1.

Introduction
1.1 Learning to read and write Why do some children have difficulties learning to read yet some do not? This hugely debated question has been at the forefront of literacy investigations for many years. Children and adults who learn to read must discover how to decipher the symbols of their written language. English speakers learn an alphabetic script. Learning which written symbols represent the particular sounds of that script and translating this symbol into a letter-sound (grapheme-phoneme) conversion. With repeated exposure to words they build up a bank of words (vocabulary) which becomes so familiar that they are able to bypass the mechanics of graphemephoneme conversion, until they encounter an unfamiliar word (Pascoe, Stackhouse & Wells, 2006). However, they still retain the phonological route for unfamiliar word identification. Stage models of literacy development have guided us towards understanding how children learn to read and why some children struggle. Friths (1985) developmental model which proposes three stages of typical literacy acquisition: Stage 1: The logographic phase: A visual phase whereby children recognise familiar words such as their name or STOP on a road sign. They may be able to write their name at this stage but they may not have made a connection between the sound and the letters of words. They recognise the visual gestalt or whole word not necessarily the individual letters. Stage 2: The alphabetic phase: Children can apply letter-sound rules to decode new words. They are now able to recognise individual sounds or segments in words and then try to blend them together to make a word. At this stage it is often possible to decipher what a child is trying to write even though the spelling may not be correct, e.g., /cat/ may be written with a /k/ as the child does not yet know the conventions of English spelling. Stage 3:The orthographic phase: The child now has the conventions of English orthography and is able to recognise larger chunks of words. Children start to increase their phonological awareness skills, e.g., /sh/ at the end of the word 1

/fish/ is not read as two separate letters with separate sounds but as one phoneme /sh/. 1.2 How do we learn to read? Ehri (1991, 2000) uses the earlier work of Chall (1983) to suggest four stages of reading development in an alphabetic script. Smith (2005) slightly modifies them to: 1) 2) 3) Pre-Alphabetic stage also called Emergent stage, children learn the Decoding or Alphabetic Stage the link between specific grapheme and Fluency stage skills are built on and attention turns to larger units such basics about reading e.g., front to back, word by word, left to right etc. phoneme elements is established e.g., sounding out /c/ /a/ /t/ to make /cat/. as recognising high frequency words like /the/ as well as word segments as a single unit, e.g., tion, -ing etc. 4) Reading to learn stage skills of the previous stages are now automatic and rapid. The focus is now on learning from what is being read and the process of reading is secondary to the aim of reading. To achieve this complex task of learning to read, research has shown that two skills appear to be particularly important: memory and phonological awareness skills. These skills are both critical and multidimensional. They are also likely to be interconnected while their relationship to literacy development changes over time. The research reported here focused on these two components and compared performance of typically developing children1 on short term memory, working memory and phonological awareness tasks across two response modalities. 1.3 Short term memory (STM) James (1890) proposed two different types of memory primary and secondary. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, the prominent view was that of a single memory system. In 1949, Donald Hebb speculated that there may be two types of memory, short term and long term, and this view was supported by Brown (1958) in the UK and Peterson and Peterson (1959) in the USA. Controversy over this ensued for many years with some researchers such as Melton
1

between ages 5;2 and 7;7

(1962) demonstrating that immediate serial recall of a string of digits (digit span tasks) also had a long term component and suggested that there was no need to divide short term and long term memory. In 1968, Atkinson and Shiffrin introduced a sequence of three stages in memory: Sensory memory (SM); Short-term memory (STM); Long-term memory (LTM). Their model was the most influential of its time and was termed the modal model which, as acknowledged by the authors, had some similarities to an earlier model by Broadbent (1958). Atkinson and Shiffrins view of memory was that the only way to commit new material to long term memory was via the short-term store, through a method of subvocal rehearsal, whereby an item is repeated over and over subvocally. However, this view was questioned when patients with brain damage appeared to have very poor short term memory even though their long term memory remained unimpaired (Shallice and Warrington, 1970). By the early 1970s, Atkinson and Shiffrins model was overshadowed by Craik and Lockharts (1972) approach which related to levels of processing. More recently, Baddeley (2007;7) states The term STM continues to be used to describe tasks in which the immediate recall of small amounts of information is required with the term working memory being used to refer to a broader system typically involving attentional control and allowing the manipulation of information held in short-term storage. 1.4 Working memory (WM) An example of an everyday WM task includes remembering a telephone number while dialling the number. Processes related to WM and STM have been among the most researched cognitive processes in children with reading disabilities for the past 30 years. (Swanson, Cooney & McNamara, 2004). Baddeley and Hitch proposed a model of WM in 1974. It is composed of three main components; the Central Executive and two main slave systems known as the Phonological Loop and the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad. In 2000, Baddeley added a third slave system to his model: the Episodic Buffer. Baddeley (1996) holds that at the heart of the model lies the Central Executive, which is a system responsible for a range of regulatory functions including attention, the

control of action, and problem solving. The Phonological Loop consists of a phonological short-term store and a sub vocal rehearsal process (Baddeley, 1986). The Visuo-spatial Sketchpad stores materials in terms of its visual or spatial features. (Baddeley & Lieberman 1980; Logie, 1986). The Episodic Buffer is a multidimensional representation system, capable of integrating temporary representations from other cognitive systems including components of working memory (Baddeley, 2000) Figure 1: A schematic of Baddeleys (2000) model:-

If we consider this model in memory in relation to literacy, it seems clear how all of the components that make up this model may be active and interactive to help a child towards literacy. A child looking at text uses long-term memory to recognise familiar words and then the rate of reading increases, making a more fluent reader. They must also remember the shapes of letters and how text is put together when they write. They revert back to sound knowledge and other phonological skills such as rhyming, phoneme segmentation and synthesis if they do not recognise a word, at all times having to rely on their WM to assist them. Swanson, Zheung, & Jerman (2009) examined research that compared children with and without reading difficulties on measures of STM and

WM. The results indicated that the children with reading difficulties were distinctly disadvantaged compared with average readers on:1) STM measure requiring the recall of phonemes and digit sequences and 2) WM measures requiring simultaneous processing and storage of digits within sentence sequences and final words from unrelated sentences.

