Dissertation EDUC 3805

Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation

1

A research project investigating

teachers’ knowledge of working

memory and assessing whether they

use interventions to support children’s

learning in the classroom.

Degree programme: Childhood Studies

Alicia Miri Fagelman

16th May 2014

Word Count: 10,792

Tutor: Sian Roberts

Student No: 200388117

EDUC 3805 Dissertation


2

Contents

Acknowledgements Page 4

Abstract Page 5

Introduction Page 6

Literature Review Page 8

Rationale for Research Page 19

Methodology (Participants, Research Methods and Procedure) 1

Ethical Considerations Page 25

Analysis and Discussion of Findings Page 27

Conclusion Page 39

Reflections of Methodology Page 43

Implications of Findings for Practice and Future Research Page 47

Bibliography Page 49

Appendices Page 58

Appendix 1- example of letter to head teachers Page 58

Appendix 2- example of consent form to teachers and head teachers Page 60

Appendix 3- example of information letter to teachers Page 61

Appendix 4- Vignette Page 63

Appendix 5- Semi-structured interview questions Page 64


3

Appendix 6- Key Page 66


4

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank all the teachers who participated in this research project. All

your responses in the interviews have been of value to the researcher. I would also

like to thank the head teachers for giving their approval and consent for me to

conduct research for my dissertation in their school.

I would finally like to thank my dissertation tutor for all her support and

encouragement throughout this year.


5

A research project investigating teachers’ knowledge of working memory and

assessing whether they use interventions to support children’s learning in the

classroom.

Abstract

Working memory plays a key role in children’s learning and academic attainment in

school (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). The aim of this research project is to

investigate teachers’ knowledge of working memory and find out whether they

implement classroom-based interventions or computerized training programmes to

support children’s working memory. Two primary schools agreed to take part in the

study; with a total of 8 participants from both schools (including 2 SENCO’s). A

vignette was first presented to participants to see whether teachers could identify

typical symptoms of poor working memory. Following this, the researcher conducted

a semi-structured interview to explore teachers’ perceptions of working memory and

assess whether teachers incorporated strategies to support struggling children in the

classroom. The data indicated that teachers in one school had more knowledge of

working memory than teachers in another school. In addition, teachers in one school

were implementing a wide-range of classroom-based interventions to support

children with poor working memory. However, no participants were aware of or using

computerized training programmes to help overcome difficulties in working memory.

The results indicate that teachers in England need more training in working memory

so they can implement appropriate strategies and improve outcomes for children

with special educational needs (SEN).


6

Introduction

“Working memory is the system that underlies the capacity to store and manipulate

information for brief periods of time” (Alloway et al., 2009:242). Working memory is

distinctively different to short-term memory (STM) as it involves both the processing

and storing of information, while the STM system temporarily stores information

within certain informational domains (Alloway et al., 2009). Differences in working

memory capacity vary between different children of the same age and therefore this

will cause different challenges for them (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). There are

many factors which impede on working memory such as distraction, holding

information in the mind for too long and engaging in demanding tasks (Gathercole

and Alloway, 2008).

Working memory is important in classroom learning as it is used to remember

instructions, problem-solve, read, and perform a range of complex activities

(Baddeley et al., 2009; Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). However, children with poor

working memory have a limited capacity to store information to complete tasks and

therefore find it difficult to follow lengthy instructions, or carry out complex activities

on a day to day basis. These challenges often lead to poor academic progress and

underachievement in school, particularly in numeracy and literacy (Gathercole and

Pickering, 2000; Gathercole et al., 2004).

The classroom-based working memory approach was developed by Gathercole

(2008) to increase teacher awareness poor working memory and help practitioners

reduce working memory load in lessons. This involves using visual aids, breaking

down tasks, repeating instructions and helping children develop their own strategies.

There is also evidence that computerized training programmes such as CogMed


7

increase attention and improve working memory capacity over a six week training

programme (Klingberg et al., 2005; Gathercole, 2008). However, there is limited

research to suggest that both interventions lead to long-term outcomes for boosting

children’s intelligence and academic attainment in school.

According to Alloway (2009), children’s working memory skills at 5 years old are the

best predictors of academic attainment 6 years later. This signifies that teachers

should have some understanding of working memory and how it impacts on learning

and behaviour. However, research by Alloway (2012) indicates that teachers have

poor knowledge of working memory and often misattribute signs of working memory

failure as ‘lacking motivation’ and ‘day dreaming’ (Gathercole et al., 2006). This can

be problematic as children with poor working memory are then less likely to be

assessed or given appropriate intervention, which can lead to poor outcomes and

opportunities.


8

Literature review

What is working memory?

The term ‘working memory’ is defined as a system which “temporarily stores and

manipulates information” for brief periods (Alloway, 2006:132). The concept of

working memory was developed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) who created a

multicomponent model outlining a system that underpins cognitive activities, mental

work and coherent thought (Baddeley et al., 2009). It explains complex processing

such as language acquisition, mental arithmetic and following directions (Gathercole

and Alloway, 2008). However, one of the limitations of working memory is that it has

limited capacity, which means that when there are high processing demands, it can

lead to the loss of information from this memory system (Alloway, 2006).

A brief history of memory models

The belief that the STM serves as a working memory was proposed by Atkinson and

Shiffrin (1968) who developed the modal model. This framework views the storage

and processing of information in simplistic terms (Baddeley et al., 2009). It describes

memory as an input/output system where information is processed from the

environment and flows through each memory system (sensory, short-term and long-

term store). The role of rehearsal is important for remembering information

(Baddeley et al., 2009). However, neuropsychological evidence shows that the

modal model is limiting as it does not account for patients who have a STM deficit

but are able to successfully perform in complex cognitive tasks (Shallice and

Warrington, 1970; Vallar and Shallice, 1990). This highlights why the STM store

shifted from a simplistic understanding to a multicomponent model.


9

The assumption that holding information in the STM would lead to effective learning

was criticised by Craik and Lockhart (1972). They proposed the levels of processing

approach which suggests that learning depends on the way information is processed

rather than the amount of time information is stored in the STM (Baddeley et al.,

2009). This means that incoming stimuli is processed at different levels such as a

shallow/structural level (the physical representation of a word), phonetic/phonemic

level (the sound of a word) and deep/semantic level (the meaning of a word) (Gross,

1987). In a study, Craik and Tulving (1975) presented words to participants and

asked one of four questions based on the levels of processing approach. Subjects

were then given an unexpected test of recognition. The results illustrated that

participants had significantly better recognition with deeper levels of processing. This

suggests that the level of processing approach is useful as it teaches effective

strategies of learning. On the other hand, it is a circular argument as any information

which is remembered is ‘deeply processed’. There is also no conclusive evidence to

show that semantic features are forgotten more slowly than physical features.

Nelson and Vining (1978) found that information which is learnt to the same standard

leads to the physical and semantic features being forgotten at the same rate. This

highlights a weakness in Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing theory.

Working memory model

During the 1970’s, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) created the working memory model

which recognised that the STM was not solely a storage system, but also had a

functional role in language development and complex cognitive activities. The multi-

component model is made up of: the central executive which is responsible for the

attention and storage of information; the phonological loop which deals with speech-

based information and acoustic stimuli; and the visuospatial sketchpad which holds


10

visual and spatial information for short periods of time (Henry, 2012). However,

there was later a concern with how these three components retrieve information from

the long-term memory. This led to the development of an additional component,

known as the episodic buffer, which acts as a link between the central executive and

long-term memory, so that information can be accessed during on-going memory

and processing tasks (Baddeley, 2000).

Poor working memory in the classroom

Observations on children in classrooms have highlighted a link between poor

working memory and difficulties in learning (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). Children

with poor working memory generally fail to meet memory demands and find it difficult

to keep focussed on a particular task (Alloway, 2006; Kane et al., 2007). Swanson

and Saez (2003) argue that the working memory provides a resource, known as the

episodic buffer which integrates knowledge from the long-term memory with

information in temporary storage. However, a child who has poor working memory

has limited capacity to retrieve information and carry out an activity, which they learnt

earlier on in the day (Gathercole, 2004). This is perhaps related to an attentional

resource limitation (Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). Another explanation is that

failing to store and manipulate information in the working memory, during classroom

activities, leads to disruption in the development of knowledge and skills over the

school years (Alloway, 2006). This may lead to large gaps in children’s learning

throughout their education (Alloway, 2006).

Research has shown that learning activities which pose heavy demands on the

working memory cause the short-term memory to become overloaded with

information (Alloway, 2006). This provides evidence to suggest that individuals may


11

struggle to complete a task or abandon it altogether. There are numerous signs of

working memory failure for teachers to recognise in classroom learning

environments. These include instances when children: forget lengthy instructions,

experience place-keeping errors such as missing out words in sentences or have

difficulty processing and storing information in structured learning activities

(Gathercole et al., 2006). This limits children’s learning and therefore puts them at

high risk of slow academic progress (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). Therefore, a

supportive environment which incorporates positive, directive teaching in the

classroom is an important factor which enables children with poor working memory

to process and carry out activities.

