Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
1
A research project investigating
teachers’ knowledge of working
memory and assessing whether they
use interventions to support children’s
learning in the classroom.
Degree programme: Childhood Studies
Alicia Miri Fagelman
16th May 2014
Word Count: 10,792
Tutor: Sian Roberts
Student No: 200388117
EDUC 3805 Dissertation
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
2
Contents
Acknowledgements Page 4
Abstract Page 5
Introduction Page 6
Literature Review Page 8
Rationale for Research Page 19
Methodology (Participants, Research Methods and Procedure) Page 21
Ethical Considerations Page 25
Analysis and Discussion of Findings Page 27
Conclusion Page 39
Reflections of Methodology Page 43
Implications of Findings for Practice and Future Research Page 47
Bibliography Page 49
Appendices Page 58
Appendix 1- example of letter to head teachers Page 58
Appendix 2- example of consent form to teachers and head teachers Page 60
Appendix 3- example of information letter to teachers Page 61
Appendix 4- Vignette Page 63
Appendix 5- Semi-structured interview questions Page 64
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
3
Appendix 6- Key Page 66
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
4
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank all the teachers who participated in this research project. All
your responses in the interviews have been of value to the researcher. I would also
like to thank the head teachers for giving their approval and consent for me to
conduct research for my dissertation in their school.
I would finally like to thank my dissertation tutor for all her support and
encouragement throughout this year.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
5
A research project investigating teachers’ knowledge of working memory and
assessing whether they use interventions to support children’s learning in the
classroom.
Abstract
Working memory plays a key role in children’s learning and academic attainment in
school (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). The aim of this research project is to
investigate teachers’ knowledge of working memory and find out whether they
implement classroom-based interventions or computerized training programmes to
support children’s working memory. Two primary schools agreed to take part in the
study; with a total of 8 participants from both schools (including 2 SENCO’s). A
vignette was first presented to participants to see whether teachers could identify
typical symptoms of poor working memory. Following this, the researcher conducted
a semi-structured interview to explore teachers’ perceptions of working memory and
assess whether teachers incorporated strategies to support struggling children in the
classroom. The data indicated that teachers in one school had more knowledge of
working memory than teachers in another school. In addition, teachers in one school
were implementing a wide-range of classroom-based interventions to support
children with poor working memory. However, no participants were aware of or using
computerized training programmes to help overcome difficulties in working memory.
The results indicate that teachers in England need more training in working memory
so they can implement appropriate strategies and improve outcomes for children
with special educational needs (SEN).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
6
Introduction
“Working memory is the system that underlies the capacity to store and manipulate
information for brief periods of time” (Alloway et al., 2009:242). Working memory is
distinctively different to short-term memory (STM) as it involves both the processing
and storing of information, while the STM system temporarily stores information
within certain informational domains (Alloway et al., 2009). Differences in working
memory capacity vary between different children of the same age and therefore this
will cause different challenges for them (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). There are
many factors which impede on working memory such as distraction, holding
information in the mind for too long and engaging in demanding tasks (Gathercole
and Alloway, 2008).
Working memory is important in classroom learning as it is used to remember
instructions, problem-solve, read, and perform a range of complex activities
(Baddeley et al., 2009; Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). However, children with poor
working memory have a limited capacity to store information to complete tasks and
therefore find it difficult to follow lengthy instructions, or carry out complex activities
on a day to day basis. These challenges often lead to poor academic progress and
underachievement in school, particularly in numeracy and literacy (Gathercole and
Pickering, 2000; Gathercole et al., 2004).
The classroom-based working memory approach was developed by Gathercole
(2008) to increase teacher awareness poor working memory and help practitioners
reduce working memory load in lessons. This involves using visual aids, breaking
down tasks, repeating instructions and helping children develop their own strategies.
There is also evidence that computerized training programmes such as CogMed
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
7
increase attention and improve working memory capacity over a six week training
programme (Klingberg et al., 2005; Gathercole, 2008). However, there is limited
research to suggest that both interventions lead to long-term outcomes for boosting
children’s intelligence and academic attainment in school.
According to Alloway (2009), children’s working memory skills at 5 years old are the
best predictors of academic attainment 6 years later. This signifies that teachers
should have some understanding of working memory and how it impacts on learning
and behaviour. However, research by Alloway (2012) indicates that teachers have
poor knowledge of working memory and often misattribute signs of working memory
failure as ‘lacking motivation’ and ‘day dreaming’ (Gathercole et al., 2006). This can
be problematic as children with poor working memory are then less likely to be
assessed or given appropriate intervention, which can lead to poor outcomes and
opportunities.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
8
Literature review
What is working memory?
The term ‘working memory’ is defined as a system which “temporarily stores and
manipulates information” for brief periods (Alloway, 2006:132). The concept of
working memory was developed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) who created a
multicomponent model outlining a system that underpins cognitive activities, mental
work and coherent thought (Baddeley et al., 2009). It explains complex processing
such as language acquisition, mental arithmetic and following directions (Gathercole
and Alloway, 2008). However, one of the limitations of working memory is that it has
limited capacity, which means that when there are high processing demands, it can
lead to the loss of information from this memory system (Alloway, 2006).
A brief history of memory models
The belief that the STM serves as a working memory was proposed by Atkinson and
Shiffrin (1968) who developed the modal model. This framework views the storage
and processing of information in simplistic terms (Baddeley et al., 2009). It describes
memory as an input/output system where information is processed from the
environment and flows through each memory system (sensory, short-term and long-
term store). The role of rehearsal is important for remembering information
(Baddeley et al., 2009). However, neuropsychological evidence shows that the
modal model is limiting as it does not account for patients who have a STM deficit
but are able to successfully perform in complex cognitive tasks (Shallice and
Warrington, 1970; Vallar and Shallice, 1990). This highlights why the STM store
shifted from a simplistic understanding to a multicomponent model.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
9
The assumption that holding information in the STM would lead to effective learning
was criticised by Craik and Lockhart (1972). They proposed the levels of processing
approach which suggests that learning depends on the way information is processed
rather than the amount of time information is stored in the STM (Baddeley et al.,
2009). This means that incoming stimuli is processed at different levels such as a
shallow/structural level (the physical representation of a word), phonetic/phonemic
level (the sound of a word) and deep/semantic level (the meaning of a word) (Gross,
1987). In a study, Craik and Tulving (1975) presented words to participants and
asked one of four questions based on the levels of processing approach. Subjects
were then given an unexpected test of recognition. The results illustrated that
participants had significantly better recognition with deeper levels of processing. This
suggests that the level of processing approach is useful as it teaches effective
strategies of learning. On the other hand, it is a circular argument as any information
which is remembered is ‘deeply processed’. There is also no conclusive evidence to
show that semantic features are forgotten more slowly than physical features.
Nelson and Vining (1978) found that information which is learnt to the same standard
leads to the physical and semantic features being forgotten at the same rate. This
highlights a weakness in Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing theory.