1.5 Phonological Awareness (PA) Philips, Clancy-Menchetti, & Lonigan (2008;3) state that regardless of other types of language and cognitive difficulties, a problem in performing and applying phonological awareness capabilities is at the core of most childrens reading problems. PA is the ability to detect and manipulate the sound structure of words independent of their meaning. Dodd & Gillon (2001) propose that PA skills comprise syllable segmentation, rhyme awareness, alliteration awareness, phoneme awareness, phoneme segmentation and letter knowledge. PA is an increasingly sophisticated capability that is highly predictive of, and causally related to, childrens later ability to read (Ehri et al., 2001). Anthony and Lonigan (2004;43) state Current definitions of phonological awareness can be considered on a continuum of generality from highly exclusive to highly inclusive of different types of phonological skills. PA skills include phoneme identification, substitution, and deletion involving different sizes of phonological units, syllable, intrasyllable and phonemic. These skills develop over time and the ability to consciously reflect on phonemes, or phonemic awareness, is a metalinguistic ability that develops alongside general metacognitive control processes during middle childhood (Tunmer & Rohl, 1991). There is considerable evidence showing that measures of phonological awareness are good predictors of the ease with which children learn to read (Hulme and Snowing 1994). It is important not to confuse PA and phonics. PA is an ability that different children can possess in small or large amounts and phonics is a method of teaching reading that focuses on the associations of letter sounds with printed letters or groups of letters. A child who has strong phonological awareness skills benefits more from phonics instruction (Phillips et al., 2008).

It is also important to distinguish between PA and phonemic awareness. Phillips et al., (2008) suggest that PA represents a range of manipulation and detection skills across different sizes of sound units. Phonemic awareness, however, specifically refers to the ability to manipulate and detect the smallest sound pieces in words, the phonemes (e.g. /b/, /s/ and /th/ are all phonemes). Goswami & Bryant (1990) argue that during the preschool and early school years, children progress through three levels of PA, from awareness of syllables to awareness of onsets and rimes and finally to phoneme awareness. Therefore, this research focused on this latter level of phoneme awareness. 1.6 Why do some children have difficulty learning to read? This is not a question that can be easily answered. Research has shown that some children struggle in developing phonological awareness and working memory skills and these deficits are known to impact on their ability to learn to decode. The most vulnerable group seem to be children with language difficulties, and assessing these children is not always easy or straightforward. A particularly challenging group are children with severe speech and physical impairments. There are many tools to measure WM and PA in speaking children. However, these tools rely on spoken response and for children with speech impairments, this response mode may be unavailable. When assessing this client group tools may need to be adapted e.g. providing a visual aid such as a number grid. If they are adapted it is important to be certain that the measure achieved is comparable to the measure achieved from typically developing children. 1.7 Summary of key points Some children learn to read easily and some do not. Children need PA and WM skills to develop the ability to decode. Baddeleys (2000) memory model is very useful when examining literacy acquisition. It illustrates how important the connections between the different components are. 6

PA is a good indicator of typically developing childrens future reading ability.

PA encompasses skills such as syllable segmentation, rhyme awareness, alliteration awareness, phoneme awareness, phoneme segmentation and letter knowledge.

There is a phonological component to working memory that may be crucial to the acquisition of language abilities in children.

An appropriate test of STM is a range of tasks such as digit span. Children with severe speech and physical impairments are vulnerable to difficulties in learning to read and write.

Children with SSPI cannot always respond verbally and therefore they are more difficult to assess.

These findings lead me towards my research questions which are: 1) Do children who have good working memory skills also have good phonological awareness skills? 2) Is the performance of children on short term and working memory tasks affected by the mode of response verbal or pointing?

2. Methodology
2.1 Aims of Study The aims of this study are: (i) To explore the relationship between scores on short term, working memory and phonological awareness tasks in children between the ages of 5;2 and 7;7. (ii) To compare the scores achieved on short term and working memory tasks using different modes of response:(a) (b) verbal response pointing response

The hypothesis is that a participant who achieves a high score in working memory tasks also achieves a high score in phonological awareness tasks. This study will also assess the extent to which the results are influenced by the participants age. 2.2 Study Design This research is a quasi-experimental design. It involves investigating correlations between a range of measures:(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Phonological awareness (PA) and age. Short term memory (STM) and age. Working memory (WM) and age. Short term memory (STM) and Working memory (WM). Short term memory (STM) and Phonological awareness (PA). Phonological Awareness (PA) and Working memory (WM).

(7) (8) (9)

Phoneme Identification (PAI) and age. Phoneme Substitution (PAS) and age. Phoneme Deletion (PAD) and age.

It involves quantitatively comparing sets of scores between performance: (1) (2) STM scores achieved using verbal and pointing responses. WM scores achieved using verbal and pointing responses.