Underachieving in national curriculum subjects

Research suggests that there is an association between children with poor working

memory and underachievement in school (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008; Holmes et

al., 2010). Studies have shown that working memory is closely linked to children’s

learning and academic attainment in national curriculum assessments in reading,

maths and science (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000). Alloway et al. (2009) tested

300 children with poor working memory profiles and found that 75% of the 5-6 year

olds and 83% of the 9-10 year olds had difficulties in both reading and mathematics.

These results provide evidence that low attainment levels in national curriculum

subjects maybe linked to poor working memory. However, cognitive research

suggests that heightened levels of maths anxiety in children can influence the

working memory and therefore reduce students’ capacity to learn information

(Ashcraft and Krause, 2007).


12

In a study which used the Working Memory Battery Assessment, it was found that a

severe deficit in central executive functioning and visuo-spatial memory was

associated with poor performance in national curriculum subjects, including

vocabulary, language comprehension, reading and mathematics (Gathercole and

Pickering, 2000). This suggests that performance on measures of working memory

skills were useful predictors of identifying children who are at high risk of making

poor academic progress.

Working memory and developmental disorders

There is evidence that children with a developmental disorder such as Specific

Language Impairment (SLI) or Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) also

have a working memory problem (Holmes et al., 2010). In a study conducted by

Rajendran et al. (2009), researchers found different types of developmental

disorders were associated with different types of cognitive profiles linked to the

working memory. Specific language impairments were linked to deficits in verbal

STM and working memory, whereas children with attentional problems showed

impairments in both verbal and visuo-spatial areas. These results indicate why

children with SLI have difficulties developing language and vocabulary skills

(Archibald and Gathercole, 2006). The study also sheds light on the nature of ADHD,

which differs from a pure working memory deficit as it is associated with oppositional

and hyperactive behaviour (Alloway et al., 2008). Children with ADHD tend to

perform well in age-expected levels of short-term memory tasks such as forward

recall of letters and digits. However, children with a pure working memory problem

generally do not perform well in these tasks (Roodenrys, 2006). This highlights the

distinctiveness of ADHD which is characterised as an attentional and behavioural

issue in schools.


13

Classroom behaviour

In a study by Holmes et al. (2010) poor working memory was found to be associated

with inattentive and distractible behaviour in children. The participants were found to

have difficulties focussing attention on a particular task. Similarly, Aronen et al.

(2005) found that children with poor working memory had more academic and

attentional problems than children with typical working memory. In another study

which used the Conner’s Teaching Rating Scale; researchers found that practitioners

observed children with poor working memory to be inattentive and extremely

distractible. The results indicated that 70% of children aged 5-6 years, who had poor

working memory, had low scores on the cognitive problem/ inattention subscale of

the Conners’ checklist (Conners, 1997; Gathercole et al., 2008). This provides

evidence that problem behaviour in children with poor working memory is strongly

associated with inattention and short-attention spans (Gathercole et al., 2008).

Interventions

There is a large amount of evidence to show that working memory is fundamental to

learning (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000; Holmes et al., 2010; Gathercole et al.,

2004). Children who have working memory difficulties need to be identified and

supported through intervention work (Elliott et al., 2010). This can be in the form of

adapting the child’s learning environment or targeting and training the working

memory directly (Holmes, 2012).

Classroom-based working memory approach

Based on cognitive theory, Gathercole (2008) developed a classroom-based

approach to support children with working memory problems. This approach is


14

aimed at raising awareness of the warning signs of working memory failure. It also

emphasises the role of the teacher in adapting the environment to suit a child’s

learning needs and reduce working memory demands in the classroom (Holmes,

2012). Evidence suggests that early intervention is significantly important in

preventing the decline of children’s academic attainment in school (Alloway, 2006).

The recommended strategies include: recognising working memory failures,

monitoring the child, breaking down instructions using shorter sentences, repeating

important information, encouraging the use of memory aids such as charts, posters,

Numicon, cubes, counters, number lines and developing the child’s own strategies,

for example encouraging the child to ask for help; ensuring the child repeats back

instructions; note-taking, place-keeping and boosting confidence in children so that

they are motivated to complete complex tasks (Gathercole, 2008; Alloway, 2006).

This suggests that there are numerous ways for teachers to reduce memory-related

failure in class and improve the learning progress in children with poor working

memory (Elliott et al., 2010; Alloway, 2006).

Do classroom-based interventions work?

There is limited research about the effectiveness of classroom-based strategies.

Elliott et al. (2010) examined whether a classroom-based intervention approach and

training sessions for teachers could improve working memory and academic

performance in children. Participants were children with working memory difficulties

and they were assigned to one of three groups. In the first condition teachers took

part in a training programme which aimed to increase their awareness and

understanding of working memory problems. Then, practitioners were shown how to

make adjustments to their teaching in order to reduce memory load. They were also


15

taught how to encourage children to use strategies that would minimise cognitive

demands, such as rehearsal and note-taking. The second condition was a training

programme for teachers where they were given prepared booklets which outlined

behaviour approaches for direct instruction and precision teaching. This approach

was concerned with raising standards in language, reading and mathematics. The

third condition was a control group where staff received regular instruction, but there

was no additional support provided. The results of the study indicate that the

classroom-based approach and precision teaching did not improve children’s

working memory scores or academic performance (Elliott et al., 2010). This infers

that the two working memory interventions were not effective as there was no

significant outcome between the two conditions. However, classroom observations

showed that when teachers did provide ‘desirable’ strategies (within the three

groups), it was a good predictor of children’s academic attainment, for example

repetition was positively associated with improvement in reading comprehension

scores. In addition, teacher sensitivity, patience and practitioners’ understanding of

the nature of working memory difficulties were recognised as factors which

contributed to children’s ability to focus and perform in the classroom (Gathercole

and Alloway, 2008).

One of the limitations of the study was that it was more concerned with creating a

supportive environment for the children as opposed to explicitly training the working

memory. Another pitfall was that some of the teachers were already incorporating

these strategies as part of good classroom practice. This suggests that alternative

interventions may be needed to actively improve working memory, for example

physical activity or music training (Lee et al. 2007; Tomporowski et al., 2008).


16

Computer interventions

Robomemo is an example of a direct training programme, developed by CogMed,

which is designed to enhance working memory (Gathercole, 2008). Gathercole

(2008) suggests that in order for it to be effective, children must use this software for

35 minutes a day for 6 weeks. However, there is mixed research to show that

computer-based programs can overcome working memory problems; improve fluid

intelligence and academic performance (Klingberg, 2010; Holmes et al., 2009;

Shipstead et al., 2012). There is also debate in the literature as to whether there is

any evidence that CogMed training overcomes working memory problems such as

attention failure and following instructions in the classroom.

Benefits of computerized training programmes

There is data to suggest that working memory capacity can be affected by training

(Klingberg et al., 2005; Holmes et al., 2009). Klingberg et al. (2005) found that

children who participated in computerized training were able to follow more than one

instruction in a classroom activity, for example when the teacher said, ‘take the blue

pen and put it in the red box’. This highlights that the benefits of computerized

training on working memory capacity may be transferrable to other skills and tasks in

the classroom.

According to Holmes et al. (2009), computerized game environments have been

shown to improve working memory. In their study, children with poor working

memory were assessed on measures of working memory, IQ, and academic

attainment before and after training in an adaptive and non-adaptive computerized

programme. The results indicated that participants who engaged in an intensive

adaptive training programme for 35 minutes each day (for 6 weeks), showed


17

improved working memory scores during this period, and for a further 6 months post

training. It also enhanced attentional capacity and improved mathematical

performance 6 months after the training. This suggests that computerized game

environments can have a significant impact in improving academic skills in children,

specifically in individuals who do not meet the criteria of SEN. However,

improvement in subject attainment levels may take longer to take effect depending

on individual differences (Jaeggi et al., 2013).

Limitations of computerized training programmes

There have also been a number of critiques who have doubted the success of the

training effects. Melby-Lervag and Hulme (2013:272) describe computer-based

training as a method of repeatedly loading limited cognitive resources, which they

view as a “naïve physical energetic model”. Shipstead et al. (2012) claims that

CogMed training does not necessarily increase intelligence, improve attentional

control or relieve symptoms of ADHD. St-Clair Thompson et al. (2010) found

Memory Booster computer games made no improvements on tests assessing

reading, arithmetic or maths. One of the major pitfalls of memory training programs is

that they are likely to produce short-term, specific effects rather than general

improvements (Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). The key issue is whether improved

performance on CogMed tasks can be transferred to regular classroom-based

activities (Shipstead et al., 2012).

