Author: Kuhl, Lindsay, J. Title: Working Memory and Reading Comprelzellsion: An Investigatioll at Seo"l Foreign

School The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wise ODS in-Stout, Graduate School in partial

completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degreel Major: MS Education

Research Adviser: Dr. Carolyn Heitz, Ph.D.

Submission TermN ear: Summer, 2011

Number of Pages: 34

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

181 I understand that tbis research report must be officially approved by the Graduate Scbool and tbat on electronic copy of tbe approved version will be made available through the University Library website [;8] I attest tbat the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permi sion of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of tbe U.S. Copyrigbt Office.

STUDENT'S NAME, Lin"'.y J. K~ l STUDENT'S SIGNATURE, J~ f)t~~ ADVISER' S NAME : Dr. Carolyn Heitz, Ph.D.

ADVISER'S SIGNATURE:

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above)

1. CMTE MEMBER' S NAME:

SIGNATURE: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME:

SIGNATURE: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER'S NAME:

SIGNATURE: DATE:

This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

DATE: 7j;J.g-/1(

(Director, Office of Graduate Studies) (Date)

- \

2

Kuhl, Lindsay J. Working Memory and Reading Comprehension: An Investigation at Seoul

Foreign School

Abstract

The relationship between working memory and reading comprehension was investigated in this

research. This study includes data collected during the 2010-2011 school year from 25 sixth grade

students who attend Seoul Foreign School in Seoul, Korea. There were nine boys and sixteen girl

participants. Working memory tests were given to the participants and the results were cross-

referenced with reading comprehension test scores.

To test working memory, two sub-tests of the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities,

the Test 7 Numbers Reversed and the Test 9 Auditory Working Memory, were individually given to

students (Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, 2001). The data from this testing was then compared with the

student's most recent Comprehensive Testing Program 4 (CTP 4) and Measure of Academic Progress

(MAP) reading comprehension tests.

Causal relationships between the working memory and reading comprehension tests were

analyzed. The two working memory tests that were given showed that a positive correlation was

found, yet it was not significant to be a valid predictor of reading comprehension success.

3

Acknowledgments

Special acknowledgement and thanks should be paid to my husband, Ryan, for his patience,

respect, and love as I persevered on this paper and my master’s degree. I would also like to thank my

adviser, Dr. Carolyn Heitz, who shared many Skype calls with me as we fine-tuned this document.

I would also like to thank Seoul Foreign school for their commitment to professional

development, specifically their master’s degree financial support. Finally thanks to Kimberley Jefferd

and Pam Wright for being my peer editors.

4

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. ……..2

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………...6

Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 8

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8

Assumptions of the Study ................................................................................................... 9

Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 11

Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................... 12

Chapter II: Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 14

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...14

Components of Reading Ability…………………………………………………………14

Learning and the Use of Memory………………………………………………………..15

Sensory memory………………………………………………………………….16

Short-term memory……………………………………………………………….16

Working memory…………………………………………………………………17

Implications of Working Memory when Reading……………………………………….18

Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................. 20

Subject Selection and Description .................................................................................... 20

Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 20

Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 23

Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 23

Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 24

5

Chapter IV: Results ....................................................................................................................... 25

Item Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..25

Table 1. Comparison of Correlation Coefficients………………………………...28

Chapter V: Discussion .................................................................................................................. 29

Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 29

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 29

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 30

References ..................................................................................................................................... 32

6

List of Figures

Figure 1: MAP vs. Numbers Reversed…………..………………………………………………25

Figure 2: MAP vs. Auditory Working Memory …………..…………………………………….26

Figure 3: CTP4 vs. Numbers Reversed………………………………………………………….27

Figure 4: CTP4 vs. Auditory Working Memory………………………………………………...27

7

Chapter I: Introduction

Reading is a fundamental skill that lays the foundation for academic success as well as, being a

factor in future success in life. Due to the impact it can have on all parts of studies and life, it is

imperative that each student be equipped with reading comprehension skills that can transfer to all

tasks. Reading is a complex process in which an individual interacts with text on many different levels.

First, it involves the processing of a written symbol. The symbols each have a sound associated with it,

known as phonemes, and then are recognized as words from which meaning is constructed for each

word read. The process continues as the reader understands how the words create meaning in a

sentence, a paragraph and ultimately for the whole piece of text. Reading also involves many

metacognitive processes in order to make meaning while reading.

Reading comprehension involves key strategies and skills that are used when reading. They

include engaging prior knowledge, knowing vocabulary, visualizing details and events, following the

patterns of the texts, asking questions and pursuing answers, making inferences, monitoring

comprehension, and noting main ideas from supporting details (Temple, Ogle, Crawford & Freppon,

2008). Snow (2002) stated that to comprehend, a reader must have a wide range of capacities and

abilities that include attention, memory, critical analysis, inferencing, and motivation.

Reading and all of the cognitive activities involved with it, occur simultaneously in the brain

with the transfer of ideas between the working-memory and long-term memory. The brain is constantly

making an interchange between what is being read and what the reader already knows. Shetlon, Elliot,

Matthews, Hill, and Grouvier (2010) explained the importance of understanding the relationship

between working memory and other cognitive functioning that occurs within the brain. Understanding

this relationship can be vital in predicting how well people may reason and adapt to a complex

environment. The data found discusses the importance of working memory tests and their ability to

predict higher order cognition. The authors conclude with the statement that future research should

8

focus on working memory tests and the specific processes within it that drive learning.

