‘Unpacking the Box’: A Novel Tool to Assess the Development of Working Memory in Children.

Lisa Iranzo

Student Number: 1023459

MSc Psychology (Conversion)PS7112 Research Dissertation

2015/2016

University of Chester

1

‘Unpacking the Box’: A Novel Tool to Assess the Development of Working Memory in Children.

Word count – 12,068

2

Declaration

This work is original and has not been submitted in relation to any other degree or qualification.

Signed:

Date:

3

With thanks to my supervisor Michelle Mattison for her assistance with this piece of research.

4

Department of Psychology

Research Module Meeting Log 2016/2017

NAME: Lisa Iranzo

SUPERVISOR: Michelle Mattison

Date Discussion topics

16/03/16 Discussion about areas of interest and ideas for dissertation.

21/03/16 Discussion about going in to a school and procedure for obtaining a DBS certificate.

31/03/16 Finalising details about the context and content of the study.

12/04/16 Final decision on the content of the study and how/where the data will be collected.

130/4/16 Discussion about the resource ‘Unpacking the Box’ and how it can be studied. Ideas from previous research discussed.

15/04/16 Email contact about the Ethics form and the parental information sheet to be distributed to parents.

20/04/16 Fine tuning of the study and discussion about the method, materials and procedure.

11/05/16 Discussion about the Ethics Amendment form and further adjustments to the testing materials.

25/05/16 Discussion about distribution of opt-out letters to the school and dates for collection of data.

01/06/16 Discussion about contact with the primary school.

5

08/06/16 Discussion about how to conduct the study and how to work in a friendly and productive way with the primary schoolchildren.

15/06/16 Discussion about counterbalancing tasks and data collection.

30/06/16 Discussion of issues arising from data collection.

13/07/16 Discussion of initial findings from data collection.

12/08/16 Discussion about conducting Anovas and post hoc tests using SPSS.

19/08/16 Discussion about writing up results from the study.

31/08/16 Discussion about correlational tests and how to report the data.

06/09/16 Discussion about the qualitative data and non-parametric tests.

20/09/16 Discussion about the introduction and how to develop a rationale for the study.

30/09/16 Feedback meeting and discussion about the draft dissertation.

6

Table of contents

Title page and word count 2

Declaration 3

Acknowledgements 4

Supervision log 5

Table of content 7

List of tables and figures 8

1. Abstract 9

2. Introduction 102.1 The development of working memory and 11

short term memory2.2 A framework to assess working memory 142.3 The working memory model 142.4 Phonological memory 192.5 Visuospatial memory 262.6 The implications of low working memory 29

in children

3. Method 323.1. Participants 323.2. Materials 323.3. Procedure 333.4. Design 35

4. Results 35

5. Discussion 415.1Implications, Limitations and future research 54

6. Conclusion 55

7. References 56

8. Appendices 63

9. SPSS data (on separate CD)

7

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1 ‘Unpacking the Box’ 33

Tables

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics 37

Table 2 Correlations between tasks 38

8

Abstract

Children’s performance on working memory tests improves with age, although

the reasons for this development are not well understood. Furthermore, the

concept of enjoyment of task has received little attention. The aim of this study

was to examine a novel tool, ‘Unpacking the Box’, which has been designed by

the charity ‘Triangle’ to assess working memory in a friendly and enjoyable way.

Children were tested using four measures; a digit span task, a Corsi block task,

a listening span task and a task using the novel resource ‘Unpacking the Box’.

A 3x2 between-subjects design was employed with primary children aged six,

seven and eight years old. A 3x2 within subjects Anova revealed a significant

main effect of age on performance of ‘Unpacking the Box’, with the greatest

differences between six and seven year olds and six and eight year olds. Non-

parametric analyses revealed high levels of enjoyment with the novel tool

‘Unpacking the Box’. The tool is currently used to work with victims who are

giving evidence in court. This study demonstrated that the novel resource is a

highly effective, practical, enjoyable and engaging method for assessing

working memory in children. As such, there are many possibilities for the future

development of ‘Unpacking the Box’ for use in educational and clinical settings.

9

Introduction

Working memory is the capacity to temporarily store and process

information in order for complex cognitive tasks to be completed such as

reading (Wagner & Torgesen, 1987), comprehension and language learning

(Baddeley, 2010; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Kemps, De Rammelaere &

Desmet, 2000). We often have to keep pieces of information in our minds for a

short period of time, such as telephone numbers or postcodes and this ability to

store and manipulate information is a vital part of cognitive functioning (Engle,

Carullo & Collins, 1991; Gathercole, 1999). Furthermore, the material to be

maintained and processed may be in verbal form such as words or phonemes

or it may be presented in a visual or spatial form such as shape, colour, location

or a sequence of movements (Logie & Cowan, 2015).

Research over many years has proposed the notion that working

memory is not a unitary store but a multi-component system of limited capacity

whereby the components interact with each other to maintain and process

material during complex cognitive activities (Alloway, Gathercole & Pickering,

2006). As children grow older, the cognitive demands placed upon them are

gradually increased and therefore, their cognitive development needs to

increase at a substantial rate in a short space of time, in order to meet these

challenges (Spiess, Meier & Roebers, 2016). According to Gathercole,

Pickering, Ambridge and Wearing (2004), whilst there is no change in the

structure of working memory, a significant period of development showing a

linear increase in performance is evident from age four up to adolescence. In

view of the significant changes in the development of working memory, it is

10

important that research is carried out, in order to develop systems for identifying

and supporting children with working memory deficiencies (Alloway, Gathercole,

Kirkwood & Elliott, 2008). The aim of the present study was to assess

children’s working memory in practitioner settings using a recently developed

novel tool called ‘Unpacking the Box’.

The development of working memory and short term memory.

Extensive research has provided evidence that short term memory is mainly an

operation of storing and later recalling information in the same order, whereas

working memory is the storage and concurrent processing of the same material

in order to complete a complex task (Berg, 2008; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;

Alloway, et al., 2006). A significant factor in the development and capacity of

short term memory is age, with estimates of memory span almost trebling

between pre-school years and early teenage years (Gathercole, 1999;

Gathercole & Adams, 1994). There is a steep increase in the capacity and

performance of short term memory up to age eight, followed by a more gradual

rate of development up to age 11 or 12 (Nichelli, Bulgheroni & Riva, 2001).

However, it seems that when using complex measures of working

memory, such as listening span, the development may continue up to age 16.

Therefore, according to Gathercole (1999), the development of working memory

may follow a longer trajectory than that of phonological or visuospatial short

term memory. This finding concurs with the development of the frontal lobes

which are mainly associated with the capacities used in complex working

memory tasks. (Collette & van der Linden, 2002; Egami et al., 2015). Executive

functioning and performance at an adult rate are reported to be reached in late

11

childhood when certain biological processes have taken place, such as synaptic

pruning and myelination (Zhong et al., 2014).

Despite the wealth of research about working memory in children, there

still seem to be many unanswered questions and a lack of understanding about

why and how working memory develops progressively (Cowan, Saults & Clark,

2015). Some researchers believe that memory has a limited capacity with a

specific amount of availability (Cowan et al., 2015), whilst others believe it is

due to an increase in sustained attention which rapidly improves until age 10

(Betts, McKay, Maruff & Anderson, 2006). An additional explanation could be

that as children get older they get better at using strategies such as rehearsal

(Rai and Harris, 2013) and chunking (Pickering, 2001, Rossi-Arnaud, Pieroni &

Baddeley, 2006). Furthermore, it is only once they reach age eight that children

start to show a strategic use of the phonological loop (Kemps et al., 2000;

Pickering, 2001).

Many researchers have found that children below the age of seven

perform at a significantly lower rate on working memory tasks than older

children (Gathercole et al., 2004). One suggestion is that children have the

physical ability to perform certain skills such as rehearsal, but they are unaware

of the complexity of their own abilities when performing memory tasks and will

not adopt a memory strategy unless instructed to do so (Rai & Harris, 2013).

Rai and Harris (2013), adopted a Brown-Peterson task of repeating trigrams to

assess working memory in adults and children. They employed a distractor

task of orally reciting the American pledge of allegiance, which served as a valid

measure for both age groups. The results revealed that in the first condition,

where children were not explicitly directed to rehearse, they performed poorly.

12

However, in the second condition where they were explicitly instructed to use

subvocal rehearsal, their performance levels were similar to those of the adults.

This would suggest that children often do not understand the need to

remember, whilst their ability to use a strategy is often immature (Rai & Harris,

2013).

It is believed that as children develop and mature, they show increasing

levels of executive functioning, such as having the ability to control their

thoughts and actions (Huizinga, Dolan & van der Molen, 2006). Furthermore,

according to Baddeley (1992), the central executive is the component which

allows an individual to focus their attention and where necessary to divide their

attention. For example, a study by Dirk and Schmiedek (2016), indicated that

Grade 4 children showed a more consistent performance in working memory

tasks from one occasion to another than Grade 3 children. The Grade 4

children also seemed to display higher levels of maturity when facing

disturbances, indicating that as children get older they develop more mature

processes for self-regulation (Dirk & Schmiedek, 2016). This finding is in line

with the concept that executive functioning develops later in children and plays

a vital role in learning and in enabling children to maintain focus (Holmes,

Gathercole & Dunning, 2009). According to Stöcktel and Hughes (2016),

executive functioning plays an important role in the control of selective or

focused attention, in addition to the control of behaviour and emotions.

In summary, it has been suggested that working memory is a

combination of the storage capacity of short term memory with an additional

processing element. One opinion is that the same cognitive function is

associated with both short term memory and working memory, with the main

13

difference being that working memory refers to active rather than passive tasks

(Zimmer, 2008). According to Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin and Conway (1999),

the necessity for controlled attention leads to the use of working memory.

Moreover, what constitutes a short term memory task for some may equal a

working memory task for others, for example, children who may be less

experienced in memory strategies, such as rehearsal or chunking (Engle et al.,

1999). Therefore, whilst it has been suggested that working memory and short

term memory are different constructs, it is reasonable to assume that working

memory relies on the storage component of short term memory and that both

constructs are highly correlated (Engle et al., 1999).

A framework to assess working memory. According to Henry (2001),

the working memory model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974 provides

an effective framework for analysing the components of working memory in

children. Logie and Cowan (2015) claim that this early work by Baddeley and

Hitch represents one of the most influential additions to the field of cognitive

science. Support for the working memory model was also found in the study by

Cowan et al., (1992). Similarly, Alloway et al., (2006) found that the capacity of

working memory in children can be explained effectively by a domain-general

model such as the working memory model. According to Berg (2008), the

model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974 is one of the most widely

accepted and researched models of working memory. Therefore, this study will

refer to the components of the working memory model in order to explain the

development of working memory in children.