Working memory model
During the 1970’s, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) created the working memory model
which recognised that the STM was not solely a storage system, but also had a
functional role in language development and complex cognitive activities. The multi-
component model is made up of: the central executive which is responsible for the
attention and storage of information; the phonological loop which deals with speech-
based information and acoustic stimuli; and the visuospatial sketchpad which holds
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
10
visual and spatial information for short periods of time (Henry, 2012). However,
there was later a concern with how these three components retrieve information from
the long-term memory. This led to the development of an additional component,
known as the episodic buffer, which acts as a link between the central executive and
long-term memory, so that information can be accessed during on-going memory
and processing tasks (Baddeley, 2000).
Poor working memory in the classroom
Observations on children in classrooms have highlighted a link between poor
working memory and difficulties in learning (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). Children
with poor working memory generally fail to meet memory demands and find it difficult
to keep focussed on a particular task (Alloway, 2006; Kane et al., 2007). Swanson
and Saez (2003) argue that the working memory provides a resource, known as the
episodic buffer which integrates knowledge from the long-term memory with
information in temporary storage. However, a child who has poor working memory
has limited capacity to retrieve information and carry out an activity, which they learnt
earlier on in the day (Gathercole, 2004). This is perhaps related to an attentional
resource limitation (Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). Another explanation is that
failing to store and manipulate information in the working memory, during classroom
activities, leads to disruption in the development of knowledge and skills over the
school years (Alloway, 2006). This may lead to large gaps in children’s learning
throughout their education (Alloway, 2006).
Research has shown that learning activities which pose heavy demands on the
working memory cause the short-term memory to become overloaded with
information (Alloway, 2006). This provides evidence to suggest that individuals may
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
11
struggle to complete a task or abandon it altogether. There are numerous signs of
working memory failure for teachers to recognise in classroom learning
environments. These include instances when children: forget lengthy instructions,
experience place-keeping errors such as missing out words in sentences or have
difficulty processing and storing information in structured learning activities
(Gathercole et al., 2006). This limits children’s learning and therefore puts them at
high risk of slow academic progress (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008). Therefore, a
supportive environment which incorporates positive, directive teaching in the
classroom is an important factor which enables children with poor working memory
to process and carry out activities.
Underachieving in national curriculum subjects
Research suggests that there is an association between children with poor working
memory and underachievement in school (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008; Holmes et
al., 2010). Studies have shown that working memory is closely linked to children’s
learning and academic attainment in national curriculum assessments in reading,
maths and science (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000). Alloway et al. (2009) tested
300 children with poor working memory profiles and found that 75% of the 5-6 year
olds and 83% of the 9-10 year olds had difficulties in both reading and mathematics.
These results provide evidence that low attainment levels in national curriculum
subjects maybe linked to poor working memory. However, cognitive research
suggests that heightened levels of maths anxiety in children can influence the
working memory and therefore reduce students’ capacity to learn information
(Ashcraft and Krause, 2007).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
12
In a study which used the Working Memory Battery Assessment, it was found that a
severe deficit in central executive functioning and visuo-spatial memory was
associated with poor performance in national curriculum subjects, including
vocabulary, language comprehension, reading and mathematics (Gathercole and
Pickering, 2000). This suggests that performance on measures of working memory
skills were useful predictors of identifying children who are at high risk of making
poor academic progress.
Working memory and developmental disorders
There is evidence that children with a developmental disorder such as Specific
Language Impairment (SLI) or Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) also
have a working memory problem (Holmes et al., 2010). In a study conducted by
Rajendran et al. (2009), researchers found different types of developmental
disorders were associated with different types of cognitive profiles linked to the
working memory. Specific language impairments were linked to deficits in verbal
STM and working memory, whereas children with attentional problems showed
impairments in both verbal and visuo-spatial areas. These results indicate why
children with SLI have difficulties developing language and vocabulary skills
(Archibald and Gathercole, 2006). The study also sheds light on the nature of ADHD,
which differs from a pure working memory deficit as it is associated with oppositional
and hyperactive behaviour (Alloway et al., 2008). Children with ADHD tend to
perform well in age-expected levels of short-term memory tasks such as forward
recall of letters and digits. However, children with a pure working memory problem
generally do not perform well in these tasks (Roodenrys, 2006). This highlights the
distinctiveness of ADHD which is characterised as an attentional and behavioural
issue in schools.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
13
Classroom behaviour
In a study by Holmes et al. (2010) poor working memory was found to be associated
with inattentive and distractible behaviour in children. The participants were found to
have difficulties focussing attention on a particular task. Similarly, Aronen et al.
(2005) found that children with poor working memory had more academic and
attentional problems than children with typical working memory. In another study
which used the Conner’s Teaching Rating Scale; researchers found that practitioners
observed children with poor working memory to be inattentive and extremely
distractible. The results indicated that 70% of children aged 5-6 years, who had poor
working memory, had low scores on the cognitive problem/ inattention subscale of
the Conners’ checklist (Conners, 1997; Gathercole et al., 2008). This provides
evidence that problem behaviour in children with poor working memory is strongly
associated with inattention and short-attention spans (Gathercole et al., 2008).
Interventions
There is a large amount of evidence to show that working memory is fundamental to
learning (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000; Holmes et al., 2010; Gathercole et al.,
2004). Children who have working memory difficulties need to be identified and
supported through intervention work (Elliott et al., 2010). This can be in the form of
adapting the child’s learning environment or targeting and training the working
memory directly (Holmes, 2012).
Classroom-based working memory approach
Based on cognitive theory, Gathercole (2008) developed a classroom-based
approach to support children with working memory problems. This approach is
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
14
aimed at raising awareness of the warning signs of working memory failure. It also
emphasises the role of the teacher in adapting the environment to suit a child’s
learning needs and reduce working memory demands in the classroom (Holmes,
2012). Evidence suggests that early intervention is significantly important in
preventing the decline of children’s academic attainment in school (Alloway, 2006).
The recommended strategies include: recognising working memory failures,
monitoring the child, breaking down instructions using shorter sentences, repeating
important information, encouraging the use of memory aids such as charts, posters,
Numicon, cubes, counters, number lines and developing the child’s own strategies,
for example encouraging the child to ask for help; ensuring the child repeats back
instructions; note-taking, place-keeping and boosting confidence in children so that
they are motivated to complete complex tasks (Gathercole, 2008; Alloway, 2006).
This suggests that there are numerous ways for teachers to reduce memory-related
failure in class and improve the learning progress in children with poor working
memory (Elliott et al., 2010; Alloway, 2006).
Do classroom-based interventions work?
There is limited research about the effectiveness of classroom-based strategies.