Working memory impacts reading as it is where multiple processes occur, impacting the

comprehension of text. Working memory is the place where a connections are made between visual

encoding, the understanding of the emerging text, and recollections from long-term memory. Cain,

Oakhill & Bryant (2004) stated that there is a strong relation between working memory and reading

comprehension. Working memory can affect a person's ability to carry out the multiple processes

involved with the construction of text representation when reading. For example, the word-by-word

reading that occurs in lower levels with beginning readers can affect reading comprehension. This is

due to the fact that the working memory is overloaded by the decoding that occurs from the word-by-

word reading. As readers develop, other factors can contribute to a reader's comprehension, such as the

ability to interact with prior knowledge within the working memory. Working memory is the

processing center with which a reader makes inferences, monitors comprehension, and makes meaning

from the text structure. These are all extremely important cognitive tasks that directly affect a reader's

comprehension level.

Statement of the Problem

As students progress through curriculum during their schooling, it is assumed that children are

literate and can use texts to find important information. However, when students still struggle with

reading, they will most likely find other areas of their studies challenging. The failure to succeed with

reading can have negative effects for the child socially, but can also affect the likelihood of someday

getting a job (Lilles et al., 2008). A main concern for any teacher, no matter what the subject, are low

reading scores.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to research working memory and the relationship with reading

comprehension in middle-school students. This study includes data collected during the 2010-2011

9

school year from 25 sixth grade students who attend Seoul Foreign School in Seoul, Korea. To test

working memory, two sub-tests of the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities test were

individually given to students. The two tests used were the Test 7 Numbers Reversed and the Test 9

Auditory Working Memory (Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, 2001). The data from this testing was then

compared with the student's most recent Comprehensive Testing Program 4 (CTP 4) and Measure of

Academic Progress (MAP) reading comprehension tests. Causal relationships between the working

memory and reading comprehension tests were analyzed.

The findings of the study will be used as a case-study example that can encourage styles of

teaching that will utilize working memory development as a way to increase reading comprehension.

In order to better service students with their reading skills, the findings could also provide a way to

predict future patterns of reading comprehension based on their working memory skills. The causal

relationship can be used as another option with monitoring and predicting future success with reading

comprehension.

Assumptions of the Study

The research makes the following assumptions about the testing. The reading comprehension

sections of the Measure of Academic Progress Assessment (MAP) and Comprehensive Testing

Program (CTP 4) tests are valid tests for assessing reading comprehension. The Woodcock Johnson III

Test of Cognitive Abilities was used for assessing working memory. The working memory subtests

were given in a fair, accurate, and consistent manner. The students each completed it to the best of

their ability. The students are a random selection of the sixth grade students of Seoul Foreign School.

The Measure of Academic Progress Assessment (MAP) is a computerized adaptive test given to

the Seoul Foreign School students in grade six in the fall. The MAP reading test contains 42 questions.

The test assesses word analysis & vocabulary, literal comprehension, evaluative comprehension, and

literary response/analysis. A review of the test by Cizek (2010) finds the MAP test quite reliable due to

10

the fact that across all grade levels and subjects, stability estimates were never lower than .77 and were

as high as .94. Relevant validity coefficients revealed scores in reading, mathematics, and language

were “fairly strongly related to scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Stanford

Achievement Tests, 9th

Edition (SAT9)” (Cizek, 2010, Validity section, para. 3).

The Comprehensive Testing Program (CTP 4) is a written test that was given to the Seoul

Foreign School (SFS) students in November of 2010. This 30 year old “assessment instrument is

designed to measure the academic skills and abilities of students who are attending high-achieving

schools” (Malcom & Schafer, 2010, p. 7). It is a standard multiple-choice style test that assesses word

analysis, auditory comprehension, reading comprehension, writing mechanics, writing concepts and

skills, verbal reasoning, and vocabulary. Computer scoring of the multiple-choice items is provided for

the CTP 4. According to the assessment review, minimal reliability information is available for the

CTP 4 and is based on classical test theory. “The reliability coefficients for the subtests are all .76 and

above for the suburban school sample and .72 and above for the independent school sample” (Malcom

& Schafer, 2010, p. 24). The primary source for validity evidence was the content standards manual.

The Woodcock- Johnson III (WJ) Test of Cognitive Abilities Test working memory subtests

were given to the selection of students being evaluated in this case study in the spring of 2011. The WJ

III tests are designed to “provide a co-normed set of tests for measuring general intellectual ability,

specific cognitive abilities, scholastic aptitude, oral language, and academic achievement” (Cizek &

Sandoval, 2010, Purpose section, para. 1). The WJ III is a comprehensive, norm-referenced,

individually administered assessment of a variety of cognitive abilities. Cizek and Sandoval (2010)

state that “ of the batteries available to users such as school psychologists and others who require

individual norm-referenced ability and achievement measurement, the WJ III is clearly a superior

instrument”(Comments and Summary section, para. 3). The authors of the WJ III report reasonably

high correlations between cognitive test scores and other popular individual tests of intellectual ability.