The working memory model. The original working memory model

created by Baddeley and Hitch in 1974 comprised three subcomponents; the

14

phonological loop, which stores and manipulates verbal material; the

visuospatial sketchpad, which holds and manipulates visual and spatial

information; and the central executive, which controls attention and is assisted

by the two subsidiary systems (Baddeley & Hitch 1994). Further research led to

the conclusion that the model was incomplete and could not account for all

processes; therefore, the episodic buffer was added to the model in 2000

(Baddeley, 2000).

According to Baddeley and Hitch (1994), the phonological loop contains

a temporary storage system for speech-based material which fades after two

seconds unless a process to maintain the memory is employed. The second

subcomponent of the loop is a subvocal rehearsal mechanism, which serves to

refresh material and prevent decay (Baddeley, 2003). According to Gathercole

et al., (2004), subvocal rehearsal can enable the recoding of material presented

in a non-phonological form, such as pictures or printed words, in order for this

material to gain access to the phonological store.

Extensive research has led to the discovery of links between the

phonological loop and language learning; it is assumed that a child’s ability to

learn new vocabulary and develop their native language alongside an adult’s

ability to learn a second language is supported by the phonological loop

(Baddeley, Gathercole & Papagno, 1998; Baddeley, 2003; French & O’Brien,

2008). Furthermore, as children become more experienced in learning

vocabulary and develop a good phonological memory, they become better at

repeating unfamiliar non-words (Baddeley et al., 1998). Therefore, it appears

that the relationship between phonological memory and vocabulary acquisition

is a reciprocal one which may also link with long term memory, (Baddeley,

15

1993). According to French and O’Brien (2008), phonological memory has a

significant role in the acquisition of grammatical learning and is a reliable

predictor of the development of grammatical knowledge. In summary, the

phonological loop plays a significant role in the storage and processing of verbal

material (Henry, 2012).

According to Baddeley (2003), the second slave system of the working

memory model, which is responsible for the temporary storage and

manipulation of visual, spatial and kinaesthetic material, is known as the

visuospatial sketchpad. Similar to the rehearsal mechanism in the phonological

loop, it is thought that the visuospatial sketchpad is used as a mechanism of

visualisation in order to aid the retrieval of information (Rende, Ramsberger &

Miyake, 2002). According to Logie and Pearson (1997), the two major

components of the visuospatial sketchpad comprise a mechanism for

processing visual information; the visual cache, which handles information such

as colour and shape; and a component responsible for the processing of spatial

stimuli; the inner scribe, which handles information related to the sequences of

movements.

Notwithstanding the two distinct components of the visuospatial

sketchpad, it is often difficult to differentiate between visual and spatial tasks.

Numerous studies have been conducted to test each of these components. For

example, Logie and Pearson (1997) used a Corsi Block task to assess the

spatial element and a pattern test to measure the visual component. However,

according to Gathercole (1999), it is very difficult to find a pure measure of

verbal or spatial memory. In a study by Alloway et al., (2006), children who

undertook a dot matrix task which is considered a visual task, and a block recall

16

task, which is a spatial measure, performed equally well on both tasks. As all of

the tasks were conducted in a dynamic way, one explanation would be that

previous findings may not be the result of a clear distinction between visual and

spatial elements, but rather a static versus a dynamic presentation of the tasks

(Alloway et al., 2006). Nevertheless, Baddeley (2003) ascertains that the

reliance on spatial memory during a Corsi-block task has been supported by

behavioural and neuropsychological evidence. Furthermore, there is also

evidence that visual and spatial processes are separate constructs (Baddeley &

Hitch, 1994). For example, one patient who had brain damage resulting from a

car crash, experienced difficulties in completing visual tasks, however, his ability

to complete spatial tasks was unimpaired (Baddeley & Hitch, 1994). This

evidence serves as one example to illustrate the complexity of working memory.

According to Baddeley and Hitch (1994), the central executive is the

most complex and least understood component of the model. It is thought to be

an attentional control mechanism served by the phonological loop and the

visuospatial sketchpad. Therefore, the central executive is involved in

regulating the focus of attention on a task and in dividing attention between the

other components in the model (Baddeley, 2002). According to Gathercole,

Durling, Evans, Jeffcock & Stone (2008), some complex memory tasks, which

involve manipulation and storage of lengthy sentences, rely on both the

phonological loop and the central executive. Furthermore, the central executive

plays a significant role in ensuring children keep track of where they are up to in

the sequence of instructions (Gathercole et al., 2008). For example, they are

aware of which part of the instruction they have completed, and which items still

need to be performed. However, there has been minimal focus on the central

17

executive amongst researchers due to the vagueness and complexity of the

concept (Kemps et al., 2000), therefore this is an area which still requires

further investigation.

In 2000, a fourth component, the episodic buffer was added to the model

(Baddeley, 2000). The episodic buffer provides a system for binding

information from different sources and enables the different components to

interact with one another and with information from long term memory

(Baddeley, 2010). It is assumed that the episodic buffer is a system of limited

capacity, and unlike the central executive, it is concerned with storage rather

than attentional control (Baddeley, 2003). According to Rossi-Arnaud et al.

(2006), the act of binding items together to form chunks is performed by the

episodic buffer. It is estimated that the capacity of the episodic buffer is around

four chunks or episodes (Baddeley, 2010). There is a clear link between

working memory and long term memory, thus emphasizing the need for the

addition of the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2010). This can be explained by the

ability to remember four or five unrelated words but up to approximately 15

words when they form part of a meaningful sentence. This illustrates the use of

semantic and grammatical concepts, which are dependent on long term

memory (Baddeley, 2010). For this reason, Alloway, Gathercole, Willis &

Adams (1994), ascertain that the repetition of sentences serves as an accurate

assessment of the role of the episodic buffer and its capacity.

Working memory is a processing resource of limited capacity involved in

the storage and processing demands of executive function (Alloway et al., 2008;

Baddeley, 2003; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). Many factors are thought to be

involved in the level of functioning of memory, including decay (Daneman &

18

Carpenter, 1980), interference, an excess load for the capacity available

(Gathercole, 1999) or even a delay at output due to various factors such as

word or phoneme length and a longer articulation rate (Gathercole & Adams,

1994).

Phonological Memory. Reliable and widely used tests, which assess

phonological short term memory, include digit span, word recall and non-word

recall; these measures test the ability to store and retrieve information without

any need for processing or manipulation of the source (Gathercole, 1999;

Gathercole et al., 2004). Whilst short term memory does not contain any

processing demands, it plays an important role in performance in any memory

task and short term storage has been highlighted as a key component in the

relationship between working memory and fluid intelligence (Hornung, Brunner,

Reuter & Martin, 2011). Furthermore, high levels of association have been

found between proficiency in phonological awareness, namely a child’s

awareness of how sound is structured in language, and a child’s ability to read

(Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).

More complex tasks, which require processing and storage demands and

therefore test phonological working memory, include backward digit span,

listening recall (sometimes referred to as listening span by some researchers,

eg. Henry, 2001), and counting recall (Alloway et al., 2008; Alloway et al., 2006;

Gathercole et al., 2004). During a listening span task, participants have to state

whether a sentence is true or false and they have to memorise the final word in

each sentence (Henry, 2001). As this task involves simultaneous storage and

processing, it is believed that the phonological loop is responsible for the

19

storage element of the task whilst the central executive is needed to enable

processing (Gathercole et al., 2004).

Children face many cognitive tasks, in the day-to-day functioning at

school and one example of such a task is following classroom instructions

(Kaplan & White, 1980). Children with a deficit in working memory generally

have more difficulty in following classroom instructions and this deficit gets

larger with age (Alloway et al., 2008). Kaplan and White (1980) recorded and

analysed classrooms interactions, and found that, on average a direction was

issued every 40 seconds. According to Bergman-Nutley & Klingberg (2014),

failure to follow instructions correctly is a clear sign of a working memory deficit,

which, in view of the quantity of instructions given in a typical lesson, could

represent a considerable problem.

The original following directions task designed by Kaplan and White

(1980), was based on the notion that the ability to follow a series of instructions

increased as children got older. In this task a list of instructions, which become

progressively longer, is read out to children, who subsequently aim to follow the

directions. For example, according to Kaplan and White (1980), the instruction

to ‘open your books’ requires one single behaviour and therefore constitutes a

single direction. The directions become more complex by adding qualifying

statements, such as, at the back of the room, or more behaviours, such as

‘open your books and answer the questions’. The test has subsequently been

used by several researchers, to assess phonological working memory (Engle et

al, 1991; Gathercole et al., 2008).

20

In the study conducted by Gathercole et al., (2008), children were given

short instructions, such as ‘touch the blue eraser and then progressively longer

instructions such as ‘pick up the green ruler and put it in the red box’. Further

instructions were added by using the adverb ‘then’, to increase the number of

steps to be performed, thus increasing the complexity of the task. The findings

showed that the ability to follow directions accurately is closely linked with

working memory ability and is not just a measure of the passive verbal storage

associated with short term memory (Gathercole et al., 2008).

Whilst Kaplan and White (1980), make no specific claims about

enjoyment of the following directions task they designed, Engle et al. (1991)

refer to it as a ‘game’. The word game implies a level of enjoyment and whilst

enjoyment has not been highlighted explicitly, it is clearly a matter for

consideration. It would be reasonable to assume that if children were enjoying

an activity they would show higher levels of focus and attention, thus resulting in

a possible improvement in performance on a memory task. Furthermore,

children who show deficits in working memory are often described by their

teachers as inattentive (Alloway et al., 2008; Gathercole et al., 2008), thus

highlighting the need for engaging and enjoyable tasks to be implemented.

The benefits of using a following instructions task to improve memory

and provide training opportunities have been clearly demonstrated (Bergman-

Nutley & Klingberg, 2014). For example, Holmes et al. (2009) conducted a

study to assess the benefits of employing a following instructions style training

programme which led to an improvement in task performance of 0.94 standard

deviations. Similarly, Bergman-Nutley and Klingberg (2014) used a following

21

instructions task as a training mechanism and found that children’s performance

in mathematical tests improved by 0.89 standard deviations.

The current study involves the analysis of a novel tool, which also

addresses the issue of children’s ability to follow instructions and their working

memory ability. ‘Unpacking the Box’ is a tool aimed at developing

communication skills, which has been evolved over several years by a charity

called Triangle. The tool is intended to address issues of communication skills

with a clear focus on the requirements for a child to be able to give evidence in

criminal or family proceedings. The contents of the box enable interviewers to

develop a rapport, to check understanding of position and sequencing

vocabulary and to assess auditory working memory. The task is also designed

to help children settle quickly and to provide an enjoyable and engaging task

(Triangle, 2015).