Due to restrictions on time and resources, the sample size of this study was small, with 20 participants. Small samples are more likely to show signs of bias and may not be representative of the population as a whole. (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. DEPENDENT VARIABLES: The scores of STM and WM tasks and PA tasks.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: The different methods of response (verbal and pointing), and the childrens age. 2.3 Participants The participants in this study were twenty children from a co-educational primary school. The researcher visited the school to meet with the school principal and provided her with an information sheet. Written consent was obtained from the Board of Management and the Principal (Appendix B) and from the Parents (Appendix C) of the children involved. The children were in Junior (n= 3) and Senior infants (n=12) and 1st Class (n=5) with a mean age of 6;55 (SD= 0.74 range 5;2 7;7). All participants spoke English as their first language and were identified by their class teacher as having no significant learning disabilities, no significant speech or language impairments, no significant reading difficulties and corrected hearing and vision within the normal range.

Table 1: Research participants characteristics

Date sampled 11th June 2010 11th June 2010 11th June 2010 10th June 2010 10th June 2010 10th June 2010 10th June 2010 9th June 2010 9th June 2010 9th June 2010 9th June 2010 8th June 2010 8th June 2010 8th June 2010 8th June 2010 7th June 2010 7th June 2010 7th June 2010 7th June 2010 7th June 2010

Child ID CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4 CH5 CH6 CH7 CH8 CH9 CH10 CH11 CH12 CH13 CH14 CH15 CH16 CH17 CH18 CH19 CH20

Age 5;2 5;3 5;7 6;0 6;0 6;2 6;2 6;5 6;6 6;6 6;6 6;6 6;9 7;1 7;1 7;3 7;5 7;7 7;7 7;7

Class Junior Infants Junior Infants Junior Infants Senior Infants Senior Infants Senior Infants Senior Infants Senior Infants Senior infants Senior Infants Senior infants Senior Infants Senior Infants Senior Infants 1st Class 1st Class 1st Class 1st Class 1st Class 1st Class

Gender Female Female Male Male Female Male Female Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Male Male

2.4 Materials The materials in this study for digit recall verbal response (DRV) and phonological awareness (PA) were taken from CELF4UK(Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2006) and for digit recall pointing response(DRP) from a larger cross linguistic study of working memory and aided communication. (Smith, Dahlgren Sandberg & Larsson, 2009) 2.4.1 Digit recall forwards with verbal response (DRFV):

The child must verbally repeat digits in order, after listening to numbers presented orally by the tester.

10

2.4.2

Digit recall backwards with verbal response (DRBV):

The child must verbally repeat in reverse order, after listening to numbers presented orally by the tester. 2.4.3 Digit recall forwards with pointing response (DRFP):

The child must point to a grid of numbers in order, after listening to numbers presented orally by the tester. 2.4.4 Digit recall backwards with pointing response (DRBP):

The child must point to a grid of numbers in reverse order, after listening to numbers presented orally by tester. 2.4.5 Phonological Awareness (PA): In the CELF4UK(Semel et al., 2006) the PA subtest consists of 17 tasks, each of which have specific directions for administration and trial items. Six of these tasks were appropriate for this age range: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Initial phoneme identification (PAI) Medial phoneme identification (PAI) Final phoneme identification (PAI) Initial phoneme substitution (PAS) Final phoneme substitution (PAS) Initial phoneme deletion (PA)

2.5 Procedures Each child was seen individually in a single session by the researcher in a quiet room in the school for approximately 30 minutes and completed tasks DRV, DRP and PA which were broken down into their subtests. 2.5.1 Digit recall forwards with verbal response (DRFV)

Instructions from CELF 4UK(Semel et al., 2006) were given to each child.

11

2.5.2

Digit recall backwards with verbal response (DRBV)

Instructions from CELF 4UK(Semel et al., 2006) were given to each child. 2.5.3 Digit recall forwards with pointing response (DRFP)

In these tasks the participants were introduced to a number grid (Appendix F) Instructions were given to each child (Appendix G). 2.5.4 Digit recall backwards with pointing response (DRBP)

Instructions were given to each child (Appendix G). After these tasks the researcher gave the participants a few minutes break and following this said: Now we are going to do some letter activities, are you ready? 2.5.5 Phonological Awareness Tasks (PA) For each of these tasks instructions from CELF 4-UK (Semel et al., 2006) were given to each child. 2.5.5.1 Phoneme Identification (PAI) i) ii) iii) Initial Phoneme Identification (PAI) Medial phoneme identification (PAI) Final phoneme identification (PAI)

2.5.5.2 Phoneme substitution (PAS) i) ii) Initial phoneme substitution (PAS) Final phoneme substitution (PAS)

2.5.5.3 Phoneme deletion (PAD) i) Initial phoneme deletion (PA)

12

2.6 Evidence of Reliability The reliability of a test rests on the accuracy, consistency and stability of test scores across situations (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). It refers to consistent scores derived with the theoretical concept of repeatedly testing the same participant on the same test under identical conditions. As this can never be fully achieved, in practice several estimates of reliability are obtained. Multiple measures of reliability are reported for the CELF4-UK (Semel et al., 2006). 2.7 Reliability of Scoring As data was entered into SPSS it was possible to check the scores of the variables against each other by combining different scores, allowing the researcher to check the calculations. 2.8 Data analysis The SPSS (Version 18) was used to analyse the data. Given the small sample size and the fact that normal distribution could not be assumed, non-parametric tests (two-tailed) were used, with significance set at 1% level for most analyses, and at 5% for the correlation analyse.