11

WJ III correlates in the .70s with other total scores. The reviewers go on to state:

The cognitive clusters intended to predict achievement do correlate with the

achievement clusters yielding correlations in the .70 range. These correlations are

higher than those found between ability scores and achievement scores on many other

cognitive measures suggesting excellent predictive validity. (Cizek and Sandoval, 2010,

Technical section, para. 7)

There is also reliability information for the two working memory subtests that were given to the

students. The “numbers reversed” subtest has median reliabilities of .86 in the age 5 to 19 range

(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a). The Auditory Working Memory subtest has median

reliabilities of .88 in the age 5 to 19 range.

Definition of Terms

Analysis. Students use analysis skills when they synthesize explicit and implicit information to

make predictions, draw conclusions, or formulate hypotheses about a text (Education Records Bureau,

2002).

Decoding. Decoding is to work out the identity of a word by matching its letters and its sounds

(Temple et al., 2008).

Evaluative Comprehension. Evaluative comprehension is reading that includes evaluating

persuasive elements, the author’s technique and viewpoint, and fact and opinion (Northwest Evaluation

Association, 2006).

Inferencing. Inferencing is when readers have to piece together information themselves that is

not directly supplied by the text (Temple et al., 2008).

Interpretive Comprehension. Interpretive comprehension is reading comprehension that

includes inferring and predicting, comparing and contrasting, summarizing, interpreting author’s

purpose and drawing conclusions (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2006).

12

Information processing model. Psychologists explain the information processing model as the

executive control in the brain of sensory memory, the short-term memory/working memory, and the

long-term memory.

Literal comprehension. Literal comprehension involves identifying explicit details from a

passage and provides answers to “who,” “what,” “where,” “when,” “why,” and “how.”

Long-term memory. Long-term memory is a more permanent place of storage within the brain.

Metacognitive. A person is metacognitive when they utilize the ability to think and reflect on

one's own thinking processes.

Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension is the process of simultaneously extracting

and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language (Snow, 2002, p.

11).

Short Term memory. Short-term memory holds information that is currently being processed.

Working memory. Working memory is where all conscious cognitive processing occurs.

Limitations of the Study

This study was only done with 25 students in the sixth grade level at Seoul Foreign School.

The working memory tests given were those that are not given by the school psychologist. Therefore,

only two working memory tests were used with the students, a numbers reversed test, and an auditory

working memory test. The reading comprehension MAP score was the score from the fall of the

students’ sixth grade year. The CTP 4 reading test score was from the beginning of sixth grade year,

therefore, about five months had elapsed between the two reading tests as well as between the reading

tests and the completion of the working memory tests.

Seoul Foreign School's admissions policy is stricter than other schools with academic ability

and the likeliness of being able to succeed at a rigorous academic school as part of the selection

process. The criterion used to evaluate the child's readiness for our school include (but are not limited

13

to) the child's ability to learn English, prior education in English, previous success in school, and

learning difficulties. Most students are bi-lingual or multi-lingual students.

14

Chapter II: Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter will review topics related to reading comprehension and the components of

memory in the information processing model. The relationship between reading comprehension and

working memory will also be investigated, as well as, the function of the working memory when

reading.

Components of Reading Ability

The act of reading is not a simple task, just as the act of defining reading is not easy to do. Most

educators agree that it is a combination of identifying words, as well as, making meaning from the

words. Westwood (2008) focused on the cognitive perspective of reading and defines reading as

involving two main processes that are “separate but complimentary processes” (p. 14). These two main

processes are word identification and linguistic comprehension (Westwood, 2008) or decoding and

comprehension (Gough, Hoover & Peterson, 1996). A proficient reader needs to be able to utilize both

of these skills. However, the main components of reading ability, as stated by Temple, Ogle, Crawford

and Freppon (2008) are word recognition, comprehension, reading fluency, and critical literacy. Two of

the components are similar to those listed by Westwood, but the definition by Temple et al. has been

expanded to include critical literacy and reading fluency. Critical literacy is a higher order thinking

skill that shows the reader’s ability to comprehend and extend the understanding of the text.

Words can be identified by a variety of methods. The word identification methods listed by

Westwood (2008) are: automatic recall, using phonic knowledge, and using orthographic units with the

word, using analogy, and using the context of the sentence or paragraph. Some methods require more

cognitive effort than others. Often these methods are not used alone, but in conjunction with other

methods.

Comprehension can be delineated into specific key skills and strategies that readers use.

15

Temple, Ogle, Crawford, and Freppon (2008) lists seven components involved in comprehending a

text: engaging prior knowledge, knowing vocabulary, visualizing details and events, following the

patterns of texts, asking questions and pursuing answers, making inferences, monitoring

comprehension. When a reader sees a text for the first time, he/she should be able to focus on the topic

and decide what they already know about the topic. The vocabulary that a reader has available to them

in their domain knowledge-base will be a factor in reading comprehension. The comprehension of a

text can be more difficult for a child who has a small amount of vocabulary. Visualizing details

involves the reader’s ability to “see” the events of a scene in their mind while reading. Understanding

different genres and the purpose, as well as the patterns that are involved with different texts, are

important components to reading comprehension. A good reader will ask questions while reading and

pursue the answers to the questions. Making inferences includes piecing together information from the

text that is not directly given. Lastly, monitoring comprehension allows the reader to understand when

the text is making sense and is aware when it does not.