Similarities can be seen between ‘Unpacking the Box’ and the following

instructions task as both tasks involve verbal instructions with a direction to

follow. Furthermore, both tasks require the individual to physically move objects

around and the instructions for both tasks become progressively longer in order

to measure the span for each individual.

One explanation for the improvement in working memory, as children get

older could be due to a better use of strategies available for the maintenance of

material (Gathercole et al., 2004). Items held in the phonological store decay

rapidly unless a further mechanism, such as subvocal rehearsal is used to

maintain the material (Berg, 2008). Extensive research has found that one of

the main developmental changes in the verbal memory span of children is the

22

rehearsal process (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Gathercole and Adams,

1994). However, it is unusual for children under seven years of age to actively

rehearse auditory information (Gathercole, 1999; Tam, Baddeley, Sabatos-

DeVito, 2010). Furthermore, it is believed that rehearsal increases at a similar

rate to articulation, therefore it would appear that the development of children’s

articulation rate is a significant factor in the increased memory span (Gathercole

& Adams, 1994).

Numerous pieces of research have supported the link between subvocal

rehearsal and articulation rate. For example, Cowan et al. (1992) found that

participants were able to recall the same amount of words that they could

articulate in 1.5 – 2.0 seconds. Gathercole and Adams (1994) tested the use of

subvocal rehearsal by measuring children’s rate of articulation and comparing it

to their scores on a digit span test. The results demonstrated that when children

aged four were tested, a zero correlation emerged between digit span and

articulation rate, whereas a significant correlation was found in five year olds.

This would suggest that the process of subvocal rehearsal emerges at some

point between the ages of four and five (Gathercole & Adams, 1994). However,

it was also found that articulation rates did not match memory span for words,

suggesting that subvocal rehearsal was not being used for recall of this type of

material (Gathercole & Adams, 1994). This raises the question of why this

strategy would be used inconsistently. One explanation could be that children

who are nearing the end of their first year of formal schooling are very familiar

with the digits 1 – 9 and will have completed many tasks using these digits

(Jones & Macken, 2015). The level of familiarity could be important in the

children’s use of subvocal rehearsal (Gathercole & Adams, 1994).

23

There are several factors which may be involved in the functioning of

memory (Cowan et al., 1992). One possible explanation may be related to the

decay at output caused by the longer phonemes. It was demonstrated that the

effect of output delays was mainly responsible for word length effects when

assessing verbal memory via lists of words from a visual source (Cowan et al.,

1992). Similarly, it has also been found that children with low articulation rates

are likely to have a lower performance rate on verbal tasks, particularly

repetition of non-words (Baddeley et al., 1998).

The differences between short term memory and working memory tasks

mean that the longer processing time involved in working memory tasks are

likely to lead to higher levels of interference between the initial presentation of

the word and the delay in it being recalled (Cowan, Towse, Hamilton & Hitch,

2003). Therefore, in more complex tasks, other more elaborate strategies may

be employed such as remembering the word by relating it to the context (Cowan

et al., 2003). For example, in a listening span task, a possible interpretation

could be that rather than rehearsing the final word for maintenance, the word

was allowed to become inactive and consequently recall of the sentences

provided a cue for remembering the final last word (Cowan et al., 2003).

According to Daneman and Carpenter (1980), one explanation for the

differences in function supports the idea that if the storage and processing

demands exceed the available capacity, there is a trade-off between storage

and processing activities; therefore, if more storage is required, there will be a

reduction in the processing that can take place. The explanation for the

improvement in working memory as children get older reflects the idea that

children get more experienced at reading and processing with age.

24

Consequently, as processing becomes more effective, it frees up more capacity

for storage Daneman & Carpenter, (1980). However, this explanation has been

challenged by several researchers, as it would seem that the expected

outcomes resulting from a trade-off between storage and processing have not

been observed in many cases (Gathercole et al., 2004). For example, in a

study by Gathercole et al. (2008), children with a low working memory had the

ability to complete the processing tasks, such as finding the rhymes or counting

the words, although it was expected that storage would be diminished due to

their reduced efficiency in processing. However, the data from this study did

not support this theory, suggesting that there may be other explanations for the

deficits in working memory, such as executive functioning and the contributions

of the central executive (Gathercole et al., 2008).

An additional explanation is the time-based resource sharing model, as

explained by Barrouillet, Gavens, Verguaume, Gaillard and Camos (2009). This

theory also relies on the idea of attentional resources being shared between the

demands of processing and storage. However, it is thought that during pauses

in processing activities, attention is switched to provide an opportunity for

refreshment of the material (Barrouillet et al., 2009). It has been demonstrated

that where a task occupies a participant’s attention almost continuously, this

results in a decrease in performance, whilst tasks which allow for pauses and

therefore more attentional switches represent a lower cognitive load and lead to

an improvement in performance (Barrouillet et al., 2009).

According to Baddeley (2000), the processing element of working

memory relies heavily on the central executive for controlling resources and

monitoring the processing of information. Alloway et al. (2006) found a greater

25

similarity between cognitive function in verbal and visuospatial working memory

than in verbal and short term memory tasks. One explanation for this could be

that the central executive is involved in complex working memory tasks

involving both the central executive and the phonological loop or the

visuospatial sketch pad and therefore the level of executive functioning is

similar for verbal and visual or spatial tasks when processing is required

(Alloway et al., 2006).

Visuospatial memory. According to Kokubo et al. (2012), the

development of visuo-spatial working memory begins in children as young as

six and continues into adulthood with the fastest developments happening

between the ages of six and eight.

A well-established measure of visuospatial short term memory is the

Corsi blocks test; participants observe and attempt to repeat a sequence tapped

out on the blocks (Berch, Krikorian & Huha, 1998). A developmental trend

whereby span increases with age has been observed in several studies. For

example, León, Cimadevilla & Tascón (2014), tested visuospatial memory using

Corsi blocks with children aged five to ten and found a significant effect of age

on performance. However, one criticism with the Corsi blocks task concerns

the variations in the material or procedure used, for example the size or colour

of the blocks or the distance between them, which may affect performance

(Berch et al., 1998). The dot matrix task involves the participant looking at the

location of a red dot on a 4 x 4 grid and then recalling the position by tapping

the correct square on a computer screen (Alloway et al., 2006). This type of

task requires the participant to store and retrieve visuospatial information but

unlike working memory tasks, there is no element of processing involved.

26

In the study by Alloway et al., (2006), three measures to assess

visuospatial working memory which involved recall and processing tasks were

used; the odd one out task, the Mr X task and the spatial span task. In the odd

one out task participants observed a set of 3 shapes in a row and had to identify

the odd one out. At the end of each trial, the participant then had to remember

the positions of the odd shape in the correct order (Alloway et al., 2006). In the

Mr X task participants compared two pictures of Mr X and decided if each Mr X

was holding the ball in the same hand. At the end of each trial the participant

had to recall the locations of the ball in the correct order (Alloway et al., 2006).

In the spatial span task, there is also a processing requirement where the

participant has to assess the similarity between two shapes, one of them often

rotated and then recall the location of a red dot (Alloway et al., 2006). The three

tasks listed above have been described as spatial working memory tasks.

However, one of the difficulties found with the visuospatial sketchpad is

how to differentiate the visual and spatial elements of this component (Alloway

et al., 2006). It has been suggested, that it is very difficult to find a task that

relies purely on visual or spatial resources (Gathercole, 1999). It would be

impossible to remove the visual aspect of any of these tasks. Nevertheless, it

has been proposed that visual and spatial tasks may rely on different underlying

cognitive mechanisms and thus develop at different rates. These mechanisms

include techniques such as maintaining a visual representation of stimuli,

labelling items so as to give them a verbal code and engaging in subvocal

rehearsal (Kemps et al., 2000).

According to Kemps et al., (2000), there is a gradual increase in

visuospatial memory span between the ages of four and eleven. However,

27

other research has found that the increase in visuospatial span between age

five and age eleven is rapid, with children aged eleven having acquired a similar

span to adults (Wilson, Scott & Power, 1987). Similarly, Riggs, McTaggart,

Simpson and Freeman (2006), report that visuospatial capacity is thought to

double between the ages of five and ten, with ten-year-old children reaching an

adult like capacity of three to four items. Therefore, an increase in capacity

could account for some of the developmental improvements observed in

visuospatial memory.

Another explanation for the rapid development in visuo-spatial memory

could be that younger children may find it more difficult to focus their attention

and as a result may miss some of the changes (Riggs et al., 2006). Similarly,

the use of a particular strategy and the type of strategy used could also account

for some of the developmental improvement. For example, it has been

suggested that unlike verbal stimuli, which have automatic access to the

phonological loop, visual stimuli have to undergo a recoding process to gain

access (Kemps et al., 2000). It would appear that storing information in a visual

form is the main strategy employed by younger children, whilst once children

reach age eight they become more proficient in encoding the material into a

verbal form, thus adopting a phonological approach to rehearsal (Pickering,

2001). Research has indicated that children develop the use of subvocal

rehearsal for auditory information earlier than for visually presented material

(Hitch, Halliday, Dodd & Littler, 1989). Therefore, younger children who have

not fully developed the skill of articulatory rehearsal often do not recode visual

stimuli whereas older children and adults usually do (Kemps et al., 2000).

28

The process of subvocal rehearsal may work for some visuospatial tasks,

however, it has been suggested that rehearsal strategies are of no benefit in

some of the less semantic tasks such as matrix tasks (Vogel, Woodman & Luck,

2001). Furthermore, it was also found that articulatory suppression did not

cause any negative effects in performance on a Corsi Blocks task, suggesting

that the phonological loop was not being used to recode the information for

rehearsal (Kemps et al., 2000).

Another explanation for the improvement in performance could be due to

an increase in capacity, as children aged five to seven are believed to have a

capacity for two items but this capacity doubles to four items for children aged

11 and adults (Riggs et al., 2006).

The implications of low working memory in children. There is a

substantial amount of evidence linking the ability to learn with the capacity of

working memory (Holmes et al., 2009). It has been highlighted, that children

with a low working memory often experience problems in everyday tasks such

as following instructions, and are more likely to have a record of poor academic

progress (Alloway et al., 2008). Furthermore, the deficits seem to grow as

children get older, highlighting the need for early intervention programmes

(Alloway et al., 2008). Improvements in working memory tasks and in general

classroom performance have been observed as a result of memory training

programmes (St Clair-Thompson, Stevens, Hunt & Bolder, 2010; Holmes et al.,

2009). However, it should also be pointed out that these improvements are not

always transferred to standardised ability measures.