Teacher awareness of working memory

Working memory problems are often undetected in the classroom and misread by

teachers as poor behaviour or low motivation (Gathercole et al., 2008; Gathercole et

al., 2006). Such misattribution prevents many children with working memory


18

problems from being assessed and supported appropriately in the classroom, or

given the right intervention. Consequently, their condition progressively worsens

which leads to educational underachievement. It is therefore essential that teachers

recognise working memory problems in children and are equipped with the right tools

to provide classroom-based interventions (Gathercole, 2008).

To the author’s knowledge there is only one study by Alloway (2012) which assesses

teachers’ awareness of working memory and classroom behaviour. There were 14

teachers (permanent members of staff) from Scotland who participated in the study.

Each took part in a semi-structured interview which assessed their knowledge of

working memory. The study assessed teachers knowledge of working memory, to

see whether they used specific terminology such as ‘memory’ or ‘processing’,

recognise early warning signs of working memory deficits, and list strategies that

they used in the classroom to support pupils. In the second part of the study,

teachers were asked to identify pupils who showed negative classroom behaviour.

The data indicates some educational issues, that teachers had poor awareness of

working memory as only 25% of staff detected early warning signs of working

memory failure (Alloway, 2012). All teachers were unable to recognise working

memory and then support it which suggests why many children were making limited

academic progress in school. In addition, many children who teachers considered as

having troublesome behaviour also had working memory failure. This study indicates

that teachers have poor knowledge of working memory which means children are

less likely to be identified and screened, which can negatively impact on their

learning outcomes (Alloway, 2012).


19

Rationale for Research

The literature demonstrates that working memory failure impacts on children’s

learning, academic attainment and classroom functioning (Gathercole and Alloway,

2008; Gathercole and Pickering, 2000; Holmes et al., 2010). Research by

Gathercole and Alloway (2008) suggests that there are classroom-based strategies

to support children with poor working memory. In addition, there is some research

outlining the positive effects of computer interventions for improving children’s

working memory (Klingberg et al., 2005; Holmes et al., 2009).

Teachers’ knowledge of working memory determines whether children are identified,

screened and given appropriate interventions (Alloway, 2012). However, there has

been very limited research in this area which suggests there is a gap in the literature

around teachers’ knowledge of working memory and how it impacts on children’s

learning.

Therefore, this research project will build on existing literature of working memory,

specifically the study by Alloway (2012). The aim is to investigate teachers’

perceptions of working memory in two primary schools in Manchester and assess

whether teachers know about classroom-based interventions or computerized

training programmes to support children with poor working memory.

The literature has helped guide the researcher in addressing the following key topics

as research questions:

1. What is teachers’ knowledge of working memory?

2. Are teachers trained to spot the warning signs of working memory?


20

3. Are teachers using classroom-based interventions to support children’s

working memory?

4. Are teachers using computer-based interventions to support children’s

working memory?

5. How effective do teachers perceive these interventions to be for boosting

academic attainment?

6. Are teachers using alternative interventions to support children’s working

memory?


21

Methodology

The central aim of this research project was to investigate teachers’ perceptions of

working memory and find out whether they incorporate classroom-based

interventions or computerized training programmes to support children with poor

working memory.

Participants

A sample of 8 teachers (including 2 SENCO’s) from two primary schools in

Manchester volunteered to participate in this study. There were 4 participants from

each school who were interviewed. The head teachers recruited a spread of

teachers in the schools by sending out an email explaining the research project in

brief. Participants were permanent members of staff who were teaching different age

groups from Reception to Year 6. Some of the participants had been teaching for

over 25 years whereas others were newly qualified teachers (NQT).

There were two schools taking part in the research project. School A was a large,

Jewish Primary School, where almost all pupils were from White British heritage. The

proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals was below average, as was the

proportion of children with SEN and disabled pupils. The school achieved above the

current government’s floor standard in attainment and progression (OFSTED, 2012).

School B was an average-sized primary school, where the proportion of children

eligible for pupil premium was well-above average. The proportion of children who

had SEN or a disability (who are supported by school action plus or a statement)

was well-above average (OFSTED, 2013). In 2012 and 2013, many Year 6 pupils left

school with well-below national expectations in reading, writing and mathematics

(OFSTED, 2013).


22

Research Methods

The purpose of collecting qualitative data in this research project was to gain

detailed information about teachers’ perceptions of working memory and

interventions, where ideas and knowledge could be developed and expanded

through effective communication in an interview.

A vignette and a semi-structured interview were used to collect qualitative data from

the participants in this project. The vignette was a short, written description of a

young boy who had distinctive symptoms of working memory failure. The purpose of

using this research instrument was to provoke discussion on the topic and to enable

participants to reveal their thoughts and understanding about working memory, as

discussed by Arthur et al. (2012). A workshop by Gathercole (2011) influenced the

researcher to use a vignette in this project as it outlined symptoms of poor working

memory. This research tool enabled participants to give an account of their own

experiences teaching children with poor working memory by discussing some of the

issues in relation to the text.

The researcher adapted Alloway’s (2012) approach of collecting data which used a

semi-structured interview to assess teachers’ knowledge of classroom behaviour and

working memory. The purpose of using a semi-structured interview in this research

project was so the researcher could have a face to face conversation with

participants about working memory and interventions, where ideas and knowledge

could be developed and expanded through effective communication.

As discussed by Cohen et al. (2007), a semi-structured interview was more useful

than using a questionnaire when collecting qualitative data as it enabled participants

to express deep thoughts and understanding about working memory in relation to the


23

research questions being investigated. In addition, the instrument allowed the

researcher to prompt teachers so that they could be guided through the interview.

Cohen et al. (2007) suggests this research instrument helps establish a systematic

approach of collecting data as it allows all participants to respond to similar

questions around the same topic. The benefit of using open-ended questions in

research is discussed by DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) who suggest that

teachers are able to give in-depth, social and personal examples which provide rich,

qualitative data. In addition, the questions were not fixed which meant other ideas

emerged from the dialogue between the interviewer and interviewee adding value to

the data (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). However, a limitation of using this

research method is expressed by Cohen et al. (2007: 353) who argues that

interviewer flexibility in wording and sequencing of questions result in occasional

different responses, thus reducing comparability of responses.

Procedure

The researcher sent a letter to the head teacher from school A and B to find out

whether teachers in their school would be interested in taking part in a research

project about working memory. A meeting was then organised in both schools where

the head teacher was able to ask the researcher questions about the study. During

this time head teachers signed a consent form to say they agreed for their school to

take part in the research project.

Research questions were developed over a period of time which served as a

“guiding framework for the data collection and analysis” (Arthur et al., 2012:105).

These objectives formed the questions in the semi-structured interview. In other

words, research questions were designed to explore teachers’ understanding of


24

working memory, the training they had received, their use of classroom and

computer interventions to support working memory and the perceived benefits of

these. At the start of the investigation, participants from school A first read an

information letter and then signed a consent form which explained the ethical

proceedings of the study. Teachers were then asked to read a vignette which

described a boy with symptoms of working memory failure, which was adapted from

materials used in a workshop by Gathercole (2011). Participants were then asked to

describe some of the learning difficulties in the scenario. After, the researcher asked

the teachers 13 open-ended questions as part of a semi-structured interview.

Participants were also given prompts for each question to ensure they understood

what was being asked. The questions were not fixed which meant more ideas could

be discussed during the interview. It took approximately 20 minutes to carry out the

interview with each participant. Teachers’ responses were recorded using an audio

devise and were stored securely on a laptop. The recordings were then transcribed

onto Microsoft Word document. Once the interview was completed, the researcher

debriefed the participants and gave them an opportunity to ask any questions about

the study. The same proceedings were carried out in school B.


25

Ethical Considerations

An information letter was provided to participants and the head teacher in both

schools, which informed teachers and leadership staff about the nature of the

research project to ensure they were satisfied with the proceedings. Following this, a

consent form was read and signed by participants, and the head teachers which

enabled the teachers to participate in the research. Teachers were made aware that

they could withdraw from the investigation at any point during the interview. The

names of the schools and teachers were made anonymous and referred to as letters

of the alphabet so they could not be identifiable. The data in the investigation was

made strictly confidential as it was safely secured in a locked file on a laptop. All

participants were debriefed at the end of the interview and had the right to ask the

researcher questions.

Cohen et al. (2007) argues that communication between interviewer and interviewee

should be professional. This was demonstrated by the researcher’s approach when

speaking to the interviewees, to ensure there was no passing judgement. However,

as a student interviewing teachers, it was sometimes difficult to create equal power

and control between the interviewer and interviewees and thus it was important to

give respect to all participants taking part in the research project. In some

circumstances teachers expressed nerves at the start of the interview. Therefore, it

was important the researcher communicated in a calm manner to ensure the

interviewees felt relaxed. Although the researcher had a close relationship with

school A (being a former member of the school), it was important to treat all

participants from both schools equally to eliminate researcher bias, as documented

by Hiller and DiLuzio (2004) who state that over-rapport with participants can lead to

the unequal treatment of participants.