Elliott et al. (2010) examined whether a classroom-based intervention approach and
training sessions for teachers could improve working memory and academic
performance in children. Participants were children with working memory difficulties
and they were assigned to one of three groups. In the first condition teachers took
part in a training programme which aimed to increase their awareness and
understanding of working memory problems. Then, practitioners were shown how to
make adjustments to their teaching in order to reduce memory load. They were also
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
15
taught how to encourage children to use strategies that would minimise cognitive
demands, such as rehearsal and note-taking. The second condition was a training
programme for teachers where they were given prepared booklets which outlined
behaviour approaches for direct instruction and precision teaching. This approach
was concerned with raising standards in language, reading and mathematics. The
third condition was a control group where staff received regular instruction, but there
was no additional support provided. The results of the study indicate that the
classroom-based approach and precision teaching did not improve children’s
working memory scores or academic performance (Elliott et al., 2010). This infers
that the two working memory interventions were not effective as there was no
significant outcome between the two conditions. However, classroom observations
showed that when teachers did provide ‘desirable’ strategies (within the three
groups), it was a good predictor of children’s academic attainment, for example
repetition was positively associated with improvement in reading comprehension
scores. In addition, teacher sensitivity, patience and practitioners’ understanding of
the nature of working memory difficulties were recognised as factors which
contributed to children’s ability to focus and perform in the classroom (Gathercole
and Alloway, 2008).
One of the limitations of the study was that it was more concerned with creating a
supportive environment for the children as opposed to explicitly training the working
memory. Another pitfall was that some of the teachers were already incorporating
these strategies as part of good classroom practice. This suggests that alternative
interventions may be needed to actively improve working memory, for example
physical activity or music training (Lee et al. 2007; Tomporowski et al., 2008).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
16
Computer interventions
Robomemo is an example of a direct training programme, developed by CogMed,
which is designed to enhance working memory (Gathercole, 2008). Gathercole
(2008) suggests that in order for it to be effective, children must use this software for
35 minutes a day for 6 weeks. However, there is mixed research to show that
computer-based programs can overcome working memory problems; improve fluid
intelligence and academic performance (Klingberg, 2010; Holmes et al., 2009;
Shipstead et al., 2012). There is also debate in the literature as to whether there is
any evidence that CogMed training overcomes working memory problems such as
attention failure and following instructions in the classroom.
Benefits of computerized training programmes
There is data to suggest that working memory capacity can be affected by training
(Klingberg et al., 2005; Holmes et al., 2009). Klingberg et al. (2005) found that
children who participated in computerized training were able to follow more than one
instruction in a classroom activity, for example when the teacher said, ‘take the blue
pen and put it in the red box’. This highlights that the benefits of computerized
training on working memory capacity may be transferrable to other skills and tasks in
the classroom.
According to Holmes et al. (2009), computerized game environments have been
shown to improve working memory. In their study, children with poor working
memory were assessed on measures of working memory, IQ, and academic
attainment before and after training in an adaptive and non-adaptive computerized
programme. The results indicated that participants who engaged in an intensive
adaptive training programme for 35 minutes each day (for 6 weeks), showed
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
17
improved working memory scores during this period, and for a further 6 months post
training. It also enhanced attentional capacity and improved mathematical
performance 6 months after the training. This suggests that computerized game
environments can have a significant impact in improving academic skills in children,
specifically in individuals who do not meet the criteria of SEN. However,
improvement in subject attainment levels may take longer to take effect depending
on individual differences (Jaeggi et al., 2013).
Limitations of computerized training programmes
There have also been a number of critiques who have doubted the success of the
training effects. Melby-Lervag and Hulme (2013:272) describe computer-based
training as a method of repeatedly loading limited cognitive resources, which they
view as a “naïve physical energetic model”. Shipstead et al. (2012) claims that
CogMed training does not necessarily increase intelligence, improve attentional
control or relieve symptoms of ADHD. St-Clair Thompson et al. (2010) found
Memory Booster computer games made no improvements on tests assessing
reading, arithmetic or maths. One of the major pitfalls of memory training programs is
that they are likely to produce short-term, specific effects rather than general
improvements (Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). The key issue is whether improved
performance on CogMed tasks can be transferred to regular classroom-based
activities (Shipstead et al., 2012).
Teacher awareness of working memory
Working memory problems are often undetected in the classroom and misread by
teachers as poor behaviour or low motivation (Gathercole et al., 2008; Gathercole et
al., 2006). Such misattribution prevents many children with working memory
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
18
problems from being assessed and supported appropriately in the classroom, or
given the right intervention. Consequently, their condition progressively worsens
which leads to educational underachievement. It is therefore essential that teachers
recognise working memory problems in children and are equipped with the right tools
to provide classroom-based interventions (Gathercole, 2008).
To the author’s knowledge there is only one study by Alloway (2012) which assesses
teachers’ awareness of working memory and classroom behaviour. There were 14
teachers (permanent members of staff) from Scotland who participated in the study.
Each took part in a semi-structured interview which assessed their knowledge of
working memory. The study assessed teachers knowledge of working memory, to
see whether they used specific terminology such as ‘memory’ or ‘processing’,
recognise early warning signs of working memory deficits, and list strategies that
they used in the classroom to support pupils. In the second part of the study,
teachers were asked to identify pupils who showed negative classroom behaviour.
The data indicates some educational issues, that teachers had poor awareness of
working memory as only 25% of staff detected early warning signs of working
memory failure (Alloway, 2012). All teachers were unable to recognise working
memory and then support it which suggests why many children were making limited
academic progress in school. In addition, many children who teachers considered as
having troublesome behaviour also had working memory failure. This study indicates
that teachers have poor knowledge of working memory which means children are
less likely to be identified and screened, which can negatively impact on their
learning outcomes (Alloway, 2012).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
19
Rationale for Research
The literature demonstrates that working memory failure impacts on children’s
learning, academic attainment and classroom functioning (Gathercole and Alloway,
2008; Gathercole and Pickering, 2000; Holmes et al., 2010). Research by
Gathercole and Alloway (2008) suggests that there are classroom-based strategies
to support children with poor working memory. In addition, there is some research
outlining the positive effects of computer interventions for improving children’s
working memory (Klingberg et al., 2005; Holmes et al., 2009).
Teachers’ knowledge of working memory determines whether children are identified,
screened and given appropriate interventions (Alloway, 2012). However, there has
been very limited research in this area which suggests there is a gap in the literature
around teachers’ knowledge of working memory and how it impacts on children’s
learning.
Therefore, this research project will build on existing literature of working memory,
specifically the study by Alloway (2012). The aim is to investigate teachers’
perceptions of working memory in two primary schools in Manchester and assess
whether teachers know about classroom-based interventions or computerized
training programmes to support children with poor working memory.
The literature has helped guide the researcher in addressing the following key topics
as research questions:
1. What is teachers’ knowledge of working memory?
2. Are teachers trained to spot the warning signs of working memory?
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
20
3. Are teachers using classroom-based interventions to support children’s
working memory?
4. Are teachers using computer-based interventions to support children’s
working memory?
5. How effective do teachers perceive these interventions to be for boosting
academic attainment?