29

There would appear to be a dearth of literature regarding enjoyment

levels of children completing memory tasks. One study refers to a measure

which was reported to be enjoyable and developmentally appropriate for

younger children; the Children’s Size-Ordering task (McInerney, Hrabok &

Kerns, 2005). Furthermore, whilst not explicitly highlighted in the literature,

several tasks aimed at children and levels of enjoyment and engagement have

been used in memory testing. Mr X involves children looking at two cartoon

pictures and identifying differences between the pictures (Alloway et al., 2006).

In the Mr Peanut task, children are presented with a clown shape image with

dots placed in different locations and they have to choose the correct locations

for the dots on a blank model (Kemps et al., 2000). In a spatial task by Hornung

et al. (2011), children had to memorize and subsequently report on the location

of dwarves that appeared briefly on a PC screen. Whilst the researchers do not

make explicit comments about the enjoyment factor of each of the tasks, it

would seem reasonable to assume that they have been designed to be more

appropriate for use with children and to boost levels of engagement and

enjoyment.

For example, in a training programme by Colmar, Davis and Sheldon

(2016) to assist children’s memory in classroom situations, the materials were

presented as pictorial icons. This choice of resource was based on finding

material that would be appealing to children, and the result was that children

reported the task as enjoyable (Colmar et al., 2016). However, little research

seems to have been conducted in analysing the benefits of enjoyment of task

on levels of performance or in developing resources which may lead to

increased enjoyment amongst children.

30

According to Engle et al., (1991), working memory is an essential part of

everyday life and is necessary for people to function in society. The importance

of working memory is evident across a range of school based tasks such as

mental arithmetic (St Clair Thompson et al., 2009), language development

(Baddeley et al., 1998) and following instructions (Alloway et al., 2008), and

deficits can lead to significant issues for many individuals. Therefore, it would

seem opportune to analyse a novel tool, which may help assess working

memory in children in a straightforward yet effective way, in order to aid future

developments in the field.

‘Unpacking the Box’ is a novel tool designed to check understanding and

assess verbal memory in children and it would appear that no previous research

has been carried out on this resource. However, there are many possible

implications for its usage in the future in many different settings, such as

schools and in clinical practices. As there would appear to be a lack of

enjoyable and easy to administer tasks for assessing working memory in

children, it is paramount that this apparatus is examined and compared with

other measures to assess its validity. Therefore, this study will examine

whether children perform according to their age on working memory span tasks,

if there is a correlation between working memory span tasks and Unpacking the

Box and children’s levels of enjoyment with the use of a novel resource

‘Unpacking the Box’. It is predicted that:

1. Children’s performance on memory tasks will increase with age.

2. Children will report high levels of enjoyment when being assessed

using the novel tool ‘Unpacking the Box’.

31

Method

Participants. A total of 71 pupils (37 males, 34 females) from ages 6 to

8 at a primary school in the North West of England participated in the study.

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Chester (Appendix A) and

parents were provided with detailed information of the study (Appendix B) along

with an opt-out form prior to testing (Appendix C). The pupils were divided into

three age groups; age 6 (M 77 months, SD = 3.2), age 7 (M 90 months, SD =

3.5) and age 8 (M 101 months, SD = 3.4). Two pupils who were aged five were

removed from the data set, leaving a total of 69 participants (36 male and 33

female).

Materials. Lists of numbers ranging from a two item list to a nine item

list were used for the digit span task (Appendix D). For the Corsi blocks task a

similar list of numbers was used, with list length varying between two and nine

(Appendix E) alongside a wooden board containing nine blocks. The blocks

were numbered for the researcher, however, the participant was not able to see

the numbers during the testing period. For the listening span task, a list of

sentences was used (Appendix F) of which some sentences were true and

some were false or silly sentences. The tool ‘Unpacking the Box’ comprises a

silver tin containing a smaller tin and a selection of silver and black objects such

as stars, paperclips, ribbons and bags (see Figure 1) and a list of instructions to

be read out verbally to the children (Appendix G).

32

Figure 1: The novel tool ‘Unpacking the Box’

Procedure. Data collection and testing took place in a quiet area near to

the classroom of the children and all children were tested individually. At the

start of each trial the researcher explained to each child that they were not

completing a test and that no scores would be passed on to their teachers. It

was explained that they were helping with some jobs. Children were also

reminded that they did not have to take part if they did not want to and that they

could stop the trial at any time (Appendix H). A total of four tests were

administered to each child during a single session which lasted approximately

15 minutes. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced so that each task was

in first, second, third and fourth position an equal amount of times. An example

was given at the start of each test to ensure children understood the

requirements. A final questionnaire (Appendix I) was administered to the

children to assess levels of difficulty and enjoyment whilst completing each of

the tasks. The children also explained which task they enjoyed the most and

what they thought were the best and worst things about Unpacking the Box. At

33

the end of each individual test, a debrief took place and children were given the

opportunity to ask any questions (Appendix J). it was explained to the children

that if they had a question later on they could ask their teacher who would

contact the researcher if necessary.

Auditory digit span. The experimenter read a list of digits aloud at a

rate of one per second and the child attempted to repeat the same sequence of

digits. The list length started at two and increased by one digit each time if the

child successfully repeated the sequence. There were two lists at each level

and if the child failed to both attempts of the lists at a particular length no further

lists were given. The highest number of digits recalled correctly provided the

figure recorded as the digit span for each individual.

Corsi blocks. To test digit span, the experimenter tapped a pattern on

the Corsi blocks at a rate of one block per second and the child attempted to

copy the sequence. The list started with two numbers and increased by one

digit if the child repeated the sequence of tapping the blocks correctly. The

child had two attempts at each length and if unsuccessful, no further patterns

were given. The longest list length recalled was the figure recorded for each

child.

Listening span. To assess working memory via the listening span test,

the experimenter read a sentence aloud and the child attempted to remember

the last word of the sentence and to state if the sentence was true or false.

There were three attempts at each level and the child had to complete the task

successfully on two occasions to move to the next level. Each time the child

successfully completed a level the complexity of the task was increased by

34

adding another sentence. Children were allowed to recall the final words in any

order. The longest list on which two tasks were completed correctly provided

the listening span figure for each individual.

Unpacking the Box. To administer the ‘Unpacking the Box’ test, the

experimenter read an instruction aloud to each child who attempted to follow the

instruction by picking up or placing objects from the box in different positions.

The instruction was increased by one key word at each level. The children

were given two opportunities to complete the task successfully at each level. If

they were successful, they moved on to the next level. If the children were

unsuccessful on both attempts at a particular level, then no more instructions

were given. The highest amount of instructions performed correctly provided

the child’s individual score for ‘Unpacking the Box’.

Design

A 3x2 between-subjects design was employed. The first independent

variable was gender and there were two levels; male and female. The second

independent variable was age and there were three levels; age six, age seven

and age eight. There were four dependent variables; scores on a digit span

test, scores on a Corsi block test, scores on a listening span test and scores on

a test using Unpacking the box. A 3x2 within subjects ANOVA was used to

analyse the results. Post hoc Bonferroni corrected Tukey tests were carried out

with a reduced alpha level of .017.

Results

The aim of the study was to investigate the development of working

memory in children using a novel tool, ‘Unpacking the Box’ and to asses if there

35

was a correlation between working memory tasks. The mean and standard

deviation scores for each of the tasks and each of the age groups are displayed

in Table 1. A steady increase in performance according to age was observed

for all of the tasks.

Table 1:Descriptive statistics for tasks carried out with male and female children

aged 6, 7 and 8 years.

  Task  Digit Span Corsi Blocks Listening

SpanUnpacking

the boxAge/Gender M SD M SD M SD M SD

Age 6 4.57 0.82 4.03 0.93 1.27 1.02 5.53 2.45

Age 7 4.86 0.91 4.48 0.75 1.67 0.91 7.19 1.08

Age 8 5.00 0.69 4.67 0.84 1.78 0.73 7.17 0.92

Male

Age 6 4.53 0.80 4.00 1.12 1.41 1.18 5.65 2.50

Age 7 4.70 1.16 4.40 0.70 1.70 0.68 7.20 1.03

Age 8 4.78 0.67 4.78 0.97 1.56 0.53 6.89 0.93

Female

Age 6 4.62 0.87 4.08 0.64 1.08 0.77 5.38 2.47

Age 7 5.00 0.63 4.55 0.82 1.64 1.12 7.18 1.17

Age 8 5.22 0.67 4.56 0.73 2.00 0.87 7.44 0.88

The effect of age and gender on task performance. Analyses of

variance were conducted to examine the effect of age on performance for each

of the tasks. There was no significant main effect of age on digit span scores, F

= 1.657, p =.199, = .050, or of gender on digit span scores, F = 1.861,

p=.177, =.029. There was no significant interaction between age and gender

on digit span scores, F = .282, p = .755, = .009.

36

An analysis of variance yielded a significant main effect of age on

performance in a Corsi Blocks test, F (2, 63) = 3.272, p=.044, = .094.

Tukey’s post hoc tests, with a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of 0.17 showed

no significant difference between pupils aged 6, 95% CI [3.178, 4.359] and 8

[4.256, 5.077], p=.046. The differences between pupils aged 6 and 7, 95% CI

[4.092, 4.853], p=.182 and those aged 7 and 8, p=.776 were not significant.

There was no significant main effect of gender on Corsi block scores, F = .000,

p=1.000, = .000 nor was there a significant interaction between age and

gender, F = .244, p = .784, = .008.

There was no significant main effect of age on scores in a listening span

test, F = 2.275, p=.111, = .067 or of gender on listening span scores, F

= .004, p=.947, =.000. No significant interaction was observed between age

and gender on listening span scores, F = .993, p = .376, = .031.

An Anova conducted on the Unpacking the Box resource yielded a

significant main effect of age on perfomance scores, F (2, 63) = 6.990, p=.002,

= 182. Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed a significant difference in

performance between children aged 6, 95% CI [4.845, 6.187] and children aged

7, 95% CI [6.395, 7.987], p=.006. There was also a significant difference

between children aged 6 and children aged 8, 95% CI [6.308, 8.025], p=.01. No

significant difference was found between children aged 7 and 8, p=.999. There

was no significant main effect of gender on Unpacking the box scores, F (2, 63)

= .041, p =.839, = .001, nor was there a significant interaction between age

and gender, F = .284, p = .754, = .009.

37

Correlational Analyses. Correlation analyses were conducted between

‘Unpacking the Box’ and each of the tasks were conducted (See Table 2).