26

Teachers in the study had different levels of expertise; some qualified SENCO’s,

some who had 25 years teaching experience and others were NQT’S. This meant it

was essential that the researcher appreciated the different backgrounds and

teaching experiences of the participants in the project. However, some teachers

were more knowledgeable than others in the field of working memory such as

SENCO’s. Therefore, the use of prompts was helpful in clarifying any

misconceptions or misunderstandings during the interview.


27

Analysis and Discussion of Findings

The researcher transcribed teachers’ responses from an audio device onto a

Microsoft Word document. The quotes used in the analysis and discussion of

findings section have been extracted from the transcriptions and used to support

themes which have emerged from teachers’ responses to working memory and

interventions.

Teachers’ knowledge of working memory and its impact on learning

Teachers in school B had more knowledge and understanding about working

memory and how it impacts on children’s learning in the classroom, than teachers in

school A. The distinction between the two schools is that teachers in school A were

not familiar with the term ‘working memory’. However, the SENCO in school A had

good knowledge of working memory and was able to make the connection between

memory and learning, when she said, “It’s more to do with the short-term memory so

when the teachers are talking to them and they are giving them information and then

five minutes later they are saying I don’t understand and it is not going in”. This

suggests she understands working memory to be a processing issue, as has been

argued by Baddeley (2000).

However, most teachers in school A could not make the link between working

memory and learning in the classroom, which was evident in their responses to the

vignette. Participant A2 said, “It’s obviously got something to do with your memory

and what you can remember. I don’t know whether it relates to classroom learning or

in general”. Participant A3 said, “I have never come across working memory before”.

Only participant A1 and AS mentioned forgetting information as a possible warning


28

sign of a working memory failure. The data in school A supports Alloway (2012) who

found that teachers generally have poor knowledge of working memory.

However, in school B, all teachers interviewed and the SENCO had good knowledge

of working memory. Participant B2 recognised that children “find it hard to retain

information, struggle to remember what they need to do or write down”. Similarly, the

SENCO in school B said that the boy in the vignette “might not be able to process

the information and get it down on paper”. This suggests that the teachers in school

B recognise that children with poor working memory have a limited capacity to hold

information and this means they generally fail to meet memory demands in the

classroom because their working memory is overloaded. Therefore, teachers’

understanding of working memory and its role in classroom learning is in line with

research by Alloway (2006) and Gathercole (2004), who argue that high level

demands in the classroom reduce a person’s ability to process information and this

puts them at high risk of slow academic progress.

Most of the participants in school B recognised many of the warning signs of working

memory failure, which have been identified in the literature as: forgetting instructions,

place-keeping errors and difficulties processing and storing information (Gathercole

et al., 2006). This was evident when teachers spoke about their experience in the

classroom. Participant B2 explained that some children had “difficulties following

instructions that had more than 2 or 3 steps to it”. Participant B6 said, “When they

can’t remain on task and then leave it and don’t return to their work”. This implies

that the data from school B does not support previous research which claims that

teachers generally have poor knowledge of working memory and are unable to spot

the warning signs (Alloway, 2012).


29

Recognising underachievement in national curriculum subjects

The results indicate that it was mainly the SENCO’s in school A and B who made the

connection between working memory problems and underachievement in numeracy,

literacy and science. The SENCO in school B said, “Like in numeracy I say how we

going to do this and she will talk me through it, but when it comes down to it… she

doesn’t know if it is adding or subtraction. This is a classic working memory

problem”. The SENCO in school A states that children with poor working memory

may “attain but the chances are it will be of low ability because it will take much

longer”. The SENCO’s responses suggest children with a working memory deficit are

likely to make poor progress in school, as documented by Gathercole and Pickering

(2000) and Alloway et al. (2009).

There is a discrepancy between what the research says about poor working memory

and academic achievement and what participant B4 said. According to the literature,

children with poor working memory generally underachieve in school (Holmes et al.,

2010; Gathercole et al., 2004). Other studies indicate that a deficit in the central

executive and visual-spatial memory leads to poor performance in vocabulary,

language comprehension, reading and maths (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000).

However, participant B4 claims that some children with a working memory problem

perform better in one subject over another. She states, “I have a boy in my class who

is top in numeracy but next to bottom in Literacy…in numeracy he does it all in his

head and he’s usually right”. This suggests that some children with poor working

memory are academic. However, there is limited research on varying levels of

attainment in different subject areas in children with working memory impairments.


30

A more recent study illustrates that the development of mathematical learning in

young children is due to the performance of the central executive and phonological

loop (Meyer et al., 2010). Researchers also found that the visuo-spatial sketchpad

supports numeracy learning in later stages (Meyer et al., 2010). Therefore, this might

provide an explanation for why the young boy in her class performs so well in

numeracy even though he has been diagnosed with a working memory problem.

Working memory and behaviour

Another interesting finding discussed in the interview is about working memory and

behaviour. Participant B6 said, “I have a girl that does have a working memory

problem but she is really well behaved and tries to please you”. This idea contrasts

with the literature as Holmes et al. (2010) suggests that poor working memory is

associated with inattentive and distractible behaviour and Alloway (2012) found that

troublesome behaviours are highly associated with poor working memory. The

discrepancy between what the data in the interview says about working memory and

behaviour and what the research states means that we must acknowledge that the

effect of poor working memory varies in each individual (Gathercole and Alloway,

2008).

The role of the teacher and pupil attainment

The SENCO in school (A) makes a useful point about pupil attainment when she

states, “if a child has a poor working memory, it isn’t going to be a quick fix, it’s how

the teacher adapts her lessons”. She therefore puts emphasis on the role and

behaviour of the teacher to support individual learning. This is in line with the

research by Elliot et al., (2010) who found that when teachers implement classroom-

based strategies effectively, such as repeating information, it can improve scores in


31

reading comprehension. Similarly, participant B4, who was previously a SENCO,

recognises that it is the teacher’s role to implement strategies to support children

who underachieve. She says, “I think it affects them in their learning… it clearly does

if you have not implemented strategies to manage them… because then they

become lost… and then they acquire gaps in their learning… and then they are

slipping”. This implies that she makes a connection between poor working memory

and underachievement in school, a link which has been well-documented in previous

studies (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000; Gathercole et al., 2004). Participant B4

also recognises a need to incorporate classroom-based strategies such as “visual

cues, now and next cards and clear signals”, to prevent problems manifesting. This

suggests that the SENCO’s in this data recognise and incorporate the classroom-

based approach in order to improve learning outcomes for children with poor working

memory, which has been recommended by Gathercole, (2008) and Gathercole and

Alloway (2004).

Some of the teachers stated that they scaffold children’s learning to help boost their

confidence in a particular subject (Vygotsky, 1978). Participant B6 said, “I think it is

important to remove the steps so they can do it independently”. Similarly participant

AS said, “Generally it is how the teacher is teaching the child. It is scaffolding,

chunking”. This suggests that some teachers provide support until the child is self-

assured to carry out the task independently. This is an effective strategy to improve

children’s learning, as documented by Wood et al. (1976). However, the difficulty for

the children and teachers is that it is a slow process to boost attainment in

individuals who have a working memory problem.

Teacher training


32

The need for more training on working memory in school B is mentioned in the

interview when she said, “We are currently trying to organise some training from

Ladywood or the Ed Psych and we are in the process of getting the costing for it…

Even just to learn the strategies that our Ed Psych talks about is very good practice

for our children… even just breaking down tasks”. Participant B6 states that she has

been “given professional advice” about classroom-based interventions to support

these children in the classroom. Therefore, the data in school B infers that effective

communication between the SENCO, educational psychologist and the teachers

means there is greater awareness in the school to implement classroom-based

interventions which support children with poor working memory. This suggests in

School B, SEN is a whole school issue and therefore interventions to support

children with working memory problems is generally best dealt with at a whole school

level.

Both the current SENCO and the previous SENCO in school B had formal training on

working memory and classroom-based interventions which explains their high level

knowledge of the subject. Participant BS said, “We have an outreach school called

Ladywood… they deliver full training in the afternoon… a simple overview of 3

hours”. Participant B4 (previous SENCO) said, “I’ve done Elklan training. It’s an

intervention which is a Speech and Language Programme. One of them focusses on

working memory”. The data is in line with the research by Gathercole and Alloway

(2008) who suggest that teachers who have increased awareness and training on

working memory are more likely to spot early warning signs and provide more

effective classroom-based strategies to support children, for example breaking down

instructions, implementing visual aids and monitoring the child.


33

However, participants A3, A1 and A2 all had no formal training or staff meetings on

working memory. The SENCO had some training but said “it has been under the title

of children with moderate/severe learning difficulties”. She also recognises that there

are activities available for children which support working memory “but we are not

doing them”. This suggests why teachers in the school are not explicitly aware of the

strategies which support children’s working memory.

