for
digit recall pointing response(DRP) from a larger cross linguistic study of working
memory and aided communication. (Smith, Dahlgren Sandberg & Larsson, 2009)
2.4.1 Digit recall forwards with verbal response (DRFV):
The child must verbally repeat digits in order, after listening to numbers
presented orally by the tester.
10
2.4.2 Digit recall backwards with verbal response (DRBV):
The child must verbally repeat in reverse order, after listening to numbers
presented orally by the tester.
2.4.3 Digit recall forwards with pointing response (DRFP):
The child must point to a grid of numbers in order, after listening to numbers
presented orally by the tester.
2.4.4 Digit recall backwards with pointing response (DRBP):
The child must point to a grid of numbers in reverse order, after listening to
numbers presented orally by tester.
2.4.5 Phonological Awareness (PA):
In the CELF4–UK(Semel et al., 2006) the PA subtest consists of 17 tasks, each of
which have specific directions for administration and trial items. Six of these tasks
were appropriate for this age range:
1) Initial phoneme identification (PAI)
2) Medial phoneme identification (PAI)
3) Final phoneme identification (PAI)
4) Initial phoneme substitution (PAS)
5) Final phoneme substitution (PAS)
6) Initial phoneme deletion (PA)
2.5 Procedures
Each child was seen individually in a single session by the researcher in a quiet
room in the school for approximately 30 minutes and completed tasks – DRV, DRP
and PA which were broken down into their subtests.
2.5.1 Digit recall forwards with verbal response (DRFV)
Instructions from CELF 4–UK(Semel et al., 2006) were given to each child.
11
2.5.2 Digit recall backwards with verbal response (DRBV)
Instructions from CELF 4–UK(Semel et al., 2006) were given to each child.
2.5.3 Digit recall forwards with pointing response (DRFP)
In these tasks the participants were introduced to a number grid (Appendix F)
Instructions were given to each child (Appendix G).
2.5.4 Digit recall backwards with pointing response (DRBP)
Instructions were given to each child (Appendix G).
After these tasks the researcher gave the participants a few minutes break and
following this said: “Now we are going to do some letter activities, are you
ready?”
2.5.5 Phonological Awareness Tasks (PA)
For each of these tasks instructions from CELF 4-UK (Semel et al., 2006) were
given to each child.
2.5.5.1 Phoneme Identification (PAI)
i) Initial Phoneme Identification (PAI)
ii) Medial phoneme identification (PAI)
iii) Final phoneme identification (PAI)
2.5.5.2 Phoneme substitution (PAS)
i) Initial phoneme substitution (PAS)
ii) Final phoneme substitution (PAS)
2.5.5.3 Phoneme deletion (PAD)
i) Initial phoneme deletion (PA)
12
2.6 Evidence of Reliability
The reliability of a test rests on the accuracy, consistency and stability of test
scores across situations (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It refers to consistent scores
derived with the theoretical concept of repeatedly testing the same participant on
the same test under identical conditions. As this can never be fully achieved, in
practice several estimates of reliability are obtained. Multiple measures of
reliability are reported for the CELF4-UK (Semel et al., 2006).
2.7 Reliability of Scoring
As data was entered into SPSS it was possible to check the scores of the variables
against each other by combining different scores, allowing the researcher to check
the calculations.
2.8 Data analysis
The SPSS (Version 18) was used to analyse the data. Given the small sample size
and the fact that normal distribution could not be assumed, non-parametric tests
(two-tailed) were used, with significance set at 1% level for most analyses, and at
5% for the correlation analyse.
3. Results
The focus of the study reported here was on comparing the performance of
typically developing children on STM, WM and PA skills across two response modes.
The extent to which the results were influenced by the participants’ age was also
examined.
13
3.1 Short-term memory, Working memory, phonological awareness and the
influence of age.
In order to explore the relationship between scores on short term, working
memory and phonological awareness tasks in children between the ages of 5;2 and
7;7, the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was conducted. It is a non-
parametric measure of the strength and direction of association that exists
between two variables measured on at least one ordinal scale. (Gravetter &
Wallnau, 2007) In this instance, the test was used for ordinal variables as they had
failed the assumptions necessary for conducting the Pearson’s product-moment
correlation. An alpha level of .05 and .01 were used for all statistical tests.