3. Results
The focus of the study reported here was on comparing the performance of typically developing children on STM, WM and PA skills across two response modes. The extent to which the results were influenced by the participants age was also examined.

13

3.1 Short-term memory, Working memory, phonological awareness and the influence of age. In order to explore the relationship between scores on short term, working memory and phonological awareness tasks in children between the ages of 5;2 and 7;7, the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient was conducted. It is a nonparametric measure of the strength and direction of association that exists between two variables measured on at least one ordinal scale. (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007) In this instance, the test was used for ordinal variables as they had failed the assumptions necessary for conducting the Pearsons product-moment correlation. An alpha level of .05 and .01 were used for all statistical tests. Table 3: Patterns of correlation across skill areas of short term memory, working memory, phonological awareness tasks and age:Age Age
Correlation coefficient

Short-term memory 0.314

Working memory 0.515* 0.151

Phonological Awareness 0.734** 0.604* 0.557*

Short term memory

Correlation coefficient

Working memory
Correlation coefficient

0.314 0.515* 0.734** 0.151 0.604*

Phonological Awareness
Correlation coefficient **p<0.01 *p<0.05

0.557*

As shown in Table 3, age was correlated with WM and robustly correlated with PA, however, there was no correlation between age and performance on STM (r=0.314, p=0.177). STM was significantly correlated with PA (r=0.604, p=0.005) but not with WM (r=0.151, p=0.333). WM was significantly correlated with age, and PA (r=0.557, p=0.11) but not with STM. As shown in Table 4, age was robustly correlated with all PA skills including phoneme identification, phoneme substitution and phoneme deletion. Table 4: Patterns of correlation across skill areas of phonological awareness tasks and age:Age Phonological Awareness Phoneme Identification Phoneme Substitution Phoneme Deletion

Age
Correlation coefficient

0.734**

0.647**

0.730**

0.526**

14

The means and standard deviations of the PA tasks are found in Table 5: Table 5: Means and standard deviations of Phonological Awareness tasks.

N
phonological awareness phonological awareness phoneme identification phonological awareness phoneme substitution

Minimum Maximum 20 4 30 20 4 15

Mean Std. Deviation 22.10 6.265 13.10 2.634

20

10

6.25

2.845

20 0 5 2.75 1.482 Table-7: The means and standard deviations of STM and WM tasks using awareness A second focus reported here was on the impact of using two different response phoneme deletion different response modes verbal and pointing. modes verbal and pointing.
phonological

Mode of N response STM Verbal Pointing WM Verbal 20 20 20

Minimum Maximum Mean 4 2 1 2 10 12 6 9 7.60 6.40 3.35 3.65

Std Deviation 1.729 1.984 1.137 1.631

Pointing 20 3.3 STM and WM tasks

In order to compare the scores achieved on STM and WM using different response Verbal modes - verbal and pointing, within-group comparisons14 were conducted. 20 STM and 6 22 3.387 Pointing WM Verbal and Pointing

20

15

2.555

15

The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test is the non-parametric equivalent to the dependent t-test. It is used to compare two sets of scores that come from the same participants. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test does not assume normality in the data therefore, it can be used when this assumption has been violated and the use of dependent t-test is inappropriate (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007).

3.2.1 Short term memory Fifteen children achieved higher scores on STM tasks using a verbal response. Three childrens scores were lower using a pointing response and two children

16

achieved the same score on both verbal and pointing responses. These results indicate using a verbal response is significantly easier (z=-2.796, p=0.05) than using a pointing response. 3.2.2 Working memory Scores on WM tasks using a verbal response were compared to scores on the same tasks using a pointing response. Nine children achieved higher scores on WM tasks using a pointing response. Five children achieved lower scores on the same tasks using a verbal response and six children achieved the same scores on both verbal and pointing responses. Wilcoxon analysis suggests scores of WM tasks were not affected by the mode of response pointing or verbal (z=-1.064, p=.287). 3.2.3 Short term memory and Working memory Scores on STM tasks were compared to WM tasks. All of the children scored higher on STM tasks than on WM tasks. The results of the Wilcoxon analysis suggest that STM tasks were significantly easier than WM tasks (z=-3.929, p=.0.000). 3.3 Summary of Findings The key questions explored in this research are:1) Do children who have good WM skills also have good PA skills?

Correlation analyses using the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient were conducted and the key findings to this first question are:a) b) c) d) Children who have good WM skills also have good PA skills. Children who have good STM skills also have WM scores and PA skills improve with age. STM scores do not improve with age. good PA skills.

17

e) f)

There is no correlation between WM and STM. The children found STM tasks easier than WM tasks.