Knowledge and implementation of classroom interventions

The data in the interviews suggest that the teachers in school B have extensive

knowledge of classroom-based interventions and use a wide range of resources to

support children with SEN such as those suggested by Gathercole (2008) and

Alloway (2006). All the participants in school B said they incorporate classroom-

based interventions such as talking tins, alphabet maps, picture cues, mind maps

and word banks, breaking down instructions and note-taking to support children with

poor working memory. It appears that the reason for this was discussed by the

SENCO in school B when she said, “I would say 70% of the whole school who have

been assessed for SEN, have a working memory problem….I think it is because our

school have such a high SEN… that it is of concern”. This suggests that there are

many children in school B currently being assessed for poor working memory and

this is likely to influence teachers’ knowledge and implementation of interventions.

The effectiveness of classroom-based strategies

Teachers in school A do use strategies as part of good classroom practice.

Participant A1 said “You can give them a separate desk… keep everything visual…

a lot of visual prompts…simplifying language so you are not throwing too much out

there”. This is in line with the research by Elliott et al. (2010) who argues that


34

teachers implement strategies to support low achieving children as part of everyday

teaching.

However, the data suggests that most of teachers in school A would not be able to

recognise working memory and then support it in the classroom, as argued by

Alloway (2012). This is demonstrated in the participants’ responses to the vignette.

Participant A3 said, “ADD, ADHD. He could have Tourette’s as he is a disruptive

influence and shows a high level of distractibility”. Participant A1 said, “I had a child

that is similar to this scenario. He had a mixture of ASD and ADHD”. These

responses imply that when teachers have had no formal training on working

memory, they are less likely to spot the warning signs.

There is a discrepancy between what the research says about classroom-based

interventions and teachers’ perceptions of the strategies. Teachers in school B

perceive classroom-based strategies to be quite effective for children with poor

working memory, such as visual cues, simple instructions, now and next cards,

talking tin, monitoring the child, repeating information and working in small groups.

Participant B2 said, “Those Talking Tins are really good” and participant B4 said, “I

think they are more effective if you are working one: one or in a small group because

it is easier to monitor any support or intervention the child might need”. This

suggests teachers in school B are implementing the principles of the classroom-

based working memory approach as documented by Gathercole and Alloway (2008).

However, according to research it is important teachers allows pupils to practice

using memory aids and encourage them to use self-help strategies in order to

develop their learning opportunities (Alloway, 2006). Nevertheless, classroom-based

interventions are not “a long-term fix” for improving working memory as argued by


35

participant B4. This suggests changing the learning environment may not necessarily

improve children’s working memory or academic performance.

Moreover, in a study by Elliott et al. (2010), the findings suggest that classroom-

based interventions did not improve children’s working memory or academic

attainment. Though, participant B2 found them particularly helpful in keeping children

on task and developing their learning. This suggests there is a discrepancy between

what research says about the effects of classroom-based interventions and teachers’

perceptions of them.

There was some evidence in the literature that teachers who best applied strategies

in the classroom and who had good relationships with the children lead to pupil

academic gains (Elliott et al., 2010). This is supported by our findings as the SENCO

in school A said, “These classroom strategies can be effective but it is very

individual. It isn’t just the aid, it is how it is used, it is how confident the teacher is, it

is the classroom environment. You can have the best visuals, you can have

everything but it is grabbing that child at that moment”. Both the literature and the

data indicate that it is teachers’ responsibility to create an appropriate environment

which suits individual learning (Elliott et al., 2010; Holmes, 2012). Classroom-based

strategies can be beneficial for children, as perceived by the teachers in school B.

However, there is limited research to suggest that they improve educational

outcomes for children with poor working memory (Gathercole, 2008; Alloway 2006).

Teacher awareness of computerized training programmes

Teachers in school A and B had poor knowledge and awareness of computerized

training programmes such as CogMed, which are available for children with poor

working memory. One can speculate that this may be due to mixed data in the


36

studies which assess the effectiveness of these programmes (Gathercole, 2008;

Klingberg, 2010; Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013; Shipstead et al., 2012). Therefore,

we should not assume that teachers should know about CogMed when there is no

convincing evidence to suggest it improves working memory.

The data in the interviews indicate that none of the practitioners were using

programmes such as CogMed. Participants in school A and B were also unaware of

the possibility of training children’s working memory, as argued by Alloway (2012).

However, the SENCO in school A mentioned that children have access to IPAD’s

which creates a different ‘learning environment’ for them. This is in line with research

as Holmes (2012) argues that it is the role of the teacher to adapt the learning

environment to suit the child’s needs. The SENCO in school B stated that they have

“access to some computer software linked to reading programmes which increase

children’s confidence when looking at comprehension type questions…we have

something for maths called Mathletics”. This suggests school A and B use computer

interventions to boost attainment and confidence in low attaining children or

individuals with an SEN but not specifically for pupils with a working memory deficit.

Alternative interventions

Participant A2 mentioned learning journeys as an alternative teaching method for

meeting the needs of children. She said, “We are using leaning journeys… I

personally think they are absolutely fantastic because what you do is you think of

your lowest child… I have an autistic boy in the class… and I think of his level and

make the work pitched at him and then I think of my highest level and make it

pitched at them and you then fill in the gaps. So therefore hopefully every child’s

level is being met through a learning journey”. This suggests that differentiation is


37

used in school A to improve learning outcomes for children but not explicitly for

individuals with working memory impairment. Participant AS stated that “there are

lots of warm activities you can do in the morning such as physical activity, playing

games or listening to music to activate the memory”. This is in line with research by

Lee et al. (2007) and Tomporowski et al. (2008) who suggest that physical activity

and music training improves working memory.

Participant B6 said that she uses ‘pre-teaches’ (when a new topic is taught to help

children grasp the foundations). She said, “One of my girls who has poor working

memory has pre-teaches. This works quite well as it gives her a foundation when it

comes to the lesson… it’s only 15 minutes with a teaching assistant (TA)”. This

implies that school B provides both visual aids and personal support to children with

poor working memory.

The role of the teaching assistant

Both school A and B use a teaching assistant to support underachieving children in

the classroom. However, according to the SENCO in school A children with poor

working memory are not being supported “one: one but there are general ones”. She

then highlights that working memory is the teacher’s responsibility when she said, “I

actually think the working memory and making sure the child is engaged is the

teacher’s responsibility because having one: one and having someone repeating to

them all the time does not test the working memory”. Therefore, she puts more

emphasis on the role of the teacher for supporting children’s learning, which is in line

with research by Holmes (2012).

However, in school B teaching assistants provide children with one: one support on a

daily basis. The SENCO in school B said, “we do a lot of pre-teach… so the working


38

memory children will do work with the TA before the rest of the class have started so

they have a base to work on”. She also emphasises that it is about having “the right

body in the classroom”. These findings contrast with the data from school A, as

school B give TA’s more responsibility to implement strategies for children with poor

working memory.


39

Conclusion

The aim of this research project was to investigate teachers’ knowledge of working

memory and assess whether teachers use classroom-based interventions or

computerized training programmes to improve children’s working memory. Two

schools took part in this study and both had some knowledge of working memory

before the researcher carried out the investigation. All participants were presented

with a vignette (a profile of a child with typical symptoms of working memory) and

they then took part in a semi-structured interview to determine whether or not ideas

which the researcher studied on her degree in Childhood Studies were impacting on

professional practice.

One key finding in this research project was that teachers in school B had high level

knowledge of working memory as they referred to it as a memory and processing

issue, as documented by Baddeley (2000) and Gathercole and Alloway (2008).

Participants in school B also recognised that working memory failure impacts on

children’s learning and academic attainment which is discussed in the literature by

Gathercole and Pickering (2000) and Gathercole et al., (2004).

One possible reason for high level knowledge of working memory in school B was

because there are approximately 45% of children on the SEN register, of which a

high percentage of these children are reported to the educational psychologist

caseload and tested for poor working memory. Teachers in school B also

demonstrate that they have direct communication between the educational

psychologist, SENCO and other teachers about how to support these children using

quality classroom-based interventions. Because of this, and the way in which the

school deliver the majority of interventions, strategies to support these needs are


40

used throughout the school. This demonstrates that individual teachers’ knowledge

of working memory depend on school-level factors such as good communication

between all those involved in providing the support for these children, whether

children are routinely assessed for working memory problems and whether teachers

receive formal training in working memory. This infers that individual teachers may

be more likely to have good awareness and implement appropriate strategies.

Alloway (2012) has previously demonstrated that teachers have poor knowledge of

working memory. In school A, 3 out of 4 teachers who were interviewed had poor

knowledge and awareness of working memory. School-levels factors may have

contributed to this as only a small number of children in the school had been

assessed for working memory problems. In addition, none of the teachers (except

the SENCO) had formal training in the subject. This suggests that working memory

was not a major concern of the school which was reflected in teachers’ poor

knowledge. However, it was evident from the interviews that the majority of

classroom-based teachers were interested in learning more about working memory.

The SENCO’s in both schools displayed an in-depth knowledge of working memory.