As shown in Table 3, age was correlated with WM and robustly correlated with PA,
however, there was no correlation between age and performance on STM (r=0.314,
p=0.177). STM was significantly correlated with PA (r=0.604, p=0.005) but not with
WM (r=0.151, p=0.333). WM was significantly correlated with age, and PA
(r=0.557, p=0.11) but not with STM.
As shown in Table 4, age was robustly correlated with all PA skills including
phoneme identification, phoneme substitution and phoneme deletion.
14
Table 3: Patterns of correlation across skill areas of short term memory, working memory, phonological awareness tasks and age:-
Age Short-term Working Phonological memory memory Awareness
The means and standard deviations of the PA tasks are found in Table 5:
A second focus reported here was on the impact of using two different response
modes – verbal and pointing.
3.3 STM and WM tasks
In order to compare the scores achieved on STM and WM using different response
modes - verbal and pointing, within-group comparisons were conducted.
15
Table 7: The means and standard deviations of STM and WM tasks using
different response modes – verbal and pointing.
Mode of response
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation
STM Verbal 20 4 10 7.60 1.729
Pointing 20 2 12 6.40 1.984
WM Verbal 20 1 6 3.35 1.137
Pointing 20 2 9 3.65 1.631
STMVerbal and Pointing
20 6 22 14 3.387
WM Verbal and Pointing
20 3 15 7 2.555
Table 5: Means and standard deviations of Phonological Awareness tasks.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
phonological
awareness
20 4 30 22.10 6.265
phonological
awareness –
phoneme
identification
20 4 15 13.10 2.634
phonological
awareness -
phoneme
substitution
20 0 10 6.25 2.845
phonological
awareness -
phoneme deletion
20 0 5 2.75 1.482
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test is the non-parametric equivalent to the dependent
t-test. It is used to compare two sets of scores that come from the same
participants. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test does not assume normality in the
data therefore, it can be used when this assumption has been violated and the use
of dependent t-test is inappropriate (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007).
3.2.1 Short term memory
Fifteen children achieved higher scores on STM tasks using a verbal response.
Three children’s scores were lower using a pointing response and two children
16
achieved the same score on both verbal and pointing responses. These results
indicate using a verbal response is significantly easier (z=-2.796, p=0.05) than
using a pointing response.
3.2.2 Working memory
Scores on WM tasks using a verbal response were compared to scores on the same
tasks using a pointing response. Nine children achieved higher scores on WM tasks
using a pointing response. Five children achieved lower scores on the same tasks
using a verbal response and six children achieved the same scores on both verbal
and pointing responses. Wilcoxon analysis suggests scores of WM tasks were not
affected by the mode of response – pointing or verbal (z=-1.064, p=.287).
3.2.3 Short term memory and Working memory
Scores on STM tasks were compared to WM tasks. All of the children scored higher
on STM tasks than on WM tasks. The results of the Wilcoxon analysis suggest that
STM tasks were significantly easier than WM tasks (z=-3.929, p=.0.000).
3.3 Summary of Findings
The key questions explored in this research are:-
1) Do children who have good WM skills also have good PA skills?
Correlation analyses using the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient were
conducted and the key findings to this first question are:-
a) Children who have good WM skills also have good PA skills.
b) Children who have good STM skills also have good PA skills.
c) WM scores and PA skills improve with age.
d) STM scores do not improve with age.
17
e) There is no correlation between WM and STM.
f) The children found STM tasks easier than WM tasks.
A second question in this research is?
2) Is the performance of children on STM and WM tasks affected by the
mode of response – verbal or pointing?
The following are the key findings in relation to this second question:-
a) There was no significant difference on the children’s scores on
the WM tasks, using either mode of response – verbal
and pointing.
b) On STM tasks the children found it significantly more difficult to use a
pointing response than a verbal response.