Gough, Hoover, and Peterson (1996) observed “that decoding and comprehension are positively

correlated” (p.8). They say that if a child is a skilled decoder, then it is most likely that he/she will also

be a skilled comprehender. The same would be true then if the child was a poor decoder, he/she would

also be a poor comprehender. Their 'simple view' on reading says the relationship between decoding

and comprehension is the factor for determining reading level. A skilled reader must be good at both

decoding and comprehension, but a poor reader could be lacking in any of three ways; poor at

decoding, poor at comprehension, or poor at both.

Learning and the Use of Memory

The brain is a complex functioning system that is the activity center for all learning. Healy

(1994) suggested “that understanding child's brain and the way it develops is key to understanding

learning” (as cited in Westwood, 2004, p. 35). Having a basic understanding of the neuroscience and

16

neuropsychology can help a teacher view learning from a new perspective. Memory and its importance

in the learning process can be broken into different systems by psychologists. The information

processing model, organizes the executive control processes within the brain into 3 main sections:

sensory memory, short-term memory/working memory, and long-term memory (Huitt, 2003). The

model proposes that these are the three main areas where information is processed and stored.

Westwood 2004, cites the meta-memory as being another system within memory. These are the

different components to the organization of memory within the brain.

Sensory memory. Sensory memory is the receptive part of the brain that processes change in

the environment such as light, sound, smell, heat, and cold (Huitt, 2003). According to the information

processing model, all external stimulus is received by the sensory memory before the initial processing

occurs in the short-term memory. The two major factors for getting information from the sensory

memory into the short-term memory follow an interesting feature, or a known pattern.

Short-term memory. The main characteristic of short-term memory is its’ small capacity

(Martinez, 2010). Short-term memory is the current thoughts that a person is able to have at one time.

Grouping ideas or thinking of something under the same category is one way to utilize the short-term

memory in a way that it can process more at one time. Short term memory is estimated to be able to

keep the equivalent of about four objects, or groups of information, at one time (Marois, 2005).

Capacity limits are not only based on how much information can be stored, but also in how fast

information can be consciously perceived at one time.

Westwood clarifies the difference between short-term memory and working-memory when he

states:

Many writers treat short-term memory as synonymous with 'working memory' but the

the two concepts are not identical. Short-term memory processes do not necessarily

imply any manipulation or transformation of the information during the very brief time it

17

is stored- for example, in a digit span test the numbers are simply repeated back in the

same sequence. Working memory goes well beyond this, and allows active processing

and modification to the information. (Westwood, 2004, p. 41)

Working memory. Working memory is sometimes defined as the 'mental working space for

thinking' (Westwood, 2004.) Baddeley and Hitch (1974) challenged the idea of short-term memory

system with the concept of working memory (as cited by Baddeley & Hitch 1994). They proposed that

working memory is a multicomponent, functional role in memory instead of a unitary memory system.

Demetriou, Christou, Spandoudis, and Plastidou (2002) found that a “functional conception of working

memory is preferable over a fixed conception” (p. 83). The working memory is the place where a

person is able to hold visual and verbal information while processing it for a purpose or connecting it

with other information in the long-term memory.

Baddeley and Hitch (1994) proposed that working memory has three subcomponents:

phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and central executive. In 2000, Baddeley added a fourth

working memory component to the concept of working memory, episodic buffer (as cited in Allen,

Hitch & Baddeley, 2009). Episodic buffer was used to solve the question of how working memory

communicates with the long-term memory system.

Working memory and its role with secondary memory and general fluid intelligence has been

investigated in order to understand if working memory was unique with its use. Shelton, Elliot,

Matthews, Hill, Grouvier et al. (2010) found working memory, but not secondary memory, accounted

for a significant amount of variance with fluid intelligence. Their data confirmed other research that

working memory is unique in the fact that it requires “an interaction between active maintenance of

items in primary memory and a controlled search of secondary memory” (p. 819). This confirms that

working memory is a contributor to fluid intelligence. In this report, secondary memory is not seen as

the main predictor in fluid intelligence, but rather it highlights the importance of the retrieval process

18

that occurs with the working memory.

Since working memory is a limited resource system, it has a limit to the amount of information

it can successfully control in the central executive component (Vukovic & Siegel, 2006). Daneman and

Carpenter (1980) looked at the individual differences in reading comprehension and how it may reflect

differences in working memory capacity. The two specific areas of working memory investigated in

their research were the processing and storage functions.

Implications of Working Memory when Reading

Reading is such a complex task, that all parts of memory are utilized when reading. The way

the reader interacts cognitively with the text can determine if they will comprehend the text

successfully. Berninger et al. (2010) stated the working memory may be the brain's language learning

mechanism, due to the 'architecuture,' or subcomponents of the working memory. Working memory

includes the storage and processing of the three word forms: phonological, orthographic,

morphological. Vukovic and Siegel (2006) cite two types of comprehension difficulties identified in

the field of learning disabilities. The first type is related to low word reading or decoding skills. The

second type of reading comprehension difficulties is thought to be due to a problem with higher-order

cognitive processes, such as working memory. Capacity limitations of working memory are a key

factor when reading. Daneman and Carpenter (1980) described it as a trade-off between processing

and storage that maxes out the capacity of the working memory. This in turn can affect the individual

differences in reading comprehension. Hence, a better reader, or effective processor, will have more

capacity for storing and maintaining information. Working memory then is an important source of

individual differences in reading. Chan and Dally (2000) describe the relationship between decoding

and working memory as this:

Whereas good readers become fast and accurate at recognizing words without context

and within context, poor readers often remain dependent on context. The use of context

19

to identify unfamiliar words and the labour-intensive efforts of poor readers to decode

words, due to the deficits in either phonological or orthographic processing, tax the

limited resources of working memory. (as cited by Westwood, 2008, p. 18)

In 2005, Seigneuric and Ehrlich examined memory capacity and the relationship with the

development of children's reading comprehension in Grade 1 (7 years), Grade 2 (8 years), and Grade 3,

(9 years). They looked at two aspects of this relationship. First, they looked how working memory

predicted reading comprehension compared to vocabulary and decoding skills. Secondly, they

investigated to what extent reading comprehension could be predicted by working memory. Their

findings support the idea that “as word recognition becomes automated throughout the early grade

levels, working memory becomes an important determinant of reading comprehension (p. 617). The

results showed that “working memory capacity emerged as a direct predictor of reading comprehension

in Grade 3” (p. 617).

Working memory is the 'buffer' space where the brain holds the most recent text and allows for

making meaning, while retrieving information from the long-term memory, and integrating it again

with the current text (Cain, Bryant & Oakhill, 2004). Vukovic and Siegel (2006) state that deficits in

working memory can affect performance on a variety of tasks including reading comprehension. The

authors explain:

For example, working memory is vital for reading comprehension as the reader must

simultaneously decode words, interpret the meaning of the words, integrate the meaning of the

text, maintain and remember what has been read, as well as engage in various comprehension

strategies, such as making inferences, detecting inconsistencies, self-monitoring, and correcting

comprehension errors. (Vukovic & Sigel, 2006, p. 92)

Therefore, a poor working memory could cause comprehension difficulties at any point in the

comprehension process.

20

Chapter III: Methodology

Introduction

The following information is the detailed methodology of the study completed on the

relationship between working memory and reading comprehension, as a case study at Seoul Foreign

School, Seoul, South Korea. The subject selection and description of the sample will be discussed as

well as the instrumentation. Finally, the data collection and analysis were evaluated. Some limitations

have been identified in this study and are described in detail.

Subject Selection and Description

The research subjects for this test were chosen from the Seoul Foreign School sixth grade class

in Yonhi-dong, Seoul, South Korea. The sixth grade class was composed of four home-groups of about

15, totaling 60 students in the grade level. Each home-group had a heterogeneous group of ethnicities,

English levels, as well as boys and girls that are selected for their placement at the beginning of the

year. The four home-groups are then separated randomly into six advisory groups. For this test five

advisory groups each with ten students were asked to be subjects. From these 50 students, 25 students

agreed to participate. There were nine boys and sixteen girls. Two of the students were classified as

“English as a Second Language” (ESL) students.

Instrumentation

The two working memory tests given were the subtests Number Reversed and Auditory

Working Memory from the Test of Cognitive Abilities, Standard Text Book, Woodcock-Johnson III

(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001b). The Numbers Reversed is a test that primarily measures

short-term memory span, but can also be classified as a measure of working memory or attentional

capacity. The Auditory Working Memory measures short-term auditory memory span but can also be

classified as a measure of working memory or divided attention. The validity of the tests is subject to

the person administering and interpreting the data. The proctor was trained on how to properly give

21

this test by the school psychologist.

The Woodcock- Johnson III (WJ) Test of Cognitive Abilities Test working memory subtests

were given to the subjects in this case study in the spring of 2011. The WJ III tests are designed to

“provide a co-normed set of tests for measuring general intellectual ability, specific cognitive abilities,

scholastic aptitude, oral language, and academic achievement” (Cizek & Sandoval, 2010, Purpose

section, para.1). This instrument is a comprehensive, norm-referenced, individually administered

assessment of a variety of cognitive abilities. The authors of the WJ III report reasonably high

correlations between cognitive test scores and other popular individual tests of intellectual ability. This

test correlates in the .70s with other total scores. The reviewers go on to state:

The cognitive clusters intended to predict achievement do correlate with the

achievement clusters yielding correlations in the .70 range. These correlations are

higher than those found between ability scores and achievement scores on many other

cognitive measures suggesting excellent predictive validity. (Cizek & Sandoval, 2010,

Technical section, para. 7)

There is also reliability information for the two working memory subtests that were given to the

students. The “numbers reversed” subtest has median reliabilities of .86 in the age five to nineteen

range (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a). The “auditory working memory” subtest has median

reliabilities of .88 in the age 5 to 19 range. The WJ III was normed from 1996-1999 on a sample of

8,818 individuals representing the American demographics.

The second component of information in this research included the gathering of data from the

standardized tests that the students had already completed. The two tests that were referenced for

reading comprehension scores were the Measure of Academic Progress test (MAP) and the

Comprehensive Testing Program 4 (CTP 4). Both of these tests are standardized tests that are valid and

reliable.

22

The Measure of Academic Progress Assessment (MAP) is a computerized adaptive test given to

the Seoul Foreign School students in grade six in the fall. The MAP reading test contains 42 questions.