This is supported by English (2012) who found that 62% of special education

teachers had more knowledge of working memory while only 38% of mainstream

teachers responded appropriately. This is possibly due to both their experience and

specialist training throughout their career. The differential highlights a knowledge gap

between SENCO and mainstream teachers’.

A second key finding in the present study was that teachers in school B were using a

wide-range of classroom-based interventions to support children’s working memory

such as visual aids, breaking down tasks, using simple instructions and pre-teaches


41

as documented by Gathercole and Alloway (2008). Participants in school B stated

that classroom-based interventions were useful and helped improve children’s

concentration and learning. However, Holmes (2012) argues that there is limited

research to suggest that these interventions lead to long-term improvements in

learning and academic performance.

Teachers in school A were not explicitly doing activities or incorporating

interventions to support children’s working memory. This suggests that children with

a working memory problem are at high risk of making limited academic progress in

school. Therefore, a combination of teachers’ poor knowledge of working memory

and lack of suitable interventions may significantly impact on children’s learning

trajectory.

Both schools recognised that it was the classroom environment which needed to be

adapted to ensure children’s learning needs were being met, which is highlighted in

a study by Elliott et al. (2010). However, teachers in school B, who had high level

knowledge of working memory and a deep understanding of quality strategies, are

more likely to apply their knowledge to create an effective learning environment to

support children with poor working memory. Elliott et al. (2010) argues that it is how

teachers relate to children in the classroom, for example being sensitive towards the

child’s needs and showing patience. This is supported by the Hay McBer Report

(DfEE, 2000) which investigated factors of teacher effectiveness. The report

indicates that it is the teaching skills known as “micro behaviours” which lead to

effective learning in the classroom. These include: reducing learning barriers, clear

communication, differentiating work and instilling high expectations in all pupils.

Therefore, teachers who understand children’s needs and have high level knowledge

of SEN (including working memory) are more likely to implement effective teaching


42

strategies and positive behaviour to support these children, which is documented in

educational policy as ‘effective teaching’ (DfEE, 2000).

A third key finding was that both schools were not using training programmes such

as CogMed to support children’s working memory. However, schools did use IPAD

games and computer software links such as “Mathletics” to help boost low attaining

pupils. Nevertheless, participants were unaware of the possibility of training

children’s working memory, which may be problematic if classroom-based

interventions fail, as documented by Elliott et al. (2010).

One reason why schools in this study were not using computerized training

programmes to support children’s working memory may be the lack of qualified staff

needed to run the programmes in school. According to websites such as

Pearsonclinical.co.uk, CogMed training needs to be supported by a training coach

who is required to have an annual license. This infers that classroom-based teachers

are unlikely to be qualified to work with a user on these programmes. Consequently,

schools need extra funding to employ a professional to run the training sessions.

Therefore, implementing CogMed training in schools can be difficult if there are

limited resources.

Another possible reason why schools were not investing in computerized training to

support children’s working memory may be the mixed research findings and a lack of

evidence to suggest that computer-based programmes overcome working memory

problems, and improve academic performance (KIingberg, 2010, Shipstead et al.,

2012; Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). Moreover, the difficulty of testing computer

interventions and their effectiveness on working memory is that the designs used are

costly and time-consuming (Gathercole et al., 2012).


43

A fourth finding in this research project was that participants disclosed alternative

interventions to support children in the classroom or specifically their working

memory. These include: music training, pre-teaches and learning journeys. These

are all examples of methods and teaching skills for improving working memory and

learning outcomes in children. However, the research suggests that to overcome

working memory problems is challenging and current interventions do not

necessarily lead to a long-term fix (Elliott et al., 2010; Jaeggi et al., 2013; Melby-

Lervag and Hulme, 2013).

Reflections on Methodology

The vignette was a useful tool to incorporate in this research project because it

allowed participants to reflect on a poor working memory profile. Arthur et al. (2012)

suggests that a vignette provokes discussion, in this case about working memory,

and reveals participants’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. It also informed the

researcher whether teachers could recognise typical symptoms of working memory

failure which have been outlined by Gathercole and Alloway (2008). Therefore, by

using a vignette the researcher could identify participants’ level of knowledge of

working memory.

One of the advantages of using a semi-structured interview in this research project

was that it provided the researcher with an in-depth experience about teachers’

perceptions of working memory, as Cohen et al. (2007) have argued, the benefits of

semi-structured interviews reveal and explore participants opinions and

understanding of a topic. Another benefit was the informality of the interviews which

were conducted in a discursive manner creating an effective environment for


44

participants to disclose personal information and express opinions about their

experience working with children who have working memory impairment.

Researchers argue that prompts can be effective as it gives the interviewer some

control over the direction of the interview (Hiller and DiLuzio, 2004). During the

investigation, the interviewer diverted the conversation in a different direction to allow

participants the opportunity to discuss new themes which helped form rich,

qualitative data. It was also important the researcher asked questions in a non-

judgemental way to ensure that the respondents felt comfortable and that their

responses were valued. However, on occasions, the researcher asked leading

questions to encourage teachers to reflect on important issues around working

memory. Barker et al. (2005) have argued that this style of interview should be

avoided as it can appear as interrogation which could make participants feel

uncomfortable. This highlights a weakness of the researcher’s approach when

asking questions to the participants.

One of the pitfalls of using a semi-structured interview was that all the data was

based on teachers’ self-report. According to Barker et al. (2005), this may create a

validity problem as the data was personal and subjective as opposed to objective

and evidence-based. This implies that participants may have expressed to the

researcher high level knowledge of working memory or exaggerated how they

supported low attaining pupils in the classroom. These responses may differ from

real life interactions between teachers and pupils in the classroom which suggests

that self-report data may be limiting. Therefore, we must be sensitive to the

possibilities for self-deception in interviews (Barker et al., 2005).


45

One way to overcome limitations of teacher self-report would be to use a multi-

method approach which incorporates an observation, semi-structured interview and

focus group. The advantage of using methodological triangulation is discussed by

Guion et al. (2011) who suggests that it allows the researcher to compare the

findings observed in the classroom with teachers’ responses in both interviews and

focus groups. If the conclusions are the same from each, the validity of the data is

enhanced. This approach would be beneficial as the data from the observations and

interviews would provide the researcher with a clearer understanding of the issues

around teachers’ perceptions of working memory and whether they implement

appropriate support and interventions in the classroom to support these children

(Guion et al., 2011). It would also highlight any discrepancies between what is

observed in the classroom and teachers’ responses in the interview and focus group.

Shacklock and Smyth (1998) address the importance of being reflexive in critical

education and social research, for example acknowledging that the researcher was

the only person extracting themes and making inferences about the findings.

Therefore, it is possible that someone else may have extracted different findings.

This means that the researcher had a significant role when conducting interviews

and collecting data.

Social interaction between the interviewer and interviewees helped develop

qualitative data. Shacklock and Smyth (1998) recognise this as researcher attributes.

For example, in the interviews the researcher built trust with the interviewees by

being an attentive listener and giving respect to teachers’ perspectives of working

memory in the classroom, as outlined by Hiller and DiLuzio (2004) who list positive

researcher characteristics. The researcher also showed curiosity to learn about

participants’ perceptions of working memory by asking teachers to reflect on their


46

own experiences in the classroom. Another researcher quality was developing a

natural conversation with teachers by using appropriate ‘teacher friendly’ language to

communicate. This approach enabled participants to feel at ease during the

interviews and which meant their responses naturally flowed during the interview.

Therefore, the characteristics of the researcher helped shape participants responses

to the questions (Shacklock and Smyth, 1998). However, Hiller and DiLuzio (2004:6)

point out that interviews should not be too informal or solely conversational but an

“asymmetrical encounter” established by the objectives of the researcher.

Some researchers argue that over-rapport with an interviewee can lack objectivity on

the part of the researcher which may lead to the unequal treatment of participants

(Hiller and DiLuzio, 2004). This may have occurred in some of the interviews as the

researcher had a close relationship with a couple of teachers in school A as she had

previously attended the school and had worked with two of the participants during

work experience. Therefore, positive or negative opinions about participants’

teaching styles may have influenced how the researcher related to some of the

teachers in school A. Hiller and DiLuzio’s (2004) argument suggests that previously

formed relationships between interviewer and interviewees may impact on how

participants respond to the interview questions. This is known as participant bias,

where subjects give socially desirable responses in order to meet what they believe

to be the expectations of the researcher. This highlights a limitation of the research

design as both schools were known to the researcher; with school A having a

particularly close relationship with the researcher. Therefore, one way to overcome

this limitation in future research would be to recruit schools that were unknown to the

researcher in order to eliminate or reduce the chances of confounding variables.


47

Implication of Findings for Practice and Future Research

The data in this study suggests that poor perceptions of working memory need to be

tackled through improved teacher training in England, for example addressing

‘working memory’ on the post graduate certificate in education (PGCE) curriculum.