A second question in this research is? 2) Is the performance of children on STM and WM tasks affected by the mode of response verbal or pointing? The following are the key findings in relation to this second question:a) and pointing. b) On STM tasks the children found it significantly more difficult to use a pointing response than a verbal response. There was no significant difference on the childrens scores on the WM tasks, using either mode of response verbal

4. Discussion
4.1 Introduction

18

In this study short term memory(STM) and working memory(WM) were measured via digit recall span tasks, in which children are given increasingly long sequences of digits to repeat back to the experimenter following a short delay. (Goswami, 2000;257). The difference in scores on these tasks as well as the Phonological awareness (PA) tasks, will be discussed in light of the different theories about memory and PA as mentioned in the introduction. The findings from both STM and WM tasks using different response modes, verbal and pointing, will be explored and explanations with reference to the results will be offered. The limitations of this research will be discussed, in addition to clinical implications and future research. 4.2 Short term memory In this research, STM scores were significantly higher than WM scores. The STM tasks (digit recall) did not require the participant to process information, only to repeat it back in the same format. However, in the WM tasks (digit recall backwards) the participant was required to hold and then process information before repeating it back. There was no correlation between STM scores and age. However, consideration should be given to the different response modes used in this task. The mean score for the STM tasks using verbal response was higher (mean 7.6) than the mean scores for the STM tasks using pointing response (mean 6.4). When a pointing mode of response was used to measure STM, the children had to recognise the numbers on the grid in front of them, as well as hold the numbers they had just heard in their mind. It is possible that all of this additional processing may have interfered and made the task more complex. With this in mind, it must be questioned whether STM was actually being measured when the mode of response was pointing as opposed to WM. This would therefore imply that scores for STM using pointing response were in fact, not what they appeared to be and, may explain why there was no correlation with age. 4.3 Working memory The hypothesis that children who have good WM also have good PA skills has been supported in the results of this research. It is already known that PA skills help

19

children towards word identification and that WM is important not just for word identification but also for reading comprehension. In this research, the PA skills assessed were phoneme identification, substitution and deletion. There may have been an element of WM involved in the PA tasks set out in this research, as they required the holding and processing of information. For example, in the final phoneme identification task, the children were asked to tell the researcher the sound they heard at the end of the word /big/. To do this they needed to hold that word in memory and then process it and respond with the sound /g/. Therefore, it may be considered that these tasks involved WM as well as PA skills and would explain why the scores correlated with each other. There was no correlation between STM and WM scores. This provides evidence that STM processes and PA skills may be processed by different components as discussed in Baddeleys (2000) multi-component model. Alloway et al., (2005;418) state The distinction between the phonological loop and phonological awareness is particularly important, as it bears directly on current debates concerning the close association between these two measures. Bowey, (1996) suggests that phonological memory and awareness measures tap a common underlying phonological processing component. However, Gathercole, Willis & Baddeley, (1991) say that although both these measures are constrained by the efficiency of phonological processing, they reflect distinct cognitive systems. Snowling, Hulme, Smith & Thomas, (1994) found that chronological age was a significant predictor of sound categorisation and memory span performance and this current research found that similarly, WM and PA skills improved as age increased. Oakhill and Kyle (2000) found there was no increase in reading, sentence span, phoneme deletion tasks, word span and sound categorisation tasks scores as age increased. However, their participants were from the same year group. In this current study the children were between the ages of 5;2 and 7;7 and therefore their scores in the PA and WM tasks increased with their age. There was no significant difference on the childrens scores on the WM tasks using either mode of response verbal and pointing. As discussed earlier, WM tasks involve holding and processing information and consideration has already

20

been given to the characteristics of the different response modes - verbal and pointing, and the effect they may have had on the tasks. Unlike the STM tasks, it appears that the WM tasks were difficult for the children and therefore the response mode did not appear to make a difference to them. 4.4 Phonological awareness The results of the PA tasks showed that as the age of the children increased so too did the scores on phoneme identification, substitution and deletion. Dodd & Gillon (2001;140) state Most children are unable to perform phonemic awareness tasks before exposure to writing. Even the youngest children in this research had been exposed to writing as they had completed their first year of school. If the research had been conducted at the start of the academic year with children who had just entered the primary school curriculum there may not have been such a strong correlation between age and PA skills. 4.5 Limitations of study All participants in this study spoke English as their first language and were identified by their class teacher as having no significant learning disabilities, no significant speech or language impairments, no significant reading difficulties and corrected hearing and vision within the normal range. However, a standardised test such as the BPVS (Dunn et al., 1997) would have indicated their level of receptive language and would have corroborated the teachers selection. This study was conducted on a small sample of twenty children, so may not be representative of the population as a whole. Therefore, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution. In the participating school, all of the children attend small classes with a maximum of 14 pupils in each age group and, two classes being taught simultaneously in one room e.g. Junior and Senior Infants. This may have a positive or negative effect on the children. This research was conducted at the end of the academic year during June and understandably the children may have been excited at the prospect of the long Summer holidays approaching. This may have had an impact on the childrens scores in the assessments and should be acknowledged as another limitation.

21

4.6 Clinical Implications The correlation between WM and PA, as shown in the results of this research, surmise the question of whether PA intervention may improve WM skills and vice versa. Research has already shown that PA intervention improves early literacy skills and if WM intervention is incorporated into PA intervention then perhaps this may further help the a child who may be struggling to read. As discussed earlier, the children in this study were not affected by the mode of response on the WM tasks. There was no significant difference between the childrens scores using either mode of response verbal or pointing. Therefore, with these results in mind, if children with severe speech and physical impairment (SSPI) are unable to use natural speech and must rely on the response mode of pointing during assessment, future research on WM using these tools may be deemed a proper measure of the working memory of children with SSPI. 4.7 Future Research Future research might include the use of word span tasks as opposed to digit recall tasks and their correlation with PA skills. Similarly, other areas of PA could be included in future research such as rhyme and alliteration, segmenting and these could be correlated with further WM tasks. Effectively, an extension of this study is suggested. Perhaps comparing the scores between children at ages four, eight and twelve years of age might be a consideration for future research, and a larger sample would negate the limitations of this current study.