The test assesses word analysis & vocabulary, literal comprehension, evaluative comprehension, and

literary response/analysis. A review of the test by Cizek (2010) finds the MAP test quite reliable due to

the fact that across all grade levels and subjects, stability estimates were never lower than .77 and were

as high as .94. Relevant validity coefficients revealed scores in reading, mathematics, and language

were “fairly strongly related to scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Stanford

Achievement Tests, 9th

Edition (SAT9) (Cizek, 2010). The MAP test norm group data was collected

between Spring 2001-Fall 2004 and involved approximately 2.3 million students from 5,616 schools in

794 districts across 32 states.

The Comprehensive Testing Program (CTP 4) is a written test that was given to the Seoul

Foreign School (SFS) students in November of 2010. This 30 year old “assessment instrument is

designed to measure the academic skills and abilities of students who are attending high-achieving

schools” (Malcom & Schafer, 2010, p. 7). It is a standard multiple-choice style test that assesses word

analysis, auditory comprehension, reading comprehension, writing mechanics, writing concepts and

skills, verbal reasoning, and vocabulary. Computer scoring of the multiple-choice items is provided for

the CTP 4. According to the assessment review, minimal reliability information is available for the

CTP 4 and is based on classical test theory. “The reliability coefficients for the subtests are all .76 and

above for the suburban school sample and .72 and above for the independent school sample” (Malcom

& Schafer, 2010, p. 24). The primary source for validity evidence was the content standards manual.

It states:

The norm groups for the CTP4 represents its target users, which are high-achieving independent

schools and public schools. Data are gathered each year from the schools that used the test,

beginning in the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003. The initial year’s data are reported in the

23

technical manual. However, percentile ranks are to be reported on the three most recent years

of data for suburban public and independent schools. (Malcom & Schaefer, 2010, p. 24)

Data Collection Procedures

During study halls or advisory the students were tested individually on the working memory

tests. Each test was administered in a one-on-one setting. All 25 students were tested by the same

person to provide for the standardization of the delivery of the test. The proctor of the test was the

author for this research paper. The one-on-one setting involved the two sub-tests that test working

memory from the Test of Cognitive Abilities, Standard Text Book, Woodcock-Johnson III (Woodcock,

McGrew, & Mather, 2001b). The directions on how to administer these tests are given in detail in the

booklet for the proctor. Each working memory test took five minutes to complete. First, the Numbers

Reversed section was completed by the child, according to the steps given on the test. Then, the

Auditory Working Memory test was completed according to the steps on the test. Finally, the students’

files were accessed to find their reading comprehension test result scores for their MAP and CTP 4 test

scores.

Data Analysis. In this section, the causal relationship between student working memory test

scores and their reading comprehension scores from the CTP 4 and MAP tests are compared.

Each student has two working memory test scores as well as two reading comprehension scores

that were collected. A total of four comparisons are evaluated. The four comparisons are as

follows: Numbers Reversed and CTP 4, Numbers Reversed and MAP, Auditory Working

Memory and CTP 4, Auditory Working Memory and MAP. For 25 students all 4 of these

relationships were compared resulting in a total of 120 sets of data in all. The CTP 4 given in

November to the SFS sixth grade students is the Level 5 Assessment. In this test there are 37

reading comprehension questions given. Of these 17 questions, 14 are explicit information, 14

are inference, and 9 are analysis (Educational Records Bureau, 2002). The 14 inference and 9

24

analysis questions are the data that would reflect the use of working memory when reading. The

reading comprehension score is reported in a percentile rank. The Independent Schools

Percentile is the percentile rank that Seoul Foreign School uses to compare its students to other

similar schools and was used as the percentile category for this research.

The MAP test was given in the fall to the SFS sixth graders in August. In this test the

percentile is reported for the reading comprehension score. The sections that would reflect the

use of working memory when reading are interpretive comprehension, evaluative

comprehension, and literary response/analysis.

The working memory subtests were given in the spring to 25 SFS sixth graders. In both

of the subtests the scores a student received is matched with a grade level estimate.

Limitations

This study was only done with 25 students in the sixth grade level at Seoul Foreign School. The

working memory tests given were those that are not given by the school psychologist in order to not

create a repeat situation of a test in the future for a student. Therefore, only two working memory tests

were used with the students, a numbers reversed test, and an auditory working memory test. The

reading comprehension MAP score was the score from the fall of the students’ sixth grade year. The

CTP 4 reading test score was from the beginning of sixth grade year, therefore, about five months had

elapsed between the two reading tests as well as between the reading tests and the completion of the

working memory tests.

Seoul Foreign School's admissions policy is stricter than other schools with academic ability

and the likeliness of being able to succeed at a rigorous academic school as part of the selection

process. The criterion used to evaluate the child's readiness for our school include (but are not limited

to) the child's ability to learn English, prior education in English, previous success in school, and

learning difficulties. Most students are bi-lingual or multi-lingual students.

25

Chapter IV: Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between reading comprehension

and working memory. Two working memory tests were given to 25 sixth grade students. The working

memory tests were then compared with the students’ reading comprehension test scores. To test

working memory, two sub-tests of the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities test were

individually given to students. The two tests used were the Test 7 Numbers Reversed and the Test 9

Auditory Working Memory (Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, 2001). The data from this testing was then

compared with the student's most recent Comprehensive Testing Program 4 (CTP 4) and Measure of

Academic Progress (MAP) reading comprehension tests.