4. Discussion
4.1 Introduction
18
In this study short term memory(STM) and working memory(WM) were measured
via digit recall span tasks, “in which children are given increasingly long sequences
of digits to repeat back to the experimenter following a short delay.” (Goswami,
2000;257). The difference in scores on these tasks as well as the Phonological
awareness (PA) tasks, will be discussed in light of the different theories about
memory and PA as mentioned in the introduction. The findings from both STM and
WM tasks using different response modes, verbal and pointing, will be explored
and explanations with reference to the results will be offered. The limitations of
this research will be discussed, in addition to clinical implications and future
research.
4.2 Short term memory
In this research, STM scores were significantly higher than WM scores. The STM
tasks (digit recall) did not require the participant to process information, only to
repeat it back in the same format. However, in the WM tasks (digit recall
backwards) the participant was required to hold and then process information
before repeating it back.
There was no correlation between STM scores and age. However,
consideration should be given to the different response modes used in this task.
The mean score for the STM tasks using verbal response was higher (mean 7.6)
than the mean scores for the STM tasks using pointing response (mean 6.4). When
a pointing mode of response was used to measure STM, the children had to
recognise the numbers on the grid in front of them, as well as hold the numbers
they had just heard in their mind. It is possible that all of this additional
processing may have interfered and made the task more complex. With this in
mind, it must be questioned whether STM was actually being measured when the
mode of response was pointing as opposed to WM. This would therefore imply that
scores for STM using pointing response were in fact, not what they appeared to be
and, may explain why there was no correlation with age.
4.3 Working memory
The hypothesis that children who have good WM also have good PA skills has been
supported in the results of this research. It is already known that PA skills help
19
children towards word identification and that WM is important not just for word
identification but also for reading comprehension.
In this research, the PA skills assessed were phoneme
identification, substitution and deletion. There may have been an element of WM
involved in the PA tasks set out in this research, as they required the holding and
processing of information. For example, in the final phoneme identification task,
the children were asked to tell the researcher the sound they heard at the end of
the word /big/. To do this they needed to hold that word in memory and then
process it and respond with the sound /g/. Therefore, it may be considered that
these tasks involved WM as well as PA skills and would explain why the scores
correlated with each other.
There was no correlation between STM and WM scores. This
provides evidence that STM processes and PA skills may be processed by different
components as discussed in Baddeley’s (2000) multi-component model. Alloway et
al., (2005;418) state “The distinction between the phonological loop and
phonological awareness is particularly important, as it bears directly on current
debates concerning the close association between these two measures.” Bowey,
(1996) suggests that phonological memory and awareness measures tap a common
underlying phonological processing component. However, Gathercole, Willis &
Baddeley, (1991) say that although both these measures are constrained by the
efficiency of phonological processing, they reflect distinct cognitive systems.
Snowling, Hulme, Smith & Thomas, (1994) found that chronological
age was a significant predictor of sound categorisation and memory span
performance and this current research found that similarly, WM and PA skills
improved as age increased. Oakhill and Kyle (2000) found there was no increase in
reading, sentence span, phoneme deletion tasks, word span and sound
categorisation tasks scores as age increased. However, their participants were
from the same year group. In this current study the children were between the
ages of 5;2 and 7;7 and therefore their scores in the PA and WM tasks increased
with their age.
There was no significant difference on the children’s scores on the
WM tasks using either mode of response – verbal and pointing. As discussed earlier,
WM tasks involve holding and processing information and consideration has already
20
been given to the characteristics of the different response modes - verbal and
pointing, and the effect they may have had on the tasks. Unlike the STM tasks, it
appears that the WM tasks were difficult for the children and therefore the
response mode did not appear to make a difference to them.
4.4 Phonological awareness
The results of the PA tasks showed that as the age of the children increased so too
did the scores on phoneme identification, substitution and deletion.
Dodd & Gillon (2001;140) state “Most children are unable to
perform phonemic awareness tasks before exposure to writing”. Even the youngest
children in this research had been exposed to writing as they had completed their
first year of school. If the research had been conducted at the start of the
academic year with children who had just entered the primary school curriculum
there may not have been such a strong correlation between age and PA skills.