4.8 Summary/Conclusion The aims of this research were to explore the relationship between scores on short term, working memory and phonological awareness tasks in children between the ages of 5;2 and 7;7 and to compare the scores achieved on short term and working memory tasks using different modes of response - verbal and pointing.

22

The hypothesis that a participant who achieved a high score in working memory tasks also achieved a high score in phonological awareness tasks was supported. This study also assessed the extent to which the results were influenced by the participants age and showed that age influenced the childrens PA and WM however, there was no such relationship with age and STM. In relation to mode of response, the STM scores indicated that the children found it significantly more difficult to use a pointing response than a verbal response. On the WM tasks the children were unaffected by the response mode, and the children found the WM tasks more difficult than the STM tasks. These findings were explored and explanations with reference to the results were offered. The limitations of this research were examined, as well as clinical implications and it is hoped that this current research has added to the database of knowledge in the essential areas of literacy acquisition.

Bibliography

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 23

Alloway, T., Gathercole, S., Adams, A-M., Willis, C., Eaglen, R., & Lamont, E. (2005). Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals as school entry. British journal of Development Psychology, 23, 417-426. Anthony, J.L. & Lonigan, C.J. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 96, No. 1, 43-55. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Atkinson, R.C.; Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). "Chapter: Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In The psychology of learning and motivation, Volume 2. (eds. K.W. Spence, J.T. Spence). New York: Academic Press. Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought and action. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (4) 417-422. Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, England: Psychology Press. Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Human Memory, theory and practice. MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon. Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49A, 5 28. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford Press. University

Baddeley, A. D. & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R.S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp.521-539). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ball, E.W. (1997). Phonological awareness: Implications for whole language and emergent literacy programs. Topics of Language Disorders, 17 (3), 14-26. Ball, E.W. & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (1) 49-66. Blachman, B.A. (2000). Chapter: Phonological Awareness. In Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 111. (eds: M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 24

Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press. Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 12-21. Bruce, D.J. (1964). The analysis of word sounds. British Journal of Psychology, 34, 158-170. Educational

Carretti, B., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Roman, M. (2005). Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Volume 91, (1) 45-66. Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels or processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal behaviour, 11, 671-684. Daneman, M. & Carpenter, P.A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 561-583. Dahlgren Sandberg, A. (2001). Reading and Spelling, Phonological Awareness and working memory in children with severe speech impairments: A longitudinal study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, (1) 11. Dodd, B. & Gillon, G. (2001) Exploring the Relationship between Phonological Awareness, Speech Impairment, and Literacy. International Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology,3:2,139-147. Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B.,Teitzel, T., & Ozanne, A. (2000). Preschool and Primary School Inventory of Phonological Awareness. UK: The Psychological Corporation Ltd. Ehri, L.C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: two sides of a coin. Topics of Language Disorders, 20 (3), 19-36. Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., YaghoubZadeh, Z., Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic Awareness instruction helps children to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panels meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287. Frith, U. (1985). Chapter: Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In Surface Dyslexia (eds: K. Patterson, J. Marshall & M. Coltheart). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Gathercole, Susan, E. & Baddeley, Alan, D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children. A longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200-213. 25

Gathercole, Susan, E. & Baddeley, Alan. D. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336-360. Gathercole, Susan, E., & Pickering, Susan, J. (1999). Assessment of working memory in six and seven year old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 92, No 2, Pages 377-390. Gillon, G.T. (2004). Phonological Awareness. From research to practice. NY, USA: The Guildford Press. Goswami, U. (2000). Chapter: Phonological and Lexical Processes. In Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 111. (eds: M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Goswami, U. and Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2007). Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. London: Thomson Wadsworth. Hebb, D.O. (1949). Organisation of behaviour. New York: Wiley. Hulme, C. and Snowling, M. (1994). Reading Development and Dyslexia. UK: London: Whurr Publishers Ltd. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Leather, C.V. & Henry, L.A. (1994). Working memory Span and Phonological Awareness Tasks as Predictors of early reading ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 88-111. Logie, R. H. (1986). Visuo-spatial processing in working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 38A, 229-247. Lonigan, C.J. (2003). Development and promotion of emergent literacy skills in preschool children at risk of reading difficulties. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. York: Timonium, MD. Mann, V.A., & Liberman, I.Y. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal shortterm memory: Can they presage early reading problems? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592-599. McDougall, S., Hulme, C., Ellis, A., & Monk, A. (1994). Learning to read: The role of Short term memory and phonological skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 112-133.

26

Pascoe, M., Stackhouse, J. & Wells, B. (2006). Persisting speech difficulties in children. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley and Sons Ltd. Peterson, L.R. & Peterson, M.J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198. verbal

Pumfrey, P.D. & Reason, R. (1991). Specific learning difficulties: Challenges and responses. Berks, UK: N-FER-Nelson. Phillips, Beth, M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., Lonigan, C.J. (2008) Successful Phonological Awareness instruction with Preschool children: Lessons from the Classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Austin: May 2008. Vol. 28, Iss. 1; 3. Semel,E.,Wiig, E., Secord, W. (2006) Clinical Fundamentals (4th ed). UK: Harcourt Assessment. Evaluation of Language