In this section is a review of the results from the comprehension tests and working memory

tests. Four sets of data were compared in this research: Numbers Reversed and CTP 4, Numbers

Reversed and MAP, Auditory Working Memory and CTP 4, Auditory Working Memory and MAP. For

25 students all four of these relationships were compared resulting in a total of 120 sets of data in all. A

causal relationship was investigated through a line of correlation or line of best fit. Each set of data has

a correlation coefficient that is represented by R2.

Item Analysis

Figure 1. MAP vs. Numbers Reversed

y = 0.028x + 9.4408R² = 0.0085

0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Nu

mb

ers

Re

vers

ed

Sco

re

MAP Reading Percentile

MAP vs. Numbers Reversed

26

The graphic representation of the data from the MAP reading test scores and the Numbers Reversed

test are displayed in Figure 1. The 25 data points are present as well as the line of best fit. This line

shows a positive slope and represents a positive correlation between the two sets of data. The R2 or

correlation coefficient for this graph is 0.0085. This shows that although there is correlation, it is not a

strong correlation between the MAP scores and the Numbers Reversed scores.

Figure 2. MAP vs. Auditory Working Memory

The second comparison of data was done between the MAP test scores and the Auditory

Working Memory test scores (see Figure 2). Here the line of best fit has a stronger slope and shows a

positive correlation. The R2 or correlation coefficient is 0.232, which shows a stronger connection

between the data than in the MAP and Numbers Reversed (see Figure 1).

27

Figure 3. CTP4 vs. Numbers Reversed

The results for CTP4 test and the Numbers Reversed show a quite diverse scatterplot of the data

(see Figure 3). The line of best fit shows a positive correlation, but it is a very slight slope that shows

the relationship. The R2 or correlation coefficient is 0.0231. This data shows a slight and insignificant

connection between the CTP4 test scores and the Numbers Reversed test scores.

Figure 4. CTP4 vs. Auditory Working Memory

28

The final set of data investigated involved the CTP4 test scores and the Auditory Working

Memory test score (see Figure 4). Here the line of best fit shows a positive slope and represents a

correlation between the two sets of data. The R2 or correlation coefficient is 0.113. This coefficient

shows a relationship between the data, but is again a slight connection.

Test Comparison Correlation Coefficient

MAP vs. Numbers Reversed 0.0085

MAP vs. Auditory Working Memory 0.232

CTP4 vs. Numbers Reversed 0.023

CTP4 vs. Auditory Working Memory 0.113

Table 1. Comparison of Correlation Coefficients

When looking at the correlation coefficients of all 4 sets of test comparisons (see Table1) some

patterns become clear. For both the MAP and the CTP4 reading tests the relationship to working

memory is least with the Numbers Reversed test. Also, for both the MAP and the CTP4 reading tests

the relationship to working memory is strongest with the Auditory Working Memory tests. From this

data it shows a slight relationship. The Auditory Working Memory tests correlate the strongest with

both of the reading test results.

Summarizing

For all of the tests, the line of best fit shows a positive correlation. For each, a slight relationship

is seen, but not significant enough to predict the reading score based on working memory. The data

shows that the Auditory Working Memory tests correlate the strongest with the MAP and CTP4 reading

test scores.

29

Chapter V: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to research working memory and the relationship with reading

comprehension in middle-school students. This study includes data collected during the 2010-2011

school year from 25 sixth grade students who attend Seoul Foreign School in Seoul, Korea. To test

working memory, two sub-tests of the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities, the Test 7

Numbers Reversed and the Test 9 Auditory Working Memory, were individually given to students

(Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, 2001). The data from this testing was then compared with the student's

most recent Comprehensive Testing Program 4 (CTP 4) and Measure of Academic Progress (MAP)

reading comprehension tests. Causal relationships between the working memory and reading

comprehension tests were analyzed.

Limitations

This study was only done with 25 students in the sixth grade level at Seoul Foreign School. The

working memory tests given were those that are not given by the school psychologist. The reading

comprehension MAP score was from the fall of the students’ sixth grade year. The CTP 4 reading test

score was from the beginning of sixth grade year, therefore, about five months had elapsed between the

two reading tests, as well as, between the reading tests and the completion of the working memory

tests.

Seoul Foreign School's admissions policy is stricter than other schools, with academic ability,

and the likeliness of being able to succeed at a rigorous academic school, as part of the selection

process. The criterion used to evaluate the child's readiness for our school include (but are not limited

to) the child's ability to learn English, prior education in English, previous success in school, and

learning difficulties. Most students are bi-lingual or multi-lingual students.

Conclusions

The findings of this case study show that there is a slight yet positive correlation between

30

working memory and reading comprehension. The strongest correlation between the reading scores

occurred with the Auditory Working Memory test from the Woodcock Johnson III test series. The

causal relationship can be used as one of the variables with monitoring and predicting future success

with reading comprehension. This is similar to what Cain, Oakhill, and Bryant (2004) said, “These

findings lead us to conclude that working memory should be regarded as one of the several factors that

can influence comprehension ability and comprehension development” (p. 40).