6. Are teachers using alternative interventions to support children’s working
memory?
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
21
Methodology
The central aim of this research project was to investigate teachers’ perceptions of
working memory and find out whether they incorporate classroom-based
interventions or computerized training programmes to support children with poor
working memory.
Participants
A sample of 8 teachers (including 2 SENCO’s) from two primary schools in
Manchester volunteered to participate in this study. There were 4 participants from
each school who were interviewed. The head teachers recruited a spread of
teachers in the schools by sending out an email explaining the research project in
brief. Participants were permanent members of staff who were teaching different age
groups from Reception to Year 6. Some of the participants had been teaching for
over 25 years whereas others were newly qualified teachers (NQT).
There were two schools taking part in the research project. School A was a large,
Jewish Primary School, where almost all pupils were from White British heritage. The
proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals was below average, as was the
proportion of children with SEN and disabled pupils. The school achieved above the
current government’s floor standard in attainment and progression (OFSTED, 2012).
School B was an average-sized primary school, where the proportion of children
eligible for pupil premium was well-above average. The proportion of children who
had SEN or a disability (who are supported by school action plus or a statement)
was well-above average (OFSTED, 2013). In 2012 and 2013, many Year 6 pupils left
school with well-below national expectations in reading, writing and mathematics
(OFSTED, 2013).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
22
Research Methods
The purpose of collecting qualitative data in this research project was to gain
detailed information about teachers’ perceptions of working memory and
interventions, where ideas and knowledge could be developed and expanded
through effective communication in an interview.
A vignette and a semi-structured interview were used to collect qualitative data from
the participants in this project. The vignette was a short, written description of a
young boy who had distinctive symptoms of working memory failure. The purpose of
using this research instrument was to provoke discussion on the topic and to enable
participants to reveal their thoughts and understanding about working memory, as
discussed by Arthur et al. (2012). A workshop by Gathercole (2011) influenced the
researcher to use a vignette in this project as it outlined symptoms of poor working
memory. This research tool enabled participants to give an account of their own
experiences teaching children with poor working memory by discussing some of the
issues in relation to the text.
The researcher adapted Alloway’s (2012) approach of collecting data which used a
semi-structured interview to assess teachers’ knowledge of classroom behaviour and
working memory. The purpose of using a semi-structured interview in this research
project was so the researcher could have a face to face conversation with
participants about working memory and interventions, where ideas and knowledge
could be developed and expanded through effective communication.
As discussed by Cohen et al. (2007), a semi-structured interview was more useful
than using a questionnaire when collecting qualitative data as it enabled participants
to express deep thoughts and understanding about working memory in relation to the
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
23
research questions being investigated. In addition, the instrument allowed the
researcher to prompt teachers so that they could be guided through the interview.
Cohen et al. (2007) suggests this research instrument helps establish a systematic
approach of collecting data as it allows all participants to respond to similar
questions around the same topic. The benefit of using open-ended questions in
research is discussed by DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) who suggest that
teachers are able to give in-depth, social and personal examples which provide rich,
qualitative data. In addition, the questions were not fixed which meant other ideas
emerged from the dialogue between the interviewer and interviewee adding value to
the data (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). However, a limitation of using this
research method is expressed by Cohen et al. (2007: 353) who argues that
interviewer flexibility in wording and sequencing of questions result in occasional
different responses, thus reducing comparability of responses.
Procedure
The researcher sent a letter to the head teacher from school A and B to find out
whether teachers in their school would be interested in taking part in a research
project about working memory. A meeting was then organised in both schools where
the head teacher was able to ask the researcher questions about the study. During
this time head teachers signed a consent form to say they agreed for their school to
take part in the research project.
Research questions were developed over a period of time which served as a
“guiding framework for the data collection and analysis” (Arthur et al., 2012:105).
These objectives formed the questions in the semi-structured interview. In other
words, research questions were designed to explore teachers’ understanding of
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
24
working memory, the training they had received, their use of classroom and
computer interventions to support working memory and the perceived benefits of
these. At the start of the investigation, participants from school A first read an
information letter and then signed a consent form which explained the ethical
proceedings of the study. Teachers were then asked to read a vignette which
described a boy with symptoms of working memory failure, which was adapted from
materials used in a workshop by Gathercole (2011). Participants were then asked to
describe some of the learning difficulties in the scenario. After, the researcher asked
the teachers 13 open-ended questions as part of a semi-structured interview.
Participants were also given prompts for each question to ensure they understood
what was being asked. The questions were not fixed which meant more ideas could
be discussed during the interview. It took approximately 20 minutes to carry out the
interview with each participant. Teachers’ responses were recorded using an audio
devise and were stored securely on a laptop. The recordings were then transcribed
onto Microsoft Word document. Once the interview was completed, the researcher
debriefed the participants and gave them an opportunity to ask any questions about
the study. The same proceedings were carried out in school B.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
25
Ethical Considerations
An information letter was provided to participants and the head teacher in both
schools, which informed teachers and leadership staff about the nature of the
research project to ensure they were satisfied with the proceedings. Following this, a
consent form was read and signed by participants, and the head teachers which
enabled the teachers to participate in the research. Teachers were made aware that
they could withdraw from the investigation at any point during the interview. The
names of the schools and teachers were made anonymous and referred to as letters
of the alphabet so they could not be identifiable. The data in the investigation was
made strictly confidential as it was safely secured in a locked file on a laptop. All
participants were debriefed at the end of the interview and had the right to ask the
researcher questions.
Cohen et al. (2007) argues that communication between interviewer and interviewee
should be professional. This was demonstrated by the researcher’s approach when
speaking to the interviewees, to ensure there was no passing judgement. However,
as a student interviewing teachers, it was sometimes difficult to create equal power
and control between the interviewer and interviewees and thus it was important to
give respect to all participants taking part in the research project. In some
circumstances teachers expressed nerves at the start of the interview. Therefore, it
was important the researcher communicated in a calm manner to ensure the
interviewees felt relaxed. Although the researcher had a close relationship with
school A (being a former member of the school), it was important to treat all
participants from both schools equally to eliminate researcher bias, as documented
by Hiller and DiLuzio (2004) who state that over-rapport with participants can lead to
the unequal treatment of participants.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
26
Teachers in the study had different levels of expertise; some qualified SENCO’s,
some who had 25 years teaching experience and others were NQT’S. This meant it
was essential that the researcher appreciated the different backgrounds and
teaching experiences of the participants in the project. However, some teachers
were more knowledgeable than others in the field of working memory such as
SENCO’s. Therefore, the use of prompts was helpful in clarifying any
misconceptions or misunderstandings during the interview.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
27
Analysis and Discussion of Findings
The researcher transcribed teachers’ responses from an audio device onto a
Microsoft Word document. The quotes used in the analysis and discussion of
findings section have been extracted from the transcriptions and used to support
themes which have emerged from teachers’ responses to working memory and
interventions.