4.5 Limitations of study
All participants in this study spoke English as their first language and were
identified by their class teacher as having no significant learning disabilities, no
significant speech or language impairments, no significant reading difficulties and
corrected hearing and vision within the normal range. However, a standardised
test such as the BPVS (Dunn et al., 1997) would have indicated their level of
receptive language and would have corroborated the teacher’s selection.
This study was conducted on a small sample of twenty children, so
may not be representative of the population as a whole. Therefore, the results of
this study should be interpreted with caution. In the participating school, all of
the children attend small classes with a maximum of 14 pupils in each age group
and, two classes being taught simultaneously in one room e.g. Junior and Senior
Infants. This may have a positive or negative effect on the children.
This research was conducted at the end of the academic year
during June and understandably the children may have been excited at the
prospect of the long Summer holidays approaching. This may have had an impact
on the children’s scores in the assessments and should be acknowledged as
another limitation.
21
4.6 Clinical Implications
The correlation between WM and PA, as shown in the results of this
research, surmise the question of whether PA intervention may improve WM skills
and vice versa. Research has already shown that PA intervention improves early
literacy skills and if WM intervention is incorporated into PA intervention then
perhaps this may further help the a child who may be struggling to read.
As discussed earlier, the children in this study were not affected by
the mode of response on the WM tasks. There was no significant difference
between the children’s scores using either mode of response – verbal or pointing.
Therefore, with these results in mind, if children with severe speech and physical
impairment (SSPI) are unable to use natural speech and must rely on the response
mode of pointing during assessment, future research on WM using these tools may
be deemed a proper measure of the working memory of children with SSPI.
4.7 Future Research
Future research might include the use of word span tasks as opposed to digit recall
tasks and their correlation with PA skills. Similarly, other areas of PA could be
included in future research such as rhyme and alliteration, segmenting and these
could be correlated with further WM tasks. Effectively, an extension of this study
is suggested. Perhaps comparing the scores between children at ages four, eight
and twelve years of age might be a consideration for future research, and a larger
sample would negate the limitations of this current study.
4.8 Summary/Conclusion
The aims of this research were to explore the relationship between scores on short
term, working memory and phonological awareness tasks in children between the
ages of 5;2 and 7;7 and to compare the scores achieved on short term and working
memory tasks using different modes of response - verbal and pointing.
22
The hypothesis that a participant who achieved a high score in
working memory tasks also achieved a high score in phonological awareness tasks
was supported. This study also assessed the extent to which the results were
influenced by the participant’s age and showed that age influenced the children’s
PA and WM however, there was no such relationship with age and STM.
In relation to mode of response, the STM scores indicated that the
children found it significantly more difficult to use a pointing response than a
verbal response. On the WM tasks the children were unaffected by the response
mode, and the children found the WM tasks more difficult than the STM tasks.
These findings were explored and explanations with reference to
the results were offered. The limitations of this research were examined, as well
as clinical implications and it is hoped that this current research has added to the
database of knowledge in the essential areas of literacy acquisition.
Bibliography
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23
Alloway, T., Gathercole, S., Adams, A-M., Willis, C., Eaglen, R., & Lamont, E. (2005). Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals as school entry. British journal of Development Psychology, 23, 417-426.
Anthony, J.L. & Lonigan, C.J. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 96, No. 1, 43-55.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Atkinson, R.C.; Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). "Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In The psychology of learning and motivation, Volume 2. (eds. K.W. Spence, J.T. Spence). New York: Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (4) 417-422.
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Human Memory, theory and practice. MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5 -
28.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R.S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp.521-539). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ball, E.W. (1997). Phonological awareness: Implications for whole language and emergent literacy programs. Topics of Language Disorders, 17 (3), 14-26.
Ball, E.W. & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (1) 49-66.
Blachman, B.A. (2000). Chapter: Phonological Awareness. In Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 111. (eds: M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
24
Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.
Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 12-21.
Bruce, D.J. (1964). The analysis of word sounds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 158-170.
Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Romanò, M. (2005). Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Volume 91, (1) 45-66.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels or processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal behaviour, 11, 671-684.
Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P.A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 561-583.
Dahlgren Sandberg, A. (2001). Reading and Spelling, Phonological Awareness and working memory in children with severe speech impairments: A longitudinal study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, (1) 11.