Table 2: Correlations between tasks

 Unpacking the box

Digit Span

Corsi Blocks

Listening Span

Digit Span .25*Corsi Blocks .29* .27*Listening Span .54** .41** .27*Age (Months) .44** .24* .36* .29*

* - significant at 0.05

** - significant at 0.01

As a relationship was expected between each of the tasks, one-tailed

tests were carried out with a 0.5% level of significance. All of the tasks were

significantly related to each other and the relationship between ‘Unpacking the

Box’ and Corsi blocks, ‘Unpacking the Box’ and listening span, and digit span

and listening span were significant at the 0.01 level.

Enjoyment of tasks. Non-parametric analyses were carried out to

measure the level of enjoyment on each of the tasks. The results of the

Friedman Test indicated that there was a significant difference in the level of

enjoyment between the four tasks; digit span, Corsi blocks, listening span and

‘Unpacking the Box’ χ² (3, n = 69) = 34.14, p <.001. Inspection of the mean

scores indicated that pupils enjoyed ‘Unpacking the Box’ the most (M = 4.67,

SD = .76), followed by Corsi Blocks (M = 4.46, SD = .83) and Digit Span (M =

4.33, SD = .82, ). The least enjoyable task for pupils was the listening span

task (M = 4.01, SD = .92).

38

Post hoc tests were conducted between Unpacking the Box and each of

the tasks and a Bonferroni adjusted alpha value of .017 was used. A Wilcoxon

Signed Rank Test revealed a significant difference in enjoyment levels between

‘Unpacking the Box’ and digit span, z = -2.86, p =.004, with a small effect size (r

= .24). The median enjoyment score for ‘Unpacking the Box’ (5.00) was higher

than the median enjoyment score for digit span (4.00) indicating higher levels of

enjoyment for ‘Unpacking the Box’. No significant difference was found

between enjoyment scores for Unpacking the Box and Corsi Blocks, z = -1.99, p

= .047. A significant difference was found between enjoyment levels for

Unpacking the Box and Listening span, z = -4.49, p <.001, with a medium effect

size (r =.38). A higher median score for Unpacking the Box (5.00) indicated

higher levels of enjoyment for that task than the median score for a listening

span task (4.00).

Difficulty of tasks. The Friedman Test was used to measure the level

of difficulty amongst each of the tasks. The results indicated a significant

difference in the level of difficulty between the four tasks χ² (3, n = 69) = 41.94,

p <.001. The mean scores indicated that pupils found the listening span the

most difficult (M = 2.94) of the tasks, followed by Digit Span (M = 2.80) and then

Corsi Blocks (M = 2.28). Unpacking the box was reported to be the least

difficult (M = 1.97).

A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a significant difference in the

level of difficulty experienced between Unpacking the Box and digit span, z = -

4.761, p < .001, with a medium effect size (r = .41). A median score of 1.00 for

Unpacking the Box revealed that pupils found it easier than digit span with a

median score of 2.00. No significant difference was found in the level of

39

difficulty between Unpacking the box and Corsi blocks, z = -1.680, p = .093. A

significant difference was found in the level of difficulty between Unpacking the

Box and listening span, z = -4.864, p < .001, with a medium effect size (r = .41).

Formal qualitative analyses were not conducted on these data, however, when

asked to describe the best and worst things about ‘Unpacking the Box’ many

children gave very positive answers, for example, “Its’ easy and I knew what

everything was”; it’s fun”; “I liked seeing all the things inside it”. The children

were often unable to mention anything negative about the box, saying that there

was nothing that could be improved.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the development of working

memory in children and to assess the extent to which the novel resource

‘Unpacking the Box’ correlated with other measures of working memory. It was

expected that age would have an effect on performance in the memory span of

children whereby, children’s performance would improve with age. A further

aim of the study was to examine levels of enjoyment when using this novel tool

for measuring working memory in children.

The importance of memory in children and adults has been

demonstrated by many researchers (Gathercole et al., 2004; Kemps et al.,

2000). Working memory is a cognitive function, which is vital for many basic life

processes (Engle et al., 1991). The importance of working memory has been

established in terms of reading ability (Engle et al., 1991), language

development and vocabulary acquisition (Baddeley et al., 1998), mathematical

40

performance (Swanson & Kim, 2007) and following classroom instructions

(Engle et al., 1991). Children’s performance on short term and working memory

tasks has also been highly correlated with measures of intelligence (Engle et

al., 1999). Therefore, the memory span of an individual plays a vital role in their

level of intelligent functioning (Gignac & Weiss, 2015). Due to the contribution

of memory to cognitive functioning, it is vital that research is carried out to

develop practical and useful resources to assess and improve working memory

in children. Therefore, this study is of vital importance as it provides information

on a novel tool to respond to this need.

Extensive research into short term memory and working memory in

children has revealed a linear developmental pattern with capacity gradually

increasing from a young age to adulthood (Gathercole, 1999). It is suggested

that children can increase their memory capacity by one chunk every two years

(Engle et al., 1991). The results of this study support a developmental pattern

of a gradual increase in memory span as the mean score for each of the tasks

indicates a steady improvement from age six through to age eight. Therefore, a

linear developmental increase in memory span, demonstrated by a gradual

improvement with age was evident across all of the tasks.

Whilst a gradual increase across scores was observed, no significant

effect of age was found on digit span performance. This result was a little

surprising as previous research indicates that the phonological loop undergoes

significant change between these ages (Gathercole & Adams, 1994). Firstly, it

is assumed that subvocal rehearsal is not used regularly by children under

seven years of age and therefore the phonological loop is merely a storage

system for verbal material at this age (Gathercole, 1999). It is believed that

41

children have the ability to use rehearsal strategies when instructed to do so but

do not employ these strategies without being prompted to do so (Rai & Harris,

2013). Therefore, due to a lack of subvocal rehearsal in under sevens, a

significant effect of age would be expected at least between the six year olds

and the seven year olds or the six year olds and the eight year olds.

However, the youngest age group in the sample are nearing the end of

their first year of full-time education and will have undertaken a considerable

amount of work with the digits 1 – 9, thus creating high levels of familiarity with

the material. Furthermore, numbers are often repeated regularly on television

or radio advertisements leading to high exposure amongst children (Jones &

Macken, 2015). According to Alloway et al. (2008), one explanation for this

result could be that the familiarity and experience of using digits led to better

performance. For example, in adults it has been found that performance on

memory span tasks decreased when the stimuli were foreign language items

(Cowan et al., 2015), showing that the activation of the episodic buffer to bind

information from long term memory is also an important factor in working

memory performance (Baddeley, 2010). Further evidence demonstrated that

the capacity to remember a telephone number is much lower when it is

presented in a foreign language (Baddeley, 2010). Similarly, capacity for a

string of unrelated words is much lower than the span for a meaningful

sentence, thus highlighting the contribution of the episodic buffer in binding

items from long term memory such as grammar and meaning (Baddeley, 2010).

In addition, as highlighted by Jones and Macken (2015), digits occur with

great frequency in everyday life in the form of dates, times, scores in a game,

telephone numbers and many more. Another factor could be that children have

42

heard numbers being presented as chunks and they may employ chunking as a

strategy for recall (Engle et al., 1991). Therefore, if children are highly familiar

with the stimuli presented, this could lead to them adopting strategies which are

normally only adopted by older children, such as chunking and rehearsal. This

would account for a higher level of performance amongst the younger children

who may have spontaneously used strategies or who may have relied on their

long term memory to help with retrieval. As a result, the task would be relatively

simple for the younger children and they may perform at the same level as the

older children. This possible explanation would also rely on the use of the

episodic buffer in binding the information from long term memory with the

phonological loop. (Baddeley, 2010). This proposal has been supported by

neuroimaging studies which found that areas of the brain associated with long

term memory are often activated during short term memory tasks (Baddeley,

2010).

According to Jones and Macken (2015), whilst many studies have used

digit span as a measure of short term memory, this is problematic as these

studies neglect the contribution of learning by association and long term

memory. Moreover, the idea that digit span may tap into long term memory

would account for the high correlation between digit span and new language

acquisition (Baddeley et al., 1998). It can be seen that the processes needed

for learning digits, such as learning information in a sequential manner (Jones &

Macken, 2015), and the ability to encode sounds (Alloway et al., 2004) are also

necessary for processes of language learning, such as the sequencing of

phonemes (French & O’Brien, 2007). Language learning is an essential part of

development and is vital for cognitive functioning (Engle et al., 1991). In view of

43

the highly significant link between phonological memory and language learning

and cognitive development, it would seem imperative that research which

investigates the role of phonological memory in children is given priority.

Despite the clear differences between the phonological and visuospatial

tasks, similar results were found for the digit span and Corsi Blocks tasks.

Whilst an initial significant effect of age was found on performance in the Corsi

Blocks task, once post hoc tests were conducted using an adjusted alpha value,

no significant effect of age was found. This was a surprising result in view of

previous research, which suggests that visual working memory improves with

age leading to a substantial capacity change between five years of age and

adulthood (Busch, Farrell, Lisdahl-Medina & Krikorian, 2005). In a study by

Kemps et al. (2000), a developmental trend in performance in visuospatial

memory span was found in children aged six to nine. This is in line with

previous findings and showed that children who were older performed slightly

better. The researchers used two tasks; the Corsi Block task and a task called

Mr Peanut. The Mr Peanut task requires children to look at a picture of a

cartoon style clown with dots positioned in several locations and subsequently

place the dots in the correct place on a blank version. The results showed a

main effect of age for both of the tasks. However, the study found that children

performed better on the Corsi Block task than the Mr Peanut task. One

explanation for this was that the Corsi block task involves a minimal load as

children repeat the sequence immediately and only concentrate on one block at

a time rather than a pattern with lots of information and 14 possible locations for

the dots (Kemps et al., 2000).

44

In addition, other studies have also found a significant effect of age on

performance in a forward Corsi block test (León et al., 2014). One explanation

for a lack of main effect of age in the present study could be due to the narrower

age range between the children. In the study by León, et al. (2014), children

ranged from age five to age ten, and in the study by Kemps et al. (2000), ages

ranged from five to nine, whereas the current study looked at differences in

children from age six to age eight. It has been proposed that visuospatial

memory continues to develop up to adolescence (Belmonti, Cioni & Berthoz,

2015) and therefore it might be that the differences between younger children

are less significant due to the component not reaching full development.

However, as indicated by the mean scores on the Corsi Block task, the gradual

increase in performance with age represented a developmental increase albeit

not significant, and mirrored the results of other studies using the Corsi Block

task (Belmonti, et al., 2015; Piccardi, Leonzi, D’Amico, Marano & Guariglia,

2014). In terms of gender differences, our results which indicated that there

was no significant effect of gender on performance were in line with many other

studies (Piccardi et al., 2013; Belmonti et al., 2015; Nichelli et al., 2001; León et

al., 2014).