Teachers’ knowledge of working memory and its impact on learning
Teachers in school B had more knowledge and understanding about working
memory and how it impacts on children’s learning in the classroom, than teachers in
school A. The distinction between the two schools is that teachers in school A were
not familiar with the term ‘working memory’. However, the SENCO in school A had
good knowledge of working memory and was able to make the connection between
memory and learning, when she said, “It’s more to do with the short-term memory so
when the teachers are talking to them and they are giving them information and then
five minutes later they are saying I don’t understand and it is not going in”. This
suggests she understands working memory to be a processing issue, as has been
argued by Baddeley (2000).
However, most teachers in school A could not make the link between working
memory and learning in the classroom, which was evident in their responses to the
vignette. Participant A2 said, “It’s obviously got something to do with your memory
and what you can remember. I don’t know whether it relates to classroom learning or
in general”. Participant A3 said, “I have never come across working memory before”.
Only participant A1 and AS mentioned forgetting information as a possible warning
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
28
sign of a working memory failure. The data in school A supports Alloway (2012) who
found that teachers generally have poor knowledge of working memory.
However, in school B, all teachers interviewed and the SENCO had good knowledge
of working memory. Participant B2 recognised that children “find it hard to retain
information, struggle to remember what they need to do or write down”. Similarly, the
SENCO in school B said that the boy in the vignette “might not be able to process
the information and get it down on paper”. This suggests that the teachers in school
B recognise that children with poor working memory have a limited capacity to hold
information and this means they generally fail to meet memory demands in the
classroom because their working memory is overloaded. Therefore, teachers’
understanding of working memory and its role in classroom learning is in line with
research by Alloway (2006) and Gathercole (2004), who argue that high level
demands in the classroom reduce a person’s ability to process information and this
puts them at high risk of slow academic progress.
Most of the participants in school B recognised many of the warning signs of working
memory failure, which have been identified in the literature as: forgetting instructions,
place-keeping errors and difficulties processing and storing information (Gathercole
et al., 2006). This was evident when teachers spoke about their experience in the
classroom. Participant B2 explained that some children had “difficulties following
instructions that had more than 2 or 3 steps to it”. Participant B6 said, “When they
can’t remain on task and then leave it and don’t return to their work”. This implies
that the data from school B does not support previous research which claims that
teachers generally have poor knowledge of working memory and are unable to spot
the warning signs (Alloway, 2012).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
29
Recognising underachievement in national curriculum subjects
The results indicate that it was mainly the SENCO’s in school A and B who made the
connection between working memory problems and underachievement in numeracy,
literacy and science. The SENCO in school B said, “Like in numeracy I say how we
going to do this and she will talk me through it, but when it comes down to it… she
doesn’t know if it is adding or subtraction. This is a classic working memory
problem”. The SENCO in school A states that children with poor working memory
may “attain but the chances are it will be of low ability because it will take much
longer”. The SENCO’s responses suggest children with a working memory deficit are
likely to make poor progress in school, as documented by Gathercole and Pickering
(2000) and Alloway et al. (2009).
There is a discrepancy between what the research says about poor working memory
and academic achievement and what participant B4 said. According to the literature,
children with poor working memory generally underachieve in school (Holmes et al.,
2010; Gathercole et al., 2004). Other studies indicate that a deficit in the central
executive and visual-spatial memory leads to poor performance in vocabulary,
language comprehension, reading and maths (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000).
However, participant B4 claims that some children with a working memory problem
perform better in one subject over another. She states, “I have a boy in my class who
is top in numeracy but next to bottom in Literacy…in numeracy he does it all in his
head and he’s usually right”. This suggests that some children with poor working
memory are academic. However, there is limited research on varying levels of
attainment in different subject areas in children with working memory impairments.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
30
A more recent study illustrates that the development of mathematical learning in
young children is due to the performance of the central executive and phonological
loop (Meyer et al., 2010). Researchers also found that the visuo-spatial sketchpad
supports numeracy learning in later stages (Meyer et al., 2010). Therefore, this might
provide an explanation for why the young boy in her class performs so well in
numeracy even though he has been diagnosed with a working memory problem.
Working memory and behaviour
Another interesting finding discussed in the interview is about working memory and
behaviour. Participant B6 said, “I have a girl that does have a working memory
problem but she is really well behaved and tries to please you”. This idea contrasts
with the literature as Holmes et al. (2010) suggests that poor working memory is
associated with inattentive and distractible behaviour and Alloway (2012) found that
troublesome behaviours are highly associated with poor working memory. The
discrepancy between what the data in the interview says about working memory and
behaviour and what the research states means that we must acknowledge that the
effect of poor working memory varies in each individual (Gathercole and Alloway,
2008).
The role of the teacher and pupil attainment
The SENCO in school (A) makes a useful point about pupil attainment when she
states, “if a child has a poor working memory, it isn’t going to be a quick fix, it’s how
the teacher adapts her lessons”. She therefore puts emphasis on the role and
behaviour of the teacher to support individual learning. This is in line with the
research by Elliot et al., (2010) who found that when teachers implement classroom-
based strategies effectively, such as repeating information, it can improve scores in
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
31
reading comprehension. Similarly, participant B4, who was previously a SENCO,
recognises that it is the teacher’s role to implement strategies to support children
who underachieve. She says, “I think it affects them in their learning… it clearly does
if you have not implemented strategies to manage them… because then they
become lost… and then they acquire gaps in their learning… and then they are
slipping”. This implies that she makes a connection between poor working memory
and underachievement in school, a link which has been well-documented in previous
studies (Gathercole and Pickering, 2000; Gathercole et al., 2004). Participant B4
also recognises a need to incorporate classroom-based strategies such as “visual
cues, now and next cards and clear signals”, to prevent problems manifesting. This
suggests that the SENCO’s in this data recognise and incorporate the classroom-
based approach in order to improve learning outcomes for children with poor working
memory, which has been recommended by Gathercole, (2008) and Gathercole and
Alloway (2004).
Some of the teachers stated that they scaffold children’s learning to help boost their
confidence in a particular subject (Vygotsky, 1978). Participant B6 said, “I think it is
important to remove the steps so they can do it independently”. Similarly participant
AS said, “Generally it is how the teacher is teaching the child. It is scaffolding,
chunking”. This suggests that some teachers provide support until the child is self-
assured to carry out the task independently. This is an effective strategy to improve
children’s learning, as documented by Wood et al. (1976). However, the difficulty for
the children and teachers is that it is a slow process to boost attainment in
individuals who have a working memory problem.