Dodd, B. & Gillon, G. (2001) Exploring the Relationship between Phonological Awareness, Speech Impairment, and Literacy. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,3:2,139-147.
Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B.,Teitzel, T., & Ozanne, A. (2000). Preschool and Primary School Inventory of Phonological Awareness. UK: The Psychological Corporation Ltd.
Ehri, L.C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: two sides of a coin. Topics of Language Disorders, 20 (3), 19-36.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., YaghoubZadeh, Z., Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic Awareness instruction helps children to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.
Frith, U. (1985). Chapter: Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In Surface Dyslexia (eds: K. Patterson, J. Marshall & M. Coltheart). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gathercole, Susan, E. & Baddeley, Alan, D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children. A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200-213.
25
Gathercole, Susan, E. & Baddeley, Alan. D. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336-360.
Gathercole, Susan, E., & Pickering, Susan, J. (1999). Assessment of working memory in six and seven year old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 92, No 2, Pages 377-390.
Gillon, G.T. (2004). Phonological Awareness. From research to practice. NY, USA: The Guildford Press.
Goswami, U. (2000). Chapter: Phonological and Lexical Processes. In Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 111. (eds: M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Goswami, U. and Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2007). Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. London: Thomson Wadsworth.
Hebb, D.O. (1949). Organisation of behaviour. New York: Wiley.
Hulme, C. and Snowling, M. (1994). Reading Development and Dyslexia. UK:London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Leather, C.V. & Henry, L.A. (1994). Working memory Span and Phonological Awareness Tasks as Predictors of early reading ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 88-111.
Logie, R. H. (1986). Visuo-spatial processing in working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 38A, 229-247.
Lonigan, C.J. (2003). Development and promotion of emergent literacy skills in preschool children at risk of reading difficulties. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. York: Timonium, MD.
Mann, V.A., & Liberman, I.Y. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory: Can they presage early reading problems? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592-599.
McDougall, S., Hulme, C., Ellis, A., & Monk, A. (1994). Learning to read: The role of Short term memory and phonological skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 112-133.
26
Pascoe, M., Stackhouse, J. & Wells, B. (2006). Persisting speech difficulties in children. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Peterson, L.R. & Peterson, M.J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198.
Pumfrey, P.D. & Reason, R. (1991). Specific learning difficulties: Challenges and responses. Berks, UK: N-FER-Nelson.
Phillips, Beth, M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Lonigan, C.J. (2008) Successful Phonological Awareness instruction with Preschool children: Lessons from the Classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Austin: May 2008. Vol. 28, Iss. 1; 3.
Semel,E.,Wiig, E., Secord, W. (2006) Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed). UK: Harcourt Assessment.
Shallice, T. & Warrington, E.K. (1970). Independent functioning of verbal memory stores: A neuropsychological study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 261-273.
Singer, B. (1995). Written language development and disorders: Selected principles, patterns and intervention possibilities. Topics of Language Disorders, 16 (1), 83-98.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1999). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C., Smith, A., & Thomas, J. (1994). The effects of phonetic similarity and list length on children’s sound categorization performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 160-180.
Smith, M., Dahlgren Sandberg, A. & Larsson, M. (2009). Reading and spelling in children with severe and physical impairments: a comparative study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 44,6,864-882.
Smith, M. (2005). Literacy and Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc.
Swanson, H. Lee, Zheung, Xinhua, Jerman, Olga. (2009). Working Memory, Short-Term Memory, and reading disabilities – a selective meta analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Volume 42, (3), 260-287
Swanson, H. L., Cooney, J. B., & McNamara, J.K. (2004). Memory and learning disabilities. In B. Y. Wong (Ed.), Understanding Learning Disabilities (3rded ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Taibo, M.L.G., Iglesias, P.V., del Salvador, M., Raposo, G., & Mendez, M.S. (2010). An Exploratory study of phonological awareness and working memory differences
27
and literacy performance in people who use AAC. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, Vol. 13, 2, 538-556.