There is still uncertainty as to whether the development of visual working

memory is a result of a growth in capacity or more effective use of strategies,

such as recoding material for verbal rehearsal or visualisation of stimuli (Riggs

et al., 2006). Furthermore, it has been ascertained that often children might

achieve the same outcome by using different structures (Hitch, Towse & Hutton,

2001). It would appear that as children develop and gain awareness of memory

techniques, they are more likely to engage in the recoding of items into a verbal

45

format to allow rehearsal (Pickering, Gathercole, Hall, & Lloyd, 2001).

However, this form of verbal rehearsal is generally used for material that can be

labelled in some way and visualisation is usually used with static stimuli. As the

Corsi Block tapping task is presented in a dynamic form, it is unlikely that any

form of rehearsal was employed (Pickering et al., 2001).

According to Busch et al. (2005), inconsistency in scores on a Corsi-

Block tapping test was thought to be the result of more complex path

configuration. In this study, particularly at list length five, several pupils aged six

failed at their first attempt but succeeded on the second attempt when the

pattern followed a circular motion. Therefore, the higher score for some of the

younger children may be attributed to a simpler path configuration. This finding

could also be interpreted in terms of children’s performance being influenced by

path configuration rather than the processing of sequential information (Busch

et al., 2005). It is assumed that sequential processing relies on executive

function (Allen, Baddeley & Hitch, 2014), therefore, if children were relying on

configural information then it may have made the task easier, thus explaining

the lack of significant variance amongst the different age groups. However,

others may argue that the inconsistency in higher scores could also be the

result of difficulty in maintaining sustained attention (Busch et al., 2005).

The listening span task involved a much more complex activity as it

involved storage and processing. The descriptive statistics suggest that

children found this task more challenging than the other tasks. One explanation

for the linear development of working memory is that as children get older, they

become better at processing and therefore, more capacity is available for

storage (Engle et al., 1991). However, in this current study, no significant main

46

effect of age was found on performance on the listening span task. Initially this

result was surprising, as it would be assumed that a heavier load would lead to

significant differences between the age groups. However, as the task was very

challenging, many students achieved a low score and therefore, due to the high

number of low scores, little difference was evident between the age groups.

One limitation with the scoring system for the listening span task was that

it only credited full answers and on occasions, some children almost completed

the task but maybe forgot one last word in the sentence and thus the lower

span number was used for their score. This method of scoring signified that in

some cases there were differences in the level of performance amongst

children with the same score. In a future study, it would be beneficial to use a

more complex system (see Henry, 2001) which would credit partially correct

answers and thus give an overall better picture of performance and ability for

each individual.

A significant effect of age on performance in ‘Unpacking the Box’ was

found between six year olds and the seven and eight-year-old children whilst

there was no significant effect between the seven and eight-year-old groups.

Previous research has found that following verbal instructions is a complex task

which relies on the phonological loop and the central executive (Gathercole et

al., 2008). For example, Engle et al. (1991) found that there was a high

correlation between a following directions task and performance on a

comprehension task. It is assumed that the executive function involved is

associated with the need for children to keep track of their place in the

sequence of the instruction (Gathercole et al., 2008). For example, children

who show high levels of executive functioning remember how far along they are

47

in the sequence of the instruction whilst also being able to recall which activities

they have already performed and which they still need to complete. In a study

by Bergman-Nutley and Klingberg (2014), performance on a similar task

involving following instructions showed a linear improvement and the results of

this study support those findings.

However, whilst developmental trends have been shown in previous

literature regarding the improvement of memory span with age, little is known

about the actual processes involved; some have proposed that the capacity of

memory increases with age, whilst others suggest that the improvement is due

to a more efficient use of strategies, leaving more resources available for

storage (Engle et al., 1991; Gathercole et al., 2004). For example, Cowan et al.

(2015) conducted a study using a visual array, which was to be recalled and a

subsequent probe. In some of the trials, contextual information, such as a

similar shape or colour was given and it was found that this led to the possibility

for children to make guesses, thus enabling them to benefit from the contextual

information. In addition, it was assumed that the younger children were more

likely to make guesses (Cowan et al., 2015). This is an area for consideration

with ‘Unpacking the Box’ as children have all of the materials spread out in front

of them and if they were not sure they could depend on the visual cues to assist

them. This could explain the high scores often obtained on this task.

Nevertheless, it must be considered that this contextual information could also

lead to a higher level of error as children may be able to pick the correct item

but select an incorrect colour (Cowan et al., 2015). Cowan et al. (2015) found

clear evidence that when the probe item was not in the array and there was a

match in colour but a mismatch in the shape of the object, the children became

48

confused and performance decreased. Adults were more able to identify that

the shape was not in the array than children. In terms of ‘Unpacking the Box’,

the array of materials could enable to children to guess if they do not know an

answer. However, having such a vast array of materials in front of them could

also lead the children to confusion.

Furthermore, it has also been demonstrated in adults that when it is

necessary to maintain features such as colour and shape, there is often a trade-

off, therefore when fewer shapes need to be remembered then more colour will

be remembered (Cowan et al., 2015). In the present task, whilst children on

occasion had to remember the correct colour of an item, they had fewer options

as the items in the box were either black or silver. Subsequently, one might

suggest that the restriction of colours makes it easier and thus lightens the task

load. However, it is believed that younger children often store visual information

by features such as colour or shape, and therefore, the similarity between the

colours could lead to deficits in the reconstruction of items which are subject to

decay (Pickering, 2001). Consequently, the similarity of the items in only silver

or black could prevent children from distinguishing between them. This is an

area which needs to be considered in greater detail. Therefore, the impact of

using only two colours would represent an interesting area for future research.

As this was the first trial with this resource, instructions were fairly basic

at this stage and did not include sequencing words such as then, first, after.

However, one possibility is that this factor could have led to a ceiling effect as

was the case in the original following directions study by Kaplan and White

(1980). Therefore, if more complex instructions had been used, a significant

effect of age may also have been observed between the seven and eight year

49

olds. Nevertheless, this finding highlights the benefits of the tool in allowing the

use of sequencing, which would rely on executive control and place a greater

demand on working memory (Allen et al., 2014). The ability to include this type

of instruction in future tasks is an advantage of the resource as it shows the

potential for measuring complex working memory span.

A further consideration to be taken into account is the effect of

performing actions on memory span. Previous research has found an

improvement in recall when an action is performed rather than just being read

or heard by a researcher (Gathercole et al., 2008). However, it seems that the

main benefit which arises as a result of performance of the task, is related to the

encoding of the material (Gathercole et al., 2008) and as this task is more

concerned with immediate recall, it could be argued that this theory bears no

relevance. However, as explained by Riggs et al. (2006), younger children

often struggle to remain focused and may miss things due to their lack of

attention. Similarly, children with a low working memory are often described as

inattentive by their teachers (Gathercole et al., 2008). Therefore, one possible

benefit of the physical performance of the actions is that it could lead to higher

levels of enjoyment and thus help in maintaining sustained attention. This

would be an interesting area for future research with ‘Unpacking the Box’.

As highlighted by Stöcktel and Hughes (2016), executive functioning is

largely responsible for regulating behaviour and maintaining focus to ensure

tasks are finished. During the data collection, there were no obvious instances

of children losing focus or not wanting to complete the ‘Unpacking the Box’ task.

However, this was not the case for some of the other tasks used in the study.

For example, one six-year-old girl decided that she did not want to continue with

50

the digit span task, and was visibly fidgeting during the listening span task,

whilst another six-year-old girl said that she did not want to do any more on the

listening span task. One could assume that these pupils found the ‘Unpacking

the Box’ task more engaging and enjoyable than the other tasks. Therefore, it

would be reasonable to assume that having pupils actively engaged in the

activity, by them having to move objects about, could lead to higher levels of

enjoyment and sustained attention.

Previous research has found that short term and working memory

increases gradually with age (Alloway et al., 2006). As expected, and in line

with previous findings, a positive correlation was found amongst all four tasks.

Previous studies have found that verbal and visuospatial tasks often follow a

similar developmental pattern (León et al, 2014), indicating that whilst they are

different components of working memory, there are similarities between them.

As digit span, Corsi blocks and listening span are well established and

validated measures of memory, the correlation between Unpacking the Box and

these tasks suggests that it is also a valid measure of memory (Atkins et al.,

2014). The most significant correlations were found between Unpacking the

Box and listening span; and digit span and listening span. It has been

suggested that measures of working memory correlate more highly than

measures of short term memory because they have common underlying

cognitive demands (Alloway et al, 2006).

Many researchers support the view that executive functioning is involved

in working memory tasks (Baddeley, 2000; Engle, et al., 1999), thus explaining

the difference in performance from a developmental perspective. In the present

51

study, it is thought that the digit span task and the Corsi blocks task were

measures of short term memory whilst listening span and ‘Unpacking the Box’

involved a processing element which has been found to equate to a working

memory task (Alloway et al., 2006; Gathercole et al., 2008). Therefore, it is not

surprising that a highly significant association was found between ‘Unpacking

the Box’ and listening span, as both tasks place a higher demand on cognitive

skills. Therefore, the significant correlation between listening span and

‘Unpacking the Box’ and the need for processing within both tasks supports the

idea that the novel task ‘Unpacking the Box’ is a valid measure of working

memory as opposed to short term memory. However, as expressed by Engle et

al., (1991), this task may represent a short term memory task for some but a

working memory task for others who are better prepared at using strategies

such as rehearsal and chunking.

As demonstrated in previous research, a following instructions task is

more highly correlated with backward digit span rather than forward digit span

suggesting that the processes involved are not simply a form of passive storage

(Gathercole et al., 2008). Consequently, the high correlation between the

listening span and digit span tasks was a little surprising as it is assumed that

one is a measure of complex working memory whilst the other is thought to be a

measure of short term memory. Nevertheless, it is clear that both short term

memory and working memory rely on a common construct; the storage

component (Gathercole, 1999). Furthermore, both tasks involve verbally

presented material and the reliance on the phonological loop could explain the

significant correlation between the two tasks (Gathercole et al., 2008).