Teacher training
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
32
The need for more training on working memory in school B is mentioned in the
interview when she said, “We are currently trying to organise some training from
Ladywood or the Ed Psych and we are in the process of getting the costing for it…
Even just to learn the strategies that our Ed Psych talks about is very good practice
for our children… even just breaking down tasks”. Participant B6 states that she has
been “given professional advice” about classroom-based interventions to support
these children in the classroom. Therefore, the data in school B infers that effective
communication between the SENCO, educational psychologist and the teachers
means there is greater awareness in the school to implement classroom-based
interventions which support children with poor working memory. This suggests in
School B, SEN is a whole school issue and therefore interventions to support
children with working memory problems is generally best dealt with at a whole school
level.
Both the current SENCO and the previous SENCO in school B had formal training on
working memory and classroom-based interventions which explains their high level
knowledge of the subject. Participant BS said, “We have an outreach school called
Ladywood… they deliver full training in the afternoon… a simple overview of 3
hours”. Participant B4 (previous SENCO) said, “I’ve done Elklan training. It’s an
intervention which is a Speech and Language Programme. One of them focusses on
working memory”. The data is in line with the research by Gathercole and Alloway
(2008) who suggest that teachers who have increased awareness and training on
working memory are more likely to spot early warning signs and provide more
effective classroom-based strategies to support children, for example breaking down
instructions, implementing visual aids and monitoring the child.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
33
However, participants A3, A1 and A2 all had no formal training or staff meetings on
working memory. The SENCO had some training but said “it has been under the title
of children with moderate/severe learning difficulties”. She also recognises that there
are activities available for children which support working memory “but we are not
doing them”. This suggests why teachers in the school are not explicitly aware of the
strategies which support children’s working memory.
Knowledge and implementation of classroom interventions
The data in the interviews suggest that the teachers in school B have extensive
knowledge of classroom-based interventions and use a wide range of resources to
support children with SEN such as those suggested by Gathercole (2008) and
Alloway (2006). All the participants in school B said they incorporate classroom-
based interventions such as talking tins, alphabet maps, picture cues, mind maps
and word banks, breaking down instructions and note-taking to support children with
poor working memory. It appears that the reason for this was discussed by the
SENCO in school B when she said, “I would say 70% of the whole school who have
been assessed for SEN, have a working memory problem….I think it is because our
school have such a high SEN… that it is of concern”. This suggests that there are
many children in school B currently being assessed for poor working memory and
this is likely to influence teachers’ knowledge and implementation of interventions.
The effectiveness of classroom-based strategies
Teachers in school A do use strategies as part of good classroom practice.
Participant A1 said “You can give them a separate desk… keep everything visual…
a lot of visual prompts…simplifying language so you are not throwing too much out
there”. This is in line with the research by Elliott et al. (2010) who argues that
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
34
teachers implement strategies to support low achieving children as part of everyday
teaching.
However, the data suggests that most of teachers in school A would not be able to
recognise working memory and then support it in the classroom, as argued by
Alloway (2012). This is demonstrated in the participants’ responses to the vignette.
Participant A3 said, “ADD, ADHD. He could have Tourette’s as he is a disruptive
influence and shows a high level of distractibility”. Participant A1 said, “I had a child
that is similar to this scenario. He had a mixture of ASD and ADHD”. These
responses imply that when teachers have had no formal training on working
memory, they are less likely to spot the warning signs.
There is a discrepancy between what the research says about classroom-based
interventions and teachers’ perceptions of the strategies. Teachers in school B
perceive classroom-based strategies to be quite effective for children with poor
working memory, such as visual cues, simple instructions, now and next cards,
talking tin, monitoring the child, repeating information and working in small groups.
Participant B2 said, “Those Talking Tins are really good” and participant B4 said, “I
think they are more effective if you are working one: one or in a small group because
it is easier to monitor any support or intervention the child might need”. This
suggests teachers in school B are implementing the principles of the classroom-
based working memory approach as documented by Gathercole and Alloway (2008).
However, according to research it is important teachers allows pupils to practice
using memory aids and encourage them to use self-help strategies in order to
develop their learning opportunities (Alloway, 2006). Nevertheless, classroom-based
interventions are not “a long-term fix” for improving working memory as argued by
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
35
participant B4. This suggests changing the learning environment may not necessarily
improve children’s working memory or academic performance.
Moreover, in a study by Elliott et al. (2010), the findings suggest that classroom-
based interventions did not improve children’s working memory or academic
attainment. Though, participant B2 found them particularly helpful in keeping children
on task and developing their learning. This suggests there is a discrepancy between
what research says about the effects of classroom-based interventions and teachers’
perceptions of them.
There was some evidence in the literature that teachers who best applied strategies
in the classroom and who had good relationships with the children lead to pupil
academic gains (Elliott et al., 2010). This is supported by our findings as the SENCO
in school A said, “These classroom strategies can be effective but it is very
individual. It isn’t just the aid, it is how it is used, it is how confident the teacher is, it
is the classroom environment. You can have the best visuals, you can have
everything but it is grabbing that child at that moment”. Both the literature and the
data indicate that it is teachers’ responsibility to create an appropriate environment
which suits individual learning (Elliott et al., 2010; Holmes, 2012). Classroom-based
strategies can be beneficial for children, as perceived by the teachers in school B.
However, there is limited research to suggest that they improve educational
outcomes for children with poor working memory (Gathercole, 2008; Alloway 2006).
Teacher awareness of computerized training programmes
Teachers in school A and B had poor knowledge and awareness of computerized
training programmes such as CogMed, which are available for children with poor
working memory. One can speculate that this may be due to mixed data in the
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
36
studies which assess the effectiveness of these programmes (Gathercole, 2008;
Klingberg, 2010; Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013; Shipstead et al., 2012). Therefore,
we should not assume that teachers should know about CogMed when there is no
convincing evidence to suggest it improves working memory.
The data in the interviews indicate that none of the practitioners were using
programmes such as CogMed. Participants in school A and B were also unaware of
the possibility of training children’s working memory, as argued by Alloway (2012).
However, the SENCO in school A mentioned that children have access to IPAD’s
which creates a different ‘learning environment’ for them. This is in line with research
as Holmes (2012) argues that it is the role of the teacher to adapt the learning
environment to suit the child’s needs. The SENCO in school B stated that they have
“access to some computer software linked to reading programmes which increase
children’s confidence when looking at comprehension type questions…we have
something for maths called Mathletics”. This suggests school A and B use computer
interventions to boost attainment and confidence in low attaining children or
individuals with an SEN but not specifically for pupils with a working memory deficit.
Alternative interventions
Participant A2 mentioned learning journeys as an alternative teaching method for
meeting the needs of children. She said, “We are using leaning journeys… I
personally think they are absolutely fantastic because what you do is you think of
your lowest child… I have an autistic boy in the class… and I think of his level and
make the work pitched at him and then I think of my highest level and make it
pitched at them and you then fill in the gaps. So therefore hopefully every child’s
level is being met through a learning journey”. This suggests that differentiation is
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
37
used in school A to improve learning outcomes for children but not explicitly for
individuals with working memory impairment. Participant AS stated that “there are
lots of warm activities you can do in the morning such as physical activity, playing
games or listening to music to activate the memory”. This is in line with research by
Lee et al. (2007) and Tomporowski et al. (2008) who suggest that physical activity
and music training improves working memory.