Tunmer, W.E., & Rohl, M. (1991). Phonological Awareness and reading acquisition. In D. Sawyer & B. Fox (eds), Phonological Awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Ethical Approval
Appendix B: Consent letter - School Principal
Appendix C: Consent letter – Parents
Appendix D: Consent letter – Parents
Appendix E: Participant Information Sheet
Appendix F: Number grid
28
Appendix G: Instructions for STM and WM tasks with pointing response
Appendix A: Ethics Approval
Applicant: Martine Smith
Project Title: Remembering symbols: Validating a symbol span task
The Research Ethics Committee has looked at your application and approved it, subject to minor amendments which are listed below. We would be grateful if you could forward an electronic copy of the revised version to [email protected], using yellow highlighting on the amended text.
We would also be grateful for 2 hardcopies for our records, to be sent Dara at SLSCS.
The time involved for the participant
29
It would be helpful if you could mention in the application form (section 2.4) that the tasks will involve a single 20min session per child.
Consent Form/Participant Information LeafletNo need to include the template top page.
Consent FormThe wording on this form should be in the 1st person.
Child’s assent: Could you possibly include some lines that clarify that, in addition to parental consent, the child’s assent (and right to withdraw) is explicitly stated. The suggested text might run a follows:
“In school, my child will also be asked whether he/she wishes to do the task. Should he/she child not want to do the task, or wish to withdraw at any point, this will be respected.”
In Paragraph 4 please reword: “any information or data that we obtain from you, which can be identified with you, will be treated confidentially” as,“any information or data obtained from my child, which can be identified with my child, will be treated confidentially”
Appendix B: Consent letter – School Principal
Dear
I am writing to you about a research project I am undertaking to compare children’s working memory for numbers, written sentences and picture symbols. Working memory has a strong relationship with reading and spelling, but it is difficult to measure working memory in children with poor reading and spelling abilities, if they also have speech difficulties. Our goal is to develop a task to measure working memory that bypasses the need for speech. A first step is to see
30
Martine Smith, PhD, Head of DepartmentTel: +353 1 896 2027 email: [email protected] Fax: +353 1 6712152
how well children with no difficulties perform on tasks measuring working memory for words, numbers and for picture symbols.
Our goal is to assess at least 10 children from each of three classes: Senior Infants, Second Class and Fourth Class. The assessments should take no more than 20 minutes for each child. Some of the tasks will be presented on a computer that we bring with us. I myself will be working with the children, and I will also have a student under my supervision, Katharine Bulbulia, who will see some of the children. Each child needs to be seen individually to complete the tasks, ideally in a quiet room in the school.
If you are willing to allow this project to take place within your school, I would be very grateful if you would look at the enclosed information leaflet and consent form. If you are happy with these forms and are willing to proceed, I will have the forms copied and delivered to you for distribution within the classes.
If there is anything you would like clarified about this project, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am enclosing a stamped addressed envelope for you to return to me, to let me know whether or not you are able to facilitate this project. I am aware that there are many demands on your time and that you receive many different requests of this nature. I greatly appreciate your time in reading this letter, and look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Martine Smith, PhDPrincipal Researcher
Appendix C: Consent letter – Parents
Katharine BulbuliaWest LodgeLodge Park
StraffanCounty Kildare
Dear Parents
Please find enclosed information about research for my final year project in Clinical Speech and Language Studies. Your child’s participation would be greatly appreciated and the data collected will be invaluable to my research in conjunction with Dr Martine Smith of Trinity College, Dublin.
31
Please could you return the consent form to the office before 18th June 2010. Should you require any further information do not hesitate to contact me on 087 2414556.
Kind regards
Katharine BulbuliaMegan (2nd class) and Miles (Senior Infants) Mum!
Appendix D: Consent form – Parents
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLINSCHOOL OF LINGUISTIC SPEECH AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
Consent Form to be returned to the office by 18th June 2010Remembering symbols: Validating a symbol span task
Principal investigator: Dr Martine Smith, PhD
I understand that I am invited to participate in this research project, carried out by DR MARTINE SMITH. My participation is voluntary. Even if I agree to allow my child participate now, I can withdraw permission at any time without consequences of any kind. In school, my child will also be asked whether s/he wishes to complete the tasks. Should s/he not wish to complete the tasks, or wishes to withdraw, this will be respected.