Recommendations

The findings of the study can be used as a case-study example that can encourage styles of

teaching that will utilize working memory development as a way to increase reading comprehension.

The findings could also provide a way to predict future patterns of reading comprehension based on the

student’s working memory skills.

It is important for teachers to identify reading skills such as inferencing, analysis, and

interpretive comprehension in order for the working memory to be as efficient as possible. Vukovic and

Siegel (2006) state that deficits in working memory can affect performance on a variety of tasks

including reading comprehension. The authors explain:

For example, working memory is vital for reading comprehension as the reader must

simultaneously decode words, interpret the meaning of the words, integrate the meaning of the

text, maintain and remember what has been read, as well as engage in various comprehension

strategies, such as making inferences, detecting inconsistencies, self-monitoring, and correcting

comprehension errors. (Vukovic & Sigel, 2006, p. 92)

Therefore, a poor working memory could cause comprehension difficulties at any point in the

reading process. Likewise, poor reading ability can overload the working memory and impede

comprehension.

After testing the students I informally asked each student what their strategy for doing the

31

working memory tests was. They had a variety of strategies that would be interesting to correlate with

their working memory test scores. Some of the strategies the students listed were: seeing the numbers

in his/her head backwards, repeating the items continuously in his/her head, visualizing the objects and

numbers, using his/her fingers to help remember numbers, memorized objects on one side of the head

and the numbers on the other side of the head, creating new numbers that combined the numbers. Some

of the strategies that the students listed relate to reading strategies that teachers encourage with

students, such as visualization.

Further research could be considered for a variety of topics from this research. A next step

would be to look at the specific sub-scores of the reading comprehension test results and compare those

with the working memory scores. An investigation between gender differences with working memory

and reading comprehension could be explored. For this research, the independent school percentile

was used from the CTP4 reading comprehension test. Other percentile comparisons with the working

memory scores could be investigated through other norming groups for the CTP4, such as national

norm group, suburban public schools, or overseas international schools.

32

References

Allen, R. Hitch, G. Baddeley, A. (2009). Cross-modal binding and working memory. Visual Cognition,

17, 83-102.

Baddeley, A. Hitch, G. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8

(4), 485-493.

Berninger, V. Abbott, R. Swanson H. Lovitt, D. Trivedi, P. Lin, S., … Amtmann, D . (2010).

Relationship of word- and sentence-level working memory to reading and writing in second,

fourth, and sixth grade. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 41, 179-193.

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent

prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 96 (1), 31-42.

Cizek, G. (2010). Review of Measure of Academic Progress. Mental Measurements Yearbook and Tests

in Print.

Cizek, G., Sandoval, J. (2010). Review of Woodcock-Johnson III. Mental Measurements Yearbook and

Tests in Print, 15.

Daneman, M., Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of

verbal learning and verbal behavior. 19, 4, 450-466.

Demetriou, A., Christou, C., Spandoudis, G.& Plasidou, M. (2002). The development of mental

processing: Efficiency, working memory and thinking. Monograph of the Society for Research

in Child Development, 67, 1-167.

Educational Records Bureau. (2002) CTP 4 Content Standards Manual. New York, NY: Educational

Records Bureau.

Gough, P., Hoover, W., Peterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In

Cornoldi, C., Oakhill, J. (Eds), Reading Comprehension difficulties: Processes and

33

intervention. (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition. Educational Psychology

Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from,

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/infoproc.html

Lilles, E., Griffiths, A., Lee, A., Cardenas, S., Chacko, Y. & Jimerson, S. (2008). A consultation model

to facilitate reading success. The California School Psychologist, 13, 19-32.

Malcom, K., Schafer, W. (2010). Comprehensive Testing Program 4. Mental Measurements Yearbook

and Test in Print, 17.

Martinez, M. (2010). Human memory: The basics. Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 62-65.

Marois, R. (2005). Capacity limits of information-processing in the brain. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85,

30-33.

Northewst Evaluation Association (2006). DesCartes: A continuum of learning.

Seigneuric, A., Ehrlich, M. (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to children's reading

comprehension: A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing, 18, 617-656.

Shelton, J., Elliot, E., Matthews, B., Hill, D., Grouvier, W. (2010). The relationship of working

memory, secondary memory, and general fluid intelligence: Working memory is special.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 813-820.

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: toward an R & D program in reading comprehension.

(Report No. 1465). Santa Monica: RAND.

Temple, C., Ogle, D., Crawford, A. & Freppon, P. (2008). All children read: Teaching for literacy in

today's diverse classrooms. Boston: Pearson.

Vukovic, R., Siegel, L. (2006). The role of working memory in specific reading comprehension

difficulties. In T. Alloway, S. Gathercole (Eds.), Working memory and neurodevelopmental

34

disorders. (pp. 89-112). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Westwood, P. (2004). Learning and Learning Difficulties: A handbook for teachers. Victoria, Australia:

ACER Press.

Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about: Reading and writing difficulties. Victoria,

Australia: ACER Press.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., Mather, N. (2001a). Test of cognitive abilities: Examiner’s manual,

standard and extended batteries. Illinois: Riverside Publishing Company.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., Mather, N., (2001b). Test of cognitive abilities: Standard test book, tests 1-

10. Illinois: Riverside Publishing Company.