52

Non-parametric tests were conducted to assess levels of

enjoyment. The data suggest that children experienced high levels of

enjoyment when completing the task. When asked what was the best thing

about the box, many children mentioned their enjoyment in taking things out of

the box “It was fun when I had to put things in different places” or the fact that

there were lots of interesting things inside the box, “it’s silver, shiny and

reflective and can keep loads of stuff in it”. One of the children observed the

practicality of the box and how easy it was to have all the resources together

“You could do it whenever, you could get a box and do it at home with other

things” and one pupil enjoyed the feeling of success “I was good at sticking

things in place”. Some pupils expressed enjoyment at being challenged by

using the box, “it’s quite hard because it’s challenging and you have to look and

listen” and one child recognised the benefits of the resource for training

people’s memory “If people can’t remember much it could learn them how to

remember a bit more”. When asked what was the worst thing about the box,

many pupils said that there was nothing bad about the box. A few pupils said

that they found it difficult to put some of the objects inside the bag or that it was

difficult to move some of the objects, “there’s loads of things and they get mixed

up”. A few pupils felt that a lot of information was given and one pupil said that

“his brain got a little bit mixed up”. One pupil did not see the value in the box

and said that it would be more useful in the kitchen for storing food items.

Taken as a whole, the qualitative information indicates high levels of

enjoyment when using ‘Unpacking the Box’ and that it is a challenging,

engaging and useful tool for measuring working memory. The fact that most

children enjoyed the task and performed well on it could lead to the assumption

53

that if children enjoy a task they will remain focused, engaged and motivated

thus resulting in sustained attention. Therefore, a task to assess working

memory, which involves high levels of enjoyment is an extremely valuable tool

with vast potential for further development.

Implications, Limitations and Future Research

This research has demonstrated that the novel tool ‘Unpacking the Box’

is a practical, straightforward and rapid way to assess working memory in

children. Furthermore, in the absence of an array of literature regarding

enjoyment of memory tasks in children, it is pleasing that children reported high

levels of enjoyment on the task. There are many possible implications for the

use of this resource in the future, from clinical settings to educational

establishments, alongside its current use in preparing victims to give evidence

in court. As this was an initial study using this resource, sequencing words

were not included in the instructions and therefore, this may have led to a

ceiling effect (Kaplan & White, 1980), as many of the older children reached the

maximum span on this task. If subsequent studies are to compare the measure

to a listening span task, it would be beneficial to develop a more complex

scoring system for this task to differentiate more between the different levels of

working memory. As the younger pupils performed better than expected on the

digit span test due to the familiarity of the resource, it may be beneficial to

assess working memory by using a non-word repetition task (Henry, 2012). It

may be of interest in future research to assess the use of only two colours in the

resources and the effects of similarity that may be involved. Finally, an exciting

54

area for future research would be to assess the benefits of using this tool as a

training programme to help with the development of working memory.

Conclusion

To conclude, it has been established that the novel tool ‘Unpacking the

Box’, is a practical and effective way to assess working memory in children. As

pointed out in some of the qualitative data, the box is a very practical and

portable tool which is easy to use and can be carried out in a relatively short

space of time. All of the materials are kept together in one place and children

recorded high levels of enjoyment when using the resource. The novel

resource yielded significant correlations with the other established, validated

measures of memory. A highly significant correlation between ‘Unpacking the

Box’ and listening span would suggest that both are tasks of working memory

as they require an element of processing. The prediction of a developmental

linear improvement in memory span was generally supported by the research

although some of the analyses of variances yielded non-significant results. The

effect of age on ‘Unpacking the Box’ performance was supported and indicated

that this novel tool is an effective, simple and practical method of measuring

working memory in children.

55

References

Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2014). Evidence for two attentional components in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition, 40(6), 1499-1509. doi:10.1037/xlm0000002

Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77(6), 1698-1716. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x

Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2004). A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(2), 85-106. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2003.10.002

Alloway, T., Gathercole, S. E., Kirkwood, H., & Elliott, J. (2008). Evaluating the validity of the Automated Working Memory Assessment. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 725-734. doi:10.1080/01443410802243828

Atkins, S. M., Sprenger, A. M., Colflesh, G. H., Briner, T. L., Buchanan, J. B., Chavis, S. E., & ... Dougherty, M. R. (2014). Measuring working memory is all fun and games: A four-dimensional spatial game predicts cognitive task performance. Experimental Psychology,61(6), 417-438. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000262

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189-208. doi:10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working?. European Psychologist, 7(2), 85-97. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.2.85

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485-493. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.8.4.485

Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158-173. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158

56

Baddeley,A (2010).Working memory, Current Biology, Volume 20, Issue 4, 23 February 2010, Pages R136-R140, ISSN 0960-9822, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.014.

Barrouillet, P., Gavens, N., Vergauwe, E., Gaillard, V., & Camos, V. (2009). Working memory span development: A time-based resource-sharing model account. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 477-490. doi:10.1037/a0014615

Belmonti, V., Cioni, G., & Berthoz, A. (2015). Switching from reaching to navigation: Differential cognitive strategies for spatial memory in children and adults. Developmental Science, 18(4), 569-586.

Berch, D. B., Krikorian, R., & Huha, E. M. (1998). The Corsi block-tapping task: Methodological and theoretical considerations. Brain and Cognition, 38(3), 317-338. doi:10.1006/brcg.1998.1039

Berg, D. H. (2008). Working memory and arithmetic calculation in children: The contributory roles of processing speed, short-term memory, and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99(4), 288-308. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.002

Bergman-Nutley, S., & Klingberg, T. (2014). Effect of working memory training on working memory, arithmetic and following instructions. Psychological Research, 78(6), 869-877. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0614-0

Betts, J., Mckay, J., Maruff, P., & Anderson, V. (2006). The development of sustained attention in children: The effect of age and task load. Child Neuropsychology, 12(3), 205-221. doi:10.1080/09297040500488522

Busch, R. M., Farrell, K., Lisdahl-Medina, K., & Krikorian, R. (2005). Corsi Block-Tapping Task Performance as a Function of Path Configuration. Journal of Clinical And Experimental Neuropsychology, 27(1), 127-134. doi:10.1080/138033990513681

Collette, F., & van der Linden, M. (2002). Brain imaging of the central executive component of working memory. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(2), 105-125. doi:10.1016/S0149-7634(01)00063-X

Colmar, S., Davis, N., & Sheldon, L. (2016). A pilot classroom-based study of attention and working memory strategies for primary-aged students. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 26(1), 125-136. doi:10.1017/jgc.2016.10

57

Cowan, N., Day, L., Saults, J. S., Keller, T. A., Johnson, T., & Flores, L. (1992). The role of verbal output time in the effects of word length on immediate memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90002-F

Cowan, N., Saults, J. S., & Clark, K. M. (2015). Exploring age differences in visual working memory capacity: Is there a contribution of memory for configuration?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 13572-85. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.002

Cowan, N., Towse, J. N., Hamilton, Z., Saults, J. S., Elliott, E. M., Lacey, J. F., & ... Hitch, G. J. (2003). Children's working-memory processes: A response-timing analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 113-132. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.113

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Dirk, J., & Schmiedek, F. (2016). Fluctuations in elementary school children’s working memory performance in the school context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 722-739. doi:10.1037/edu0000076

Egami, C., Yamashita, Y., Tada, Y., Anai, C., Mukasa, A., Yuge, K., & ... Matsuishi, T. (2015). Developmental trajectories for attention and working memory in healthy Japanese school-aged children. Brain & Development, 37(9), 840-848. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2015.02.003

Engle, R. W., Carullo, J. J., & Collins, K. W. (1991). Individual differences in working memory for comprehension and following directions. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(5), 253-262. doi:10.1080/00220671.1991.10886025

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(3), 309-331. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309

Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of short-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 410-419. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01388-1

Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, A. (1994). Children's phonological working memory: Contributions of long-term knowledge and rehearsal. Journal of Memory And Language, 33(5), 672-688. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1032

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Phonological working memory: A critical building block for reading development and vocabulary acquisition.. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(3), 259-272. doi:10.1007/BF03174081

58

Gathercole, S. E., Durling, E., Evans, M., Jeffcock, S., & Stone, S. (2008). Working memory abilities and children's performance in laboratory analogues of classroom activities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(8), 1019-1037. doi:10.1002/acp.1407

Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The Structure of Working Memory From 4 to 15 Years of Age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177-190. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177

Gignac, G. E., & Weiss, L. G. (2015). Digit Span is (mostly) related linearly to general intelligence: Every extra bit of span counts. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1312-1323. doi:10.1037/pas0000105

Henry, L. (2012). The development of working memory in children. London: SAGE.

Henry, L. A. (2001). How does the severity of a learning disability affect working memory performance?. Memory, 9(4-6), 233-247. doi:10.1080/09658210042000085

Hitch, G. J., Halliday, M. S., Dodd, A., & Littler, J. E. (1989). Development of rehearsal in short-term memory: Differences between pictorial and spoken stimuli. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7(4), 347-362. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00811.x

Hitch, G. J., Towse, J. N., & Hutton, U. (2001). What limits children's working memory span? Theoretical accounts and applications for scholastic development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 184-198. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.184

Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12(4), F9-F15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x

Hornung, C., Brunner, M., Reuter, R. P., & Martin, R. (2011). Children's working memory: Its structure and relationship to fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 39(4), 210-221. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.002

Huizinga, M. T., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2017–2036. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.010

Jones, G., & Macken, B. (2015). Questioning short-term memory and its measurement: Why digit span measures long-term associative learning. Cognition, 1441-13. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.009

Kaplan, C. H., & White, M. A. (1980). Children's direction-following behavior in Grades K–5. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(1), 43-48. doi:10.1080/00220671.1980.10885279

59

Kemps, E., De Rammelaere, S., & Desmet, T. (2000). The development of working memory: Exploring the complementarity of two models. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(2), 89-109. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2589

Kokubo, N., Inagaki, M., Gunji, A., Kobayashi, T., Ohta, H., Kajimoto, O., & Kaga, M. (2012). Developmental change of visuo-spatial working memory in children: Quantitative evaluation through an advanced trail making test. Brain & Development, 34(10), 799. doi:10.1016/j.braindev.2012.02.001

León, I., Cimadevilla, J. M., & Tascón, L. (2014). Developmental gender differences in children in a virtual spatial memory task. Neuropsychology, 28(4), 485-495. doi:10.1037/neu0000054

Logie, R. H., & Cowan, N. (2015). Perspectives on working memory: Introduction to the special issue. Memory & Cognition, 43(3), 315-324. doi:10.3758/s13421-015-0510-x

Logie, R. H., & Pearson, D. G. (1997). The inner eye and the inner scribe of visuo-spatial working memory: Evidence from developmental fractionation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 241-257. doi:10.1080/713752559

McInerney, R. J., Hrabok, M., & Kerns, K. A. (2005). The Children's Size-Ordering Task: A New Measure of Nonverbal Working Memory. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27(6), 735-745. doi:10.1081/13803390490918633