The study is designed to compare children’s working memory for numbers, written sentences and picture symbols. I have already received an information leaflet, giving more detailed information about the project.
32
If I agree to allow my child to participate, this will involve him/her completing some memory games for approximately 20 minutes during school. There is no direct benefit for me or my child from participating in this research. The research may help us to develop ways of examining working memory in children who have very poor reading and spelling.
Any information or data that is obtained from my child, which can be identified with him/her, will be treated confidentially. Consent forms will be held in the school until data collection is complete and will then be destroyed. Data from individual children will not include names or dates of birth. A number-letter code will be used to identify participants. The anonymized data will be stored on a password-protected computer. Although the data may be published or used for teaching purposes, it will not be possible to identify the school or any individual children.
(If you have any questions about this research please do not hesitate to contact me by phone (01 896 2027) or by email ([email protected])).
Signature of research participant’s guardian:I understand what is involved in this research and I agree to allow my child [NAME:_____________] [AGE ___yrs ___mths] to participate in the study. I have been given a copy of the Participant Information Leaflet
----------------------------------------- ----------------Signature of parent/guardian DateSignature of researcherI believe the participant is giving informed consent to participate in this study
------------------------------------------ ----------------------Signature of researcher
Appendix E: Participant Information Leaflet
Remembering symbols: Validating a symbol span taskPrincipal investigator: Dr Martine Smith, PhD
Clinical Speech and Language Studies, Trinity College.
What is the project about?Memory is important to all learning. Working memory is one part of our memory system. It is the part where we store information for a short time, while we try to work something out. For example, if you are trying to enter a new phone number into your mobile, you have to be able to hold the number in your working memory long enough to enter the details in your phone. Working memory is important in learning to read and to spell. The aim of this project is to compare how well children remember numbers, written sentences and picture symbols. This information will help us to develop ways of examining working memory in children who have very poor reading and spelling abilities.
Children who participate will be seen individually by the researcher, or by a research assistant who is under the supervision of the researcher. Each child will be asked to complete a number of memory games. Some of the memory games involve numbers, some written sentences and some use picture symbols. We want to see if children find the tasks equally difficult. Some of the tasks will be presented on a computer screen in PowerPoint. The sessions will last approximately 20 minutes. Although the games are interesting, some children may be bored or ask to return to class. If this happens, your child will be brought back to the classroom and the classroom teacher will be advised of what has happened.
Where will it happen?All the research will take place in the school, at a time that suits the school.
Who can be involved?All children in the class are invited to participate in this project. Children can only participate if there is a signed consent form. If children have any condition that means that they should not use a computer or view information on a computer screen, they should not participate in this project.
What if I change my mind?Your child’s participation is voluntary. If you change your mind and don’t want your child to be involved, your child will be withdrawn from the project and any information we have on your child will be destroyed. This project is not part of your child’s schoolwork, and your decision about participating will have no consequences for his or her schoolwork. Even if you have given permission for your child to participate, if he or she decides
Appendix E: Participant Information Leaflet
against participating, there will be no consequences of any kind for your child. Each chid will be asked at the start of each session if it is ok to go ahead with all the games.
What happens to the information?The only information we will seek about your child is his/her age in years and months, gender (i.e., male or female) and the score your child achieves in each type of memory task. The school will keep the signed consent forms for record purposes. Each participant will be given a code as an identifier (e.g., A1, B2, etc.). No names or dates of birth will be recorded, so that no child should be identifiable from the data. The data will be stored on a computer hard drive in accordance with Data Protection Guidelines. Although the information we get from this project may be published or used for teaching purposes, it will not be possible to identify the school or the children in any way.
Where can I get more information?
34
If you have any questions about this research you can ask me directly, either by phone (01 896 2027) or by email ([email protected]). You are also free to ask your child’s teacher, who can then get the information you need from me.
What do I do now?1. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me or Katharine Bulbulia (see below)
2.If you are willing to allow your child to participate, please see the consent form attached to this letter. This consent form must be signed by you and returned by 18th June 2010 to the school.
Contact information
Dr Martine SmithClinical Speech and Language Studies184 Pearse StreetTrinity College Dublin