Participant B6 said that she uses ‘pre-teaches’ (when a new topic is taught to help
children grasp the foundations). She said, “One of my girls who has poor working
memory has pre-teaches. This works quite well as it gives her a foundation when it
comes to the lesson… it’s only 15 minutes with a teaching assistant (TA)”. This
implies that school B provides both visual aids and personal support to children with
poor working memory.
The role of the teaching assistant
Both school A and B use a teaching assistant to support underachieving children in
the classroom. However, according to the SENCO in school A children with poor
working memory are not being supported “one: one but there are general ones”. She
then highlights that working memory is the teacher’s responsibility when she said, “I
actually think the working memory and making sure the child is engaged is the
teacher’s responsibility because having one: one and having someone repeating to
them all the time does not test the working memory”. Therefore, she puts more
emphasis on the role of the teacher for supporting children’s learning, which is in line
with research by Holmes (2012).
However, in school B teaching assistants provide children with one: one support on a
daily basis. The SENCO in school B said, “we do a lot of pre-teach… so the working
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
38
memory children will do work with the TA before the rest of the class have started so
they have a base to work on”. She also emphasises that it is about having “the right
body in the classroom”. These findings contrast with the data from school A, as
school B give TA’s more responsibility to implement strategies for children with poor
working memory.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
39
Conclusion
The aim of this research project was to investigate teachers’ knowledge of working
memory and assess whether teachers use classroom-based interventions or
computerized training programmes to improve children’s working memory. Two
schools took part in this study and both had some knowledge of working memory
before the researcher carried out the investigation. All participants were presented
with a vignette (a profile of a child with typical symptoms of working memory) and
they then took part in a semi-structured interview to determine whether or not ideas
which the researcher studied on her degree in Childhood Studies were impacting on
professional practice.
One key finding in this research project was that teachers in school B had high level
knowledge of working memory as they referred to it as a memory and processing
issue, as documented by Baddeley (2000) and Gathercole and Alloway (2008).
Participants in school B also recognised that working memory failure impacts on
children’s learning and academic attainment which is discussed in the literature by
Gathercole and Pickering (2000) and Gathercole et al., (2004).
One possible reason for high level knowledge of working memory in school B was
because there are approximately 45% of children on the SEN register, of which a
high percentage of these children are reported to the educational psychologist
caseload and tested for poor working memory. Teachers in school B also
demonstrate that they have direct communication between the educational
psychologist, SENCO and other teachers about how to support these children using
quality classroom-based interventions. Because of this, and the way in which the
school deliver the majority of interventions, strategies to support these needs are
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
40
used throughout the school. This demonstrates that individual teachers’ knowledge
of working memory depend on school-level factors such as good communication
between all those involved in providing the support for these children, whether
children are routinely assessed for working memory problems and whether teachers
receive formal training in working memory. This infers that individual teachers may
be more likely to have good awareness and implement appropriate strategies.
Alloway (2012) has previously demonstrated that teachers have poor knowledge of
working memory. In school A, 3 out of 4 teachers who were interviewed had poor
knowledge and awareness of working memory. School-levels factors may have
contributed to this as only a small number of children in the school had been
assessed for working memory problems. In addition, none of the teachers (except
the SENCO) had formal training in the subject. This suggests that working memory
was not a major concern of the school which was reflected in teachers’ poor
knowledge. However, it was evident from the interviews that the majority of
classroom-based teachers were interested in learning more about working memory.
The SENCO’s in both schools displayed an in-depth knowledge of working memory.
This is supported by English (2012) who found that 62% of special education
teachers had more knowledge of working memory while only 38% of mainstream
teachers responded appropriately. This is possibly due to both their experience and
specialist training throughout their career. The differential highlights a knowledge gap
between SENCO and mainstream teachers’.
A second key finding in the present study was that teachers in school B were using a
wide-range of classroom-based interventions to support children’s working memory
such as visual aids, breaking down tasks, using simple instructions and pre-teaches
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
41
as documented by Gathercole and Alloway (2008). Participants in school B stated
that classroom-based interventions were useful and helped improve children’s
concentration and learning. However, Holmes (2012) argues that there is limited
research to suggest that these interventions lead to long-term improvements in
learning and academic performance.
Teachers in school A were not explicitly doing activities or incorporating
interventions to support children’s working memory. This suggests that children with
a working memory problem are at high risk of making limited academic progress in
school. Therefore, a combination of teachers’ poor knowledge of working memory
and lack of suitable interventions may significantly impact on children’s learning
trajectory.
Both schools recognised that it was the classroom environment which needed to be
adapted to ensure children’s learning needs were being met, which is highlighted in
a study by Elliott et al. (2010). However, teachers in school B, who had high level
knowledge of working memory and a deep understanding of quality strategies, are
more likely to apply their knowledge to create an effective learning environment to
support children with poor working memory. Elliott et al. (2010) argues that it is how
teachers relate to children in the classroom, for example being sensitive towards the
child’s needs and showing patience. This is supported by the Hay McBer Report
(DfEE, 2000) which investigated factors of teacher effectiveness. The report
indicates that it is the teaching skills known as “micro behaviours” which lead to
effective learning in the classroom. These include: reducing learning barriers, clear
communication, differentiating work and instilling high expectations in all pupils.
Therefore, teachers who understand children’s needs and have high level knowledge
of SEN (including working memory) are more likely to implement effective teaching
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
42
strategies and positive behaviour to support these children, which is documented in
educational policy as ‘effective teaching’ (DfEE, 2000).
A third key finding was that both schools were not using training programmes such
as CogMed to support children’s working memory. However, schools did use IPAD
games and computer software links such as “Mathletics” to help boost low attaining
pupils. Nevertheless, participants were unaware of the possibility of training
children’s working memory, which may be problematic if classroom-based
interventions fail, as documented by Elliott et al. (2010).
One reason why schools in this study were not using computerized training
programmes to support children’s working memory may be the lack of qualified staff
needed to run the programmes in school. According to websites such as
Pearsonclinical.co.uk, CogMed training needs to be supported by a training coach
who is required to have an annual license. This infers that classroom-based teachers
are unlikely to be qualified to work with a user on these programmes. Consequently,
schools need extra funding to employ a professional to run the training sessions.
Therefore, implementing CogMed training in schools can be difficult if there are
limited resources.
Another possible reason why schools were not investing in computerized training to
support children’s working memory may be the mixed research findings and a lack of
evidence to suggest that computer-based programmes overcome working memory
problems, and improve academic performance (KIingberg, 2010, Shipstead et al.,
2012; Melby-Lervag and Hulme, 2013). Moreover, the difficulty of testing computer
interventions and their effectiveness on working memory is that the designs used are
costly and time-consuming (Gathercole et al., 2012).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
43
A fourth finding in this research project was that participants disclosed alternative
interventions to support children in the classroom or specifically their working
memory. These include: music training, pre-teaches and learning journeys. These
are all examples of methods and teaching skills for improving working memory and
learning outcomes in children. However, the research suggests that to overcome
working memory problems is challenging and current interventions do not
necessarily lead to a long-term fix (Elliott et al., 2010; Jaeggi et al., 2013; Melby-
Lervag and Hulme, 2013).