Shallice, T. & Warrington, E.K. (1970). Independent functioning of verbal memory stores: A neuropsychological study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 261-273. Singer, B. (1995). Written language development and disorders: Selected principles, patterns and intervention possibilities. Topics of Language Disorders, 16 (1), 83-98. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds). (1999). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C., Smith, A., & Thomas, J. (1994). The effects of phonetic similarity and list length on childrens sound categorization performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 160-180. Smith, M., Dahlgren Sandberg, A. & Larsson, M. (2009). Reading and spelling in children with severe and physical impairments: a comparative study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. 44,6,864-882. Smith, M. (2005). Literacy and Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc. Swanson, H. Lee, Zheung, Xinhua, Jerman, Olga. (2009). Working Memory, ShortTerm Memory, and reading disabilities a selective meta analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Volume 42, (3), 260-287 Swanson, H. L., Cooney, J. B., & McNamara, J.K. (2004). Memory and learning disabilities. In B. Y. Wong (Ed.), Understanding Learning Disabilities (3rded ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Taibo, M.L.G., Iglesias, P.V., del Salvador, M., Raposo, G., & Mendez, M.S. (2010). An Exploratory study of phonological awareness and working memory differences

27

and literacy performance in people who use AAC. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, Vol. 13, 2, 538-556. Tunmer, W.E., & Rohl, M. (1991). Phonological Awareness and reading acquisition. In D. Sawyer & B. Fox (eds), Phonological Awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.

List of Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F:

Ethical Approval Consent letter - School Principal Consent letter Parents Consent letter Parents Participant Information Sheet Number grid

28

Appendix G:

Instructions for STM and WM tasks with pointing response

Appendix A: Ethics Approval

Applicant: Martine Smith Remembering symbols: Validating a symbol span task

Project Title:

The Research Ethics Committee has looked at your application and approved it, subject to minor amendments which are listed below. We would be grateful if you could forward an electronic copy of the revised version to slscs@tcd.ie, using yellow highlighting on the amended text. We would also be grateful for 2 hardcopies for our records, to be sent Dara at SLSCS. The time involved for the participant 29

It would be helpful if you could mention in the application form (section 2.4) that the tasks will involve a single 20min session per child. Consent Form/Participant Information Leaflet No need to include the template top page. Consent Form The wording on this form should be in the 1st person. Childs assent: Could you possibly include some lines that clarify that, in addition to parental consent, the childs assent (and right to withdraw) is explicitly stated. The suggested text might run a follows: In school, my child will also be asked whether he/she wishes to do the task. Should he/she child not want to do the task, or wish to withdraw at any point, this will be respected. In Paragraph 4 please reword: any information or data that we obtain from you, which can be identified with you, will be treated confidentially as, any information or data obtained from my child, which can be identified with my child, will be treated confidentially

Appendix B: Consent letter School Principal

Martine Smith, PhD, Head of Department Tel: +353 1 896 2027 email: mmsmith@tcd.ie Fax: +353 1 6712152

Dear I am writing to you about a research project I am undertaking to compare childrens working memory for numbers, written sentences and picture symbols. Working memory has a strong relationship with reading and spelling, but it is difficult to measure working memory in children with poor reading and spelling abilities, if they also have speech difficulties. Our goal is to develop a task to measure working memory that bypasses the need for speech. A first step is to see 30

how well children with no difficulties perform on tasks measuring working memory for words, numbers and for picture symbols. Our goal is to assess at least 10 children from each of three classes: Senior Infants, Second Class and Fourth Class. The assessments should take no more than 20 minutes for each child. Some of the tasks will be presented on a computer that we bring with us. I myself will be working with the children, and I will also have a student under my supervision, Katharine Bulbulia, who will see some of the children. Each child needs to be seen individually to complete the tasks, ideally in a quiet room in the school. If you are willing to allow this project to take place within your school, I would be very grateful if you would look at the enclosed information leaflet and consent form. If you are happy with these forms and are willing to proceed, I will have the forms copied and delivered to you for distribution within the classes. If there is anything you would like clarified about this project, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am enclosing a stamped addressed envelope for you to return to me, to let me know whether or not you are able to facilitate this project. I am aware that there are many demands on your time and that you receive many different requests of this nature. I greatly appreciate your time in reading this letter, and look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Martine Smith, PhD Principal Researcher

Appendix C: Consent letter Parents

Katharine Bulbulia West Lodge Lodge Park Straffan County Kildare
Dear Parents Please find enclosed information about research for my final year project in Clinical Speech and Language Studies. Your childs participation would be greatly appreciated and the data collected will be invaluable to my research in conjunction with Dr Martine Smith of Trinity College, Dublin.

31

Please could you return the consent form to the office before 18th June 2010. Should you require any further information do not hesitate to contact me on 087 2414556. Kind regards

Katharine Bulbulia Megan (2nd class) and Miles (Senior Infants) Mum!

Appendix D: Consent form Parents

Consent Form to be returned to the office by 18th June 2010 Remembering symbols: Validating a symbol span task
Principal investigator: Dr Martine Smith, PhD I understand that I am invited to participate in this research project, carried out by DR MARTINE SMITH. My participation is voluntary. Even if I agree to allow my child participate now, I can withdraw permission at any time without consequences of any kind. In school, my child will also be asked whether s/he wishes to complete the tasks. Should s/he not wish to complete the tasks, or wishes to withdraw, this will be respected. The study is designed to compare childrens working memory for numbers, written sentences and picture symbols. I have already received an information leaflet, giving more detailed information about the project.
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN SCHOOL OF LINGUISTIC SPEECH AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES

32

If I agree to allow my child to participate, this will involve him/her completing some memory games for approximately 20 minutes during school. There is no direct benefit for me or my child from participating in this research. The research may help us to develop ways of examining working memory in children who have very poor reading and spelling. Any information or data that is obtained from my child, which can be identified with him/her, will be treated confidentially. Consent forms will be held in the school until data collection is complete and will then be destroyed. Data from individual children will not include names or dates of birth. A number-letter code will be used to identify participants. The anonymized data will be stored on a password-protected computer. Although the data may be published or used for teaching purposes, it will not be possible to identify the school or any individual children. (If you have any questions about this research please do not hesitate to contact me by phone (01 896 2027) or by email (mmsmith@tcd.ie)). Signature of research participants guardian: I understand what is involved in this research and I agree to allow my child [NAME:_____________] [AGE ___yrs ___mths] to participate in the study. I have been given a copy of the Participant Information Leaflet -------------------------------------------------------Signature of parent/guardian Date Signature of researcher I believe the participant is giving informed consent to participate in this study -----------------------------------------researcher ----------------------Signature of

Appendix E: Participant Information Leaflet

Remembering symbols: Validating a symbol span task
Principal investigator: Dr Martine Smith, PhD Clinical Speech and Language Studies, Trinity College.

What is the project about?

Memory is important to all learning. Working memory is one part of our memory system. It is the part where we store information for a short time, while we try to work something out. For example, if you are trying to enter a new phone number into your mobile, you have to be able to hold the number in your working memory long enough to enter the details in your phone. Working memory is important in learning to read and to spell. The aim of this project is to compare how well children remember numbers, written sentences and picture symbols. This information will help us to develop ways of examining working memory in children who have very poor reading and spelling abilities.

What does it involve?

33

Children who participate will be seen individually by the researcher, or by a research assistant who is under the supervision of the researcher. Each child will be asked to complete a number of memory games. Some of the memory games involve numbers, some written sentences and some use picture symbols. We want to see if children find the tasks equally difficult. Some of the tasks will be presented on a computer screen in PowerPoint. The sessions will last approximately 20 minutes. Although the games are interesting, some children may be bored or ask to return to class. If this happens, your child will be brought back to the classroom and the classroom teacher will be advised of what has happened.

Where will it happen?

All the research will take place in the school, at a time that suits the school.

Who can be involved?

All children in the class are invited to participate in this project. Children can only participate if there is a signed consent form. If children have any condition that means that they should not use a computer or view information on a computer screen, they should not participate in this project.

What if I change my mind?

Your childs participation is voluntary. If you change your mind and dont want your child to be involved, your child will be withdrawn from the project and any information we have on your child will be destroyed. This project is not part of your childs schoolwork, and your decision about participating will have no consequences for his or her schoolwork. Even if you have given permission for your child to participate, if he or she decides

Appendix E: Participant Information Leaflet

against participating, there will be no consequences of any kind for your child. Each chid will be asked at the start of each session if it is ok to go ahead with all the games.

What happens to the information?

The only information we will seek about your child is his/her age in years and months, gender (i.e., male or female) and the score your child achieves in each type of memory task. The school will keep the signed consent forms for record purposes. Each participant will be given a code as an identifier (e.g., A1, B2, etc.). No names or dates of birth will be recorded, so that no child should be identifiable from the data. The data will be stored on a computer hard drive in accordance with Data Protection Guidelines. Although the information we get from this project may be published or used for teaching purposes, it will not be possible to identify the school or the children in any way.

Where can I get more information?

34

If you have any questions about this research you can ask me directly, either by phone (01 896 2027) or by email (mmsmith@tcd.ie). You are also free to ask your childs teacher, who can then get the information you need from me.

What do I do now?

1. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me or Katharine Bulbulia (see below) 2.If you are willing to allow your child to participate, please see the consent form attached to this letter. This consent form must be signed by you and returned by 18th June 2010 to the school. Contact information Dr Martine Smith Clinical Speech and Language Studies 184 Pearse Street Trinity College Dublin Phone: 01 896 2027 email: mmsmith@tcd.ie

For information you can also contact: Mrs Katharine Bulbulia 0872414556 or email: bulbulik@tcd.ie

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO READ THIS THIS INFORMATION LEAFLET IS FOR YOU TO KEEP

Appendix F: Number Grid

1 4

2 5

3 6
35

8 0

Appendix G: Instructions for STM and WM tasks with pointing response

The researcher said: Were going to do a numbers game like the last one, where you have to remember the numbers. This time you dont have to say anything, you just point to the numbers I have named. Lets look at all the numbers first and make sure you can see them. The researcher checked that the participant was able to point to each number. The task was abandoned at this stage if a participant had a problem identifying the correct numbers. The participants were prevented from seeing the number 36

grid while the digits were called out. The researcher said: Now, Im going to hold these numbers while you listen and then you can point to the numbers I named. Lets try a few first: 6, 2 and 9, 0 If the participant answered correctly the test items were started, if however, the response was incorrect two more trial items were introduced. If the response was incorrect on the second set of trials, the first test set was started and the test was discontinued if the next two sets were incorrect. The researcher followed the same procedure as for DRFV when administering and recording the responses.

Instructions for WM tasks with pointing response The Researcher said: This time, when I say the numbers you have to point to them backwards! So, if I say 0, 6 you have to point to 6, 0. This is tricky so you have to listen carefully. Lets try a few first. The same stimulus items were used as previously used for the trials and the participant was coached as much as needed until the researcher was sure the task was understood. The discontinuation rules were the same as the other tasks.

37