This would enhance practitioners knowledge and understanding of working memory,

help them identify early warning signs, develop a clearer understanding of the effect

working memory has on academic attainment and classroom functioning, understand

children’s strengths and weakness in learning and implement appropriate strategies

in the classroom (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008; Alloway, 2006). As argued by

Alloway (2012) and Gathercole (2008), raising teacher awareness of working

memory is an important factor for increasing children’s chances of early screening

and training.

The data in school A indicates a need for improved communication between SENCO

and teachers, and everyone involved in meeting the needs of children with poor

working memory. This is essential as the government work towards inclusive

education in mainstream schools (DfEE, 1997). The Children and Families Bill

(2013) outlines the importance of communication in schools when it states that

SENCO’s must advise teachers about implementing differentiated teaching methods

and classroom-based interventions to support individual pupils with SEN. This is

known as removing barriers to achievement which builds on the reform Every Child

Matters (DfES, 2003). Government policy and legislation in England thus promotes

the belief that all children should be able to succeed at school. Therefore, better

communication between SENCO, teachers and all stakeholders would be a positive

step for improving outcomes in individuals with working memory impairment. This


48

supports the ecological model which suggests that an effective ‘microsystem’ in

school benefits children’s learning and development (Brofenbrenner, 1979).

Due to mixed evidence that computerized training programmes improves working

memory (Holmes et al., 2009; Shipstead et al., 2012), future research should focus

on developing a more robust and effective tool which helps ameliorate long-term

learning difficulties associated with working memory. Schools in England would

benefit from training SENCO’s to implement newly tested and improved

computerized interventions which have a successful evidence base for overcoming

working memory problems. This would enable children to use the software during

school hours to help enhance children’s classroom functioning and academic skills

as discussed in the literature by Holmes et al. (2009). Therefore, more effective

computerized interventions would be beneficial for improving children’s working

memory.

The findings in this research project suggest that more research needs to be

conducted in the area of teachers’ perceptions of working memory. Future research

should focus on finding out not only what teachers know about working memory but

what factors affect this.


49

Bibliography

Alloway, T.P. 2006. How does working memory work in the classroom? Educational

Research and Reviews. 1 (4), pp. 134-139.

Alloway, T.P. 2007. Automated Working Memory Assessment. London: Pearson

Assessment.

Alloway, T.P. 2009. Working memory, but not IQ, predicts subsequent learning in

children with learning difficulties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.

25(2), pp.92-98.

Alloway, T.P. 2012. Teachers’ perceptions of classroom behaviour and working

memory. Educational Research and Review. 7 (6), pp.138-142.

Alloway, T.P. et al. 2008. A comparison of sustained attention and behavioural

problems in children with ADHD and children with poor working memory. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Alloway, T.P. et al. 2009. The Cognitive and behavioural characteristics of children

with low working memory. Child Development. 80 (2), pp. 606-621.

Alloway, T.P. et al. 2009. The working memory rating scale: A classroom-based

behavioural assessment of working memory. Learning and Individual Differences.

19, pp.242-245.

Archibald, L.M.D. and Alloway, T.P. 2008. Comparing language profiles: Children

with specific language impairment and developmental coordination disorder.

International Journal of Communication and Language Disorders. 43, pp. 165-180.


50

Archibald, L.M.D. and Gathercole, S.E. 2006. Nonword repetition in specific

language impairment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 14, pp.919-924.

Archibald, L.M.D. and Gathercole, S.E. 2006. Short-term memory and working

memory Specific Language Impairment. In: Alloway, T.P and Gathercole, S.E. (eds).

Working memory and neurodevelopmental conditions. UK: Psychology Press, pp.

139-160.

Aronen, E.T. et al. 2005. Working memory, psychiatric symptoms, and academic

performance at school. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, pp.33-42.

Arthur, J. et al. 2012. Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ashcraft, M.H. and Krause, J.A. 2007. Working memory, maths performance and

math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 14 (2), pp.243-248.

Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffrin, R.M. 1968. Human Memory: a proposed system and its

control processes. In K.W. Spence, (ed). The Psychology of Learning and

Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press, pp.89-

195.

Baddeley, A.D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?

Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 4 (11), pp. 417-423.

Baddeley, A.D. and Hitch, G.J. 1974. Working memory. In G.A. Bower (Ed), Recent

Advances in Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 8, pp.47-89.

Baddeley, A.D. et al. 2009. Memory. New York: Psychology Press.


51

Barker, C. et al. 2005. Research Methods in Clinical Psychology: An introduction for

Students and Practitioners. London: Wiley and Sons.

Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by

nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

DfE. 2013. Children and Families Bill. London: HOM.

Cohen, L. et al. 2007. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Conners, K. 1997. Conners’ teacher rating scale revised short-form. New York: Multi-

Health Systems Inc.

Craik, F and Lockhart, R. 1972. Levels of Processing. Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behaviour. 11, pp. 671-684.

Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. 1975. Depth of Processing and the retention of words in

episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 104 (3), pp.268-

294.

DfE. 2013. Children and Families Bill. London: HM Government.

DfEE. 1997. Excellence for all children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London:

The Stationery Office.

DfES. 2003. Every Child Matters. London: The Stationery Office.

DiCicco-Bloom, B and Crabtree, B.F. 2006. The qualitative research interview.

Medical Education. 40 (4), pp.314-321.


52

Elliott, J.G. et al. 2010. An evaluation of a classroom-based intervention to help

overcome working memory difficulties and improve long-term academic

achievement. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 9 (3), pp.227-250.

English, M. 2012. An exploratory study into the effectiveness of an automated

assessment tool and software intervention for working memory. Ireland: Teaching

Council.

Gathercole, S.E. 2004. Working memory and classroom learning. Dyslexia Review.

15, pp.4-9.

Gathercole, S. E. 2008. Working memory in the classroom. The Psychologist. 21

(5), pp. 382-385.

Gathercole, S. E. 2011. Working memory in practice: Identifying and helping children

with working memory problems. Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. Pp. 1-38.

Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2003. Working memory assessment at school entry as

longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels. Educational and

Child Psychology. 20, pp.109-122.

Gathercole, S.E. and Alloway, T.P. 2004. Working memory and classroom learning.

Dyslexia Review. 15, pp. 4-9.

Gathercole, S.E. and Alloway, T.P. 2008. Working memory and learning: A practical

guide for teachers. London: Sage.

Gathercole, S.E. and Baddeley, A.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, pp. 200-213.


53

Gathercole, S.E. and Pickering, S.J. 2000. Assessment of working memory in six

and seven- year old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 92, pp.377-

390.

Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2004. Working memory skills and educational attainment:

Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied

Cognitive Psychology. 18 (1), pp.1-16.

Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2006. Working memory in the classroom. In: Pickering, S. ed.

Working memory and education. London: Elsevier Press, pp.219-240.

Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2008. Attentional and executive function behaviours of

children with poor working memory. Learning and individual differences. 18, pp.214-

223.

Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2012. Cogmed training: Let’s be realistic about intervention

research. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 1, pp.201-203.

Gross, R.D. 1987. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodder

& Stoughton.

Guion, L.A. et al. 2011. Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies.

FCS6014.

Henry, L. 2012. The Development of Working Memory in Children. London: SAGE

publications Ltd.

Hay McBer Group. 2000. Research into the effectiveness: a model of teacher

effectiveness. London: HMSO.


54

Hiller, H.H. and DiLuzio, L. 2004. The Interviewee and the Research Interview:

Analysing a neglected Dimension in Research. Canadian Review of Sociology. 41

(1), pp.1-26.

Holmes, J. 2012. Working memory and learning difficulties. Dyslexia Review. Pp.7-

10.

Holmes, J. et al. 2009. Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor

working memory in children. Developmental Science. 12 (4), pp.F9-F15.

Holmes, J. et al. 2009. Working memory deficits can be overcome: impacts of

training and medication on working memory in children with ADHD. Applied

Cognitive Psychology. 24(6), pp.827-836.

Holmes, J. et al. 2010. Poor working memory: Impact and Interventions. In: Holmes,

J. ed. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour. Burlington: Academic Press,

pp. 1-43.

Jaeggi, S.M. et al. 2013. The role of individual differences in cognitive training and

transfer. Memory and Cognition. Pp.1-17.

Kane, M.J. et al. 2007. For whom the mind wanders, and when: an experience-

sampling study of working memory and executive control in daily life. Psychological

Science. 18, pp. 614-621.

Klingberg, T. 2010. Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences. 14 (7), pp.317-324.


55

Klingberg, T. et al. 2005. Computerized training of working memory in children with

ADHD- A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and

Adolescent Psychiatry. 44, pp.177-186.

Lee, Y. et al. 2007. Effects of skill training on working memory capacity. Learning

and Instruction. 17, pp.336-344.

Melby-Lervag, M and Hulme, C. 2013. Is working memory training effective? A meta-

analytic review. Developmental Psychology. 49(2), pp.270-291.

Meyer, M.L. et al. 2010. Differential contribution of specific working memory

components to mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders. Learning and

Individual differences. 20(2), pp.101-109.