Nichelli, F., Bulgheroni, S., & Riva, D. (2001). Developmental patterns of verbal and visuospatial spans. Neurological Sciences, 22(5), 377-384. doi:10.1007/s100720100068

Piccardi, L., Bianchini, F., Argento, O., De Nigris, A., Maialetti, A., Palermo, L., & Guariglia, C. (2013). The Walking Corsi Test (WalCT): Standardization of the topographical memory test in an Italian population. Neurological Sciences, 34(6), 971-978. doi:10.1007/s10072-012-1175-x

Piccardi, L., Leonzi, M., D'Amico, S., Marano, A., & Guariglia, C. (2014). Development of navigational working memory: Evidence from 6‐ to 10‐year‐old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 205-217. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12036

Pickering, S. J. (2001). The development of visuo-spatial working memory. Memory, 9(4-6), 423-432. doi:10.1080/09658210143000182

60

Pickering, S., Gathercole, S., Hall, M., & Lloyd, S. (2001). Development of memory for pattern and path: Further evidence for the fractionation of visuo-spatial memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 54(2), 397-420. doi:10.1080/02724980042000174

Rai, M. K., & Harris, R. J. (2013). The modified Brown-Peterson task: A tool to directly compare children and adult's working memory. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory On Human Development, 174(2), 153-169. doi:10.1080/00221325.2011.653839

Rende, B., Ramsberger, G., & Miyake, A. (2002). Commonalities and differences in the working memory components underlying letter and category fluency tasks: A dual-task investigation. Neuropsychology, 16(3), 309-321. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.16.3.309

Riggs, K. J., McTaggart, J., Simpson, A., & Freeman, R. J. (2006). Changes in the capacity of visual working memory in 5- to 10-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95(1), 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.03.009

Rossi-Arnaud, C., Pieroni, L., & Baddeley, A. (2006). Symmetry and binding in visuo-spatial working memory. Neuroscience, 139(1), 393-400. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.10.048

Spiess, M. A., Meier, B., & Roebers, C. M. (2015). Prospective memory, executive functions, and metacognition are already differentiated in young elementary school children: Evidence from latent factor modeling. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74(4), 229-241. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000165

St Clair-Thompson, H., Stevens, R., Hunt, A., & Bolder, E. (2010). Improving children's working memory and classroom performance. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 203-219. doi:10.1080/01443410903509259

Stöckel, T., & Hughes, C. L. (2016). The relation between measures of cognitive and motor functioning in 5- to 6-year-old children. Psychological Research, 80(4), 543-554. doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0662-0

Swanson, L., & Kim, K. (2007). Working memory, short-term memory, and naming speed as predictors of children's mathematical performance. Intelligence, 35(2), 151-168. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.07.001

Tam, H., Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., & Sabatos-DeVito, M. (2010). The development of memory maintenance: Children’s use of phonological rehearsal and attentional refreshment in working memory tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), 306-324. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.05.006

Triangle (2015), 'Title of leaflet’. Brighton: Triangle

61

Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 92-114. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.92

Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192-212. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192

Wilson, J. L., Scott, J. H., & Power, K. G. (1987). Developmental differences in the span of visual memory for pattern. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(3), 249-255. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1987.tb01060.x

Zhong, J., Rifkin-Graboi, A., Ta, A. T., Yap, K. L., Chuang, K., Meaney, M. J., & Qiu, A. (2014). Functional networks in parallel with cortical development associate with executive functions in children. Cerebral Cortex, 24(7), 1937-1947. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht051

Zimmer, H. D. (2008). Visual and spatial working memory: From boxes to networks. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(8), 1373-1395. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.05.016

62

Appendices

63

Appendix A – Ethics Forms

The Ethics forms can be found at the back of this document.

64

Appendix B – Letter to parents detailing the study

Department of Psychology

The University of Chester

Parkgate Road

Chester

CH1 4BJ

Parental Information Sheet

Invitation for your child to take part in a research project investigating measures for

assessing working memory.

My name is Lisa Iranzo and I am a Masters student, conducting research with Dr

Michelle Mattison, within the Department of Psychology at The University of Chester.

My work is focusing on techniques for measuring a child’s working memory. I am

writing to ask you to allow your child to participate in this project.

What is involved?

Should you allow your child to take part, I will ask him/her to do a series of activities

with me. Altogether, these will take no longer than 30 minutes and will take place

during school hours:

TASKS:

- Listening to a list of digits and repeating the list, then watching a pattern being

tapped out on a set of blocks and repeating the pattern. (no longer than 15

minutes).

- Listening to and following short instructions, e.g. put the paperclip in the tin

(no longer than 15 minutes).

65

Your child’s responses will be recorded. These recordings will be used for educational

and research purposes only. The overall findings may be published in academic

resources, but no personally identifiable information (e.g. child’s name or school) will

be disclosed throughout this research. The data collected will be securely stored by

the research team for up to five years.

This is not a compulsory school activity, and your child’s individual results will not be

discussed with other pupils or any teachers. This research has been designed to be

enjoyable, and should you give consent, your child’s participation on the day is also

voluntary. As such, should your child decline to take part, or ask to stop he/she may

do so at any time, and their data will be removed from the study. Further, I have

completed an Enhanced DBS check, and whilst I will be solely responsible for working

directly with children at Platt Bridge, the overall research project will be supervised by

Dr Michelle Mattison.

Your child’s participation is not compulsory. However, if YOU DO NOT want your child

to participate, please complete the attached opt out form and return it to your child’s

teacher as soon as possible. If you are happy for your child to take part, you do not

need to return the attached form.

If you would like any further information, please contact me at

1023459@chester.ac.uk. Alternatively, you may contact my supervisor Dr Michelle

Mattison (m.mattison@chester.ac.uk, 01244 513191).

Yours sincerely,

Lisa Iranzo

66

Appendix C

67

Appendix D – Digit Span List of Numbers and Instructions

I will read a list of numbers. I want you to listen and repeat the numbers in the same order. The lists will get longer each time. For example, if I said 4, 7 then you would repeat 4, 7. Are you ready to begin?

Example of digit span

7 1

3 5

6 2 7

3 1 8

2 9 5 6

1 4 8 3

7 2 1 5 3

8 2 4 1 6

9 5 2 1 3 6

7 3 5 1 2 8

8 7 1 5 4 9 3

1 6 2 3 9 4 7

8 9 1 4 5 7 6 3

2 5 9 3 7 6 8 1

68

Appendix E – Corsi Blocks List of Numbers and Instructions

For the next task we are going to be using these little wooden blocks. I will tap out a pattern and I want you to tap the same pattern. Let’s have a practice. (I tap two blocks and ask them to copy). Well done! Are you ready to begin?

(Lists of numbers will get progressively longer as digit span above).

2 7

3 5

1 9 3

2 4 7

2 3 9 8

1 6 7 3

5 9 6 1 2

4 8 2 1 7

3 9 2 1 6 8

2 7 5 4 1 6

2 7 1 6 3 9 8

1 9 4 3 7 5 6

1 3 7 8 4 6 2 5

2 9 5 6 8 3 1 4

69

Appendix F – Sentences for the Listening Span task

Sentence Response Recall

70

Appendix G – Unpacking the Box instructions

We have now reached our final test. I am going to show you a little box of items. As you can see there are two tins and lots of smaller items such as paper clips, buttons, a thimble (I will point to the items as I am explaining). I am going to ask you to follow instructions using these materials. For example, put the paperclip in the small tin – Can you do that? Ok, well done! Are you ready to begin?

Where is the star? (1)

Where is the bag? (1) Point to a ribbon (2)

Point to a key (2) Put a key on a bag (3)

Put a paperclip under the box (3) Put the star inside the silver bag (4)

Put a ribbon under the black bag (4) Put the big silver paperclip under the card (5)

Put the small black paperclip on top of the black bag (5) Put the star, ribbon and key inside the silver bag (6)

Put the black bag on top of the two big paperclips (6)

Put the ribbon in the box and the big key on the triangle (7)

Put the clip next to the big key and the ribbon under the box (7)

Put the big star, big key, ribbon, and clip inside the box (8)

Put the small star inside the box and the big key under the box (8)

71

Appendix H - Information to Participants – Script to be read out before testing.

Hello and thank you for joining in the study today. Today you are going to help me check out how good some new resources are. The activities you are going to do are not school tests. You are just helping me by doing some jobs. No scores or marks will be passed on to your teachers or anyone else. I am just looking at how good each of the tasks are to check your memory. I will tell you what you need to do at the start of each job. Are you happy to carry on?

72

Appendix I - Questionnaire and instructions

There is a very short questionnaire that I would like you to fill in – You just have to tick the boxes for each question and write a short sentence for the final two questions. What you tell me will help me to decide which of these activities were most fun and I can tell other grown-ups which memory tests you liked most. Thank you again and well done!

Thank you for completing the tasks. Please tell us what you think of them.

Task 1 – Listen and repeat the numbers (Digit Span)

How easy was the task?

Very easy □

Easy □

Not too hard □

Quite hard □

Very hard □

How enjoyable was the task?

I loved it. □

I enjoyed it. □

It was ok. □

I didn’t like it. □

I hated it. □

Task 2 – Tap the blocks in the correct order (Corsi Blocks)

How easy was the task?

Very easy □

Easy □

Not too hard □

Quite hard □

Very hard □

How enjoyable was the task?

I loved it. □

I enjoyed it. □

It was ok. □

I didn’t like it. □

I hated it. □

73

Task 3 – Listen to the sentences and say if they are true or false (Listening Span)

How easy was the task?

Very easy □

Easy □

Not too hard □

Quite hard □

Very hard □

How enjoyable was the task?

I loved it. □

I enjoyed it. □

It was ok. □

I didn’t like it. □

I hated it. □

Task 4 – Use the items from the box and follow the instructions (Unpacking the box)

How easy was the task?

Very easy □

Easy □

Not too hard □

Quite hard □

Very hard □

How enjoyable was the task?

I loved it. □

I enjoyed it. □

It was ok. □

I didn’t like it. □

I hated it. □

What was the best thing about ‘Unpacking the box’?

What was the worst thing about ‘Unpacking the box’?

Thank you for completing the questionnaire.

74

Appendix J- Debriefing script

Thank you for helping me out today. I work with lots of children and everyone who is helping me is teaching me how people remember things and I am going to tell other grown-ups how people remember things.

Do you have any questions about the jobs you’ve done today?

If you have any questions later, ask the teacher and if she doesn’t know she can call me up and I’ll answer them. Thank you for helping me today.

75

Appendix K SPSS outputs – CD attached to rear cover

76