Nelson, T.O. and Vining, S.K. 1978. Effect of semantic versus structural processing

on long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and

Memory. 4 (3), pp. 198.

OFSTED. 2012. King David Primary School Inspection report. Manchester:

OFSTED.

OFSTED. 2013. Castle Hill Primary School Inspection report. Manchester: OFSTED.

Pearson Clinical. 2014. CogMed Working Memory Training: An evidence-based

intervention for improved working memory. [Online]. [Accessed 24 th April 2014].

Available from:

http://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/Education/BestsellingInterventions/Cogmed/Resour

ces/Cogmed-Factsheet.pdf.

http://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/Education/BestsellingInterventions/Cogmed/Resources/Cogmed-Factsheet.pdf

http://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/Education/BestsellingInterventions/Cogmed/Resources/Cogmed-Factsheet.pdf


56

Rajendran, G. et al. 2009. Working memory in children with developmental

disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 42 (4), pp.372-382.

Roller, M. 2012. Interviewer Bias and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. [Online].

[Accessed 24th April 2014]. Available from:

http://researchdesignreview.com/2012/11/14/interviewer-bias-reflexivity-in-

qualitative-research/.

Roodenrys, S. 2006. Working memory function in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder. In: Alloway, T.P. and Gathercole, S.E. (eds). Working memory and

neurodevelopmental disorders. UK: Psychology Press, pp.187-212.

Shacklock, G and Smyth, J. 1998. Being Reflexive in Critical Educational and Social

Research. London: Falmer Press.

Shallice, T., and Warrington, E.K. 1970. Independent functioning of verbal memory

stores: a neuropsychological study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

22, pp.261-273.

Shipstead, Z. et al. 2012. Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence

support the claims? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 1,

pp.185-193.

St. Clair-Thompson, H.L. et al. 2010. Improving children’s working memory and

classroom performance. Educational Psychology. 30 (2), pp.203-219.

Swanson, H.L. and Saez, L. 2003. Memory difficulties in children and adults with

learning disabilities. In: Swanson, H.L, Graham. S, Harris K.R. (eds). Handbook of

learning disabilities. New York: Guildford Press, pp.182-198.

http://researchdesignreview.com/2012/11/14/interviewer-bias-reflexivity-in-qualitative-research/

http://researchdesignreview.com/2012/11/14/interviewer-bias-reflexivity-in-qualitative-research/


57

Tomporowski, P.D. et al. 2008. Exercise and Children’s Intelligence, Cognition and

Academic Achievement. Educational Psychology Review. 20 (2), pp.111-131

Vallar, G. and Shallice, T. 1990. Neuropsychological Impairments of Short-term

Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Interaction between Learning and Development. In M. Cole, V.

John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E Souberman (Eds). Mind in society: The development

of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 79-91.

Wagner, R.K. et al. 1997. Changing relations between phonological processing

abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled

readers: A 5 year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology. 33, pp.468-479.

Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving.

Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology. 17 (2), pp. 89-100.


58

Appendices

Appendix 1

Letter to head teachers

Alicia Fagelman

School of Education

University of Leeds Leeds

LS2 9JT [email protected]

14th February 2014

Dear Mrs ……,

I am a third year student based at the School of Education, University of Leeds

where I am carrying out a dissertation project under the supervision of Dr Sian

Roberts ([email protected]). I am writing to you to ask permission on whether I

can conduct research for my dissertation at …… School after the February half term.

My research project will investigate teachers’ perceptions of working memory and

will assess whether teachers know about classroom interventions to support pupils

who show symptoms of working memory problems.

The procedure will take place in the form of a semi-structured interview which will

last approximately 20 minutes. Firstly, teachers will be given a scenario which

describes the profile of a child with working memory problems and this will be

followed by 10 open-ended questions. All teachers’ responses will be recorded using

an audio device. Please be aware that I would like to use quotes in the dissertation

based on the teachers’ responses.

I would very much like to stress that the teachers themselves will be asked whether

or not they would like to take part in the interviews and will be told that they can stop

at any time should they wish to do so. All the data collected will be anonymised and

stored securely. Neither the school nor the individual teachers will be identified or

identifiable in my dissertation.

Ideally, I would like to talk to 4 teachers from your school, one being the SENCO.

mailto:[email protected]


59

I hope that you will be happy to give consent in allowing me to conduct research in

your school. Please see the enclosed consent form covering ethical issues related to

participants taking part in the study.

If you have any questions regarding the research I wish to conduct, please don’t

hesitate to contact me by email: [email protected]

Best wishes,

Alicia Fagelman


60

Appendix 2

Consent form to teachers and head teachers

Consent form

Following British Psychological Society (BPS) ethical guidelines.

(Please tick)

I confirm that I have been informed about the nature of the study and I have

had the opportunity to ask questions about the research.

I understand that it is the school’s choice to take part in the study.

All participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without

giving any reason and without negative consequences.

I understand that the responses in the interview will be recorded using an

audio device in the school. They will be stored securely and will not be used in

any other research or heard by anyone else except by the researcher in this

study.

I understand that the responses recorded will be strictly confidential.

I understand that the school’s name and the teachers’ names will not be

identified in the dissertation.

________________________ ________________ ____________________

Name of teacher Date Signature

_________________________ ________________ ____________________ Lead researcher Date Signature


61

Appendix 3

Information letter to teachers

Please read the following instructions:

Dear participant,

Thank you for giving up your time to take part in my research today.

There will be two schools taking part in this research project and there will be four

teachers being interviewed from each school, one being a SENCO.

My research project will investigate teachers’ perceptions of working memory and

will assess whether you incorporate classroom strategies or computerized training

programmes to support children’s working memory.

The procedure will take place in the form of a semi-structured interview which will

last approximately 20 minutes. Firstly, I will give you a scenario and I would like you

to read it and think about what learning difficulties the child experiences. This will be

followed by the researcher asking you 13 open-ended questions. Please respond to

these questions to the best of your ability.

All your responses will be recorded using an audio devise which will be stored

securely. The responses to the questions are strictly confidential and will not be used

in any other research or heard by anyone else except by the researcher in this study.

Once the interview is completed I will give you a debriefing. This is when I will ask

you how you found the experience of taking part in the research. You will also have a

chance to ask any questions to the researcher.

I would like to make it clear that I am not here to pass any judgement on your

teaching or professional practice. The reason for conducting this research is to find


62

out whether or not ideas which I studied on my degree course are actually impacting

on professional practice. Recently, I have become very interested in children’s

working memory and therefore I would like to find out whether this is recognised as

an issue in schools.

If you are happy to take part in this research please fill in the enclosed consent form.

Alicia Fagelman

Student researcher at the University of Leeds


63

Appendix 4

Vignette

Please read the following scenario:

Adam is a 10 year old boy. He is viewed by his teacher as experiencing many

problems within the classroom; and on occasions can be a disruptive influence due

to his high level of distractibility. He often appears restless and fidgety, and on

several occasions has broken classroom equipment. On some occasions, he forgets

the teacher’s instructions and consequently does not carry out the directed task. His

work is of low-average standard, with its quality varying from day to day. Sometimes,

he misses words out in sentences when he is copying from the board. His teacher is

yet unsure whether he will attain Level 4 in his Key Stage 2 National Curriculum

assessments in English, Maths and Science, although she feels sure he has the

ability to (adopted from Gathercole, 2011).


64

Appendix 5

Semi-structured interview questions

1. When reading the scenario, what type of learning difficulties come to mind?

2. Do you know anything about working memory?

3. (ASK THIS TO TEACHERS) Have you ever taught someone who seems to

have a working memory problem? (prompt: slow to learn in reading, maths

and science, unable to meet memory demands in structured learning

activities, abandons tasks).

4. (ASK THIS TO SENCO) From your own knowledge have there been any

children in the whole school that have been assessed for working memory

deficits?

5. (ASK THIS TO SENCO & TEACHERS) How would you go about supporting a

child who shows signs of working memory difficulties?

6. If a child in your class had poor working memory, do you think this might

affect them in the classroom? (prompt: learning, behaviour)

7. Have you ever had any training on working memory?

8. Do you know about classroom interventions which support children’s working

memory? (prompt: have you read about it etc).

9. Do you do things in the classroom to try to support children with working

memory problems? (prompt: monitor the child, do you use visual aids to help

children remember what they are supposed to do, reduce working memory

demands, repeat information)?

10. If answer is yes to question 8 & 9, how effective are these strategies?

11. Do you know about computerised training programmes which enhance

children’s working memory?


65

12. Are you using any computer programmes to support children’s working

memory? (prompt: Robomemo).

13. Are children with poor working memory being supported in class with a

teaching assistant?


66

Appendix 6

Key:

School A:

Participant A3- Year 3 Teacher


Participant AS – SENCO


School B:

Participant BS- SENCO

Participant B4- Year 4 Teacher

Participant B2-Year 2 Teacher

Participant B6- Year 6 Teacher

Dissertation EDUC 3805

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation EDUC 3805