Reflections on Methodology
The vignette was a useful tool to incorporate in this research project because it
allowed participants to reflect on a poor working memory profile. Arthur et al. (2012)
suggests that a vignette provokes discussion, in this case about working memory,
and reveals participants’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. It also informed the
researcher whether teachers could recognise typical symptoms of working memory
failure which have been outlined by Gathercole and Alloway (2008). Therefore, by
using a vignette the researcher could identify participants’ level of knowledge of
working memory.
One of the advantages of using a semi-structured interview in this research project
was that it provided the researcher with an in-depth experience about teachers’
perceptions of working memory, as Cohen et al. (2007) have argued, the benefits of
semi-structured interviews reveal and explore participants opinions and
understanding of a topic. Another benefit was the informality of the interviews which
were conducted in a discursive manner creating an effective environment for
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
44
participants to disclose personal information and express opinions about their
experience working with children who have working memory impairment.
Researchers argue that prompts can be effective as it gives the interviewer some
control over the direction of the interview (Hiller and DiLuzio, 2004). During the
investigation, the interviewer diverted the conversation in a different direction to allow
participants the opportunity to discuss new themes which helped form rich,
qualitative data. It was also important the researcher asked questions in a non-
judgemental way to ensure that the respondents felt comfortable and that their
responses were valued. However, on occasions, the researcher asked leading
questions to encourage teachers to reflect on important issues around working
memory. Barker et al. (2005) have argued that this style of interview should be
avoided as it can appear as interrogation which could make participants feel
uncomfortable. This highlights a weakness of the researcher’s approach when
asking questions to the participants.
One of the pitfalls of using a semi-structured interview was that all the data was
based on teachers’ self-report. According to Barker et al. (2005), this may create a
validity problem as the data was personal and subjective as opposed to objective
and evidence-based. This implies that participants may have expressed to the
researcher high level knowledge of working memory or exaggerated how they
supported low attaining pupils in the classroom. These responses may differ from
real life interactions between teachers and pupils in the classroom which suggests
that self-report data may be limiting. Therefore, we must be sensitive to the
possibilities for self-deception in interviews (Barker et al., 2005).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
45
One way to overcome limitations of teacher self-report would be to use a multi-
method approach which incorporates an observation, semi-structured interview and
focus group. The advantage of using methodological triangulation is discussed by
Guion et al. (2011) who suggests that it allows the researcher to compare the
findings observed in the classroom with teachers’ responses in both interviews and
focus groups. If the conclusions are the same from each, the validity of the data is
enhanced. This approach would be beneficial as the data from the observations and
interviews would provide the researcher with a clearer understanding of the issues
around teachers’ perceptions of working memory and whether they implement
appropriate support and interventions in the classroom to support these children
(Guion et al., 2011). It would also highlight any discrepancies between what is
observed in the classroom and teachers’ responses in the interview and focus group.
Shacklock and Smyth (1998) address the importance of being reflexive in critical
education and social research, for example acknowledging that the researcher was
the only person extracting themes and making inferences about the findings.
Therefore, it is possible that someone else may have extracted different findings.
This means that the researcher had a significant role when conducting interviews
and collecting data.
Social interaction between the interviewer and interviewees helped develop
qualitative data. Shacklock and Smyth (1998) recognise this as researcher attributes.
For example, in the interviews the researcher built trust with the interviewees by
being an attentive listener and giving respect to teachers’ perspectives of working
memory in the classroom, as outlined by Hiller and DiLuzio (2004) who list positive
researcher characteristics. The researcher also showed curiosity to learn about
participants’ perceptions of working memory by asking teachers to reflect on their
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
46
own experiences in the classroom. Another researcher quality was developing a
natural conversation with teachers by using appropriate ‘teacher friendly’ language to
communicate. This approach enabled participants to feel at ease during the
interviews and which meant their responses naturally flowed during the interview.
Therefore, the characteristics of the researcher helped shape participants responses
to the questions (Shacklock and Smyth, 1998). However, Hiller and DiLuzio (2004:6)
point out that interviews should not be too informal or solely conversational but an
“asymmetrical encounter” established by the objectives of the researcher.
Some researchers argue that over-rapport with an interviewee can lack objectivity on
the part of the researcher which may lead to the unequal treatment of participants
(Hiller and DiLuzio, 2004). This may have occurred in some of the interviews as the
researcher had a close relationship with a couple of teachers in school A as she had
previously attended the school and had worked with two of the participants during
work experience. Therefore, positive or negative opinions about participants’
teaching styles may have influenced how the researcher related to some of the
teachers in school A. Hiller and DiLuzio’s (2004) argument suggests that previously
formed relationships between interviewer and interviewees may impact on how
participants respond to the interview questions. This is known as participant bias,
where subjects give socially desirable responses in order to meet what they believe
to be the expectations of the researcher. This highlights a limitation of the research
design as both schools were known to the researcher; with school A having a
particularly close relationship with the researcher. Therefore, one way to overcome
this limitation in future research would be to recruit schools that were unknown to the
researcher in order to eliminate or reduce the chances of confounding variables.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
47
Implication of Findings for Practice and Future Research
The data in this study suggests that poor perceptions of working memory need to be
tackled through improved teacher training in England, for example addressing
‘working memory’ on the post graduate certificate in education (PGCE) curriculum.
This would enhance practitioners knowledge and understanding of working memory,
help them identify early warning signs, develop a clearer understanding of the effect
working memory has on academic attainment and classroom functioning, understand
children’s strengths and weakness in learning and implement appropriate strategies
in the classroom (Gathercole and Alloway, 2008; Alloway, 2006). As argued by
Alloway (2012) and Gathercole (2008), raising teacher awareness of working
memory is an important factor for increasing children’s chances of early screening
and training.
The data in school A indicates a need for improved communication between SENCO
and teachers, and everyone involved in meeting the needs of children with poor
working memory. This is essential as the government work towards inclusive
education in mainstream schools (DfEE, 1997). The Children and Families Bill
(2013) outlines the importance of communication in schools when it states that
SENCO’s must advise teachers about implementing differentiated teaching methods
and classroom-based interventions to support individual pupils with SEN. This is
known as removing barriers to achievement which builds on the reform Every Child
Matters (DfES, 2003). Government policy and legislation in England thus promotes
the belief that all children should be able to succeed at school. Therefore, better
communication between SENCO, teachers and all stakeholders would be a positive
step for improving outcomes in individuals with working memory impairment. This
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
48
supports the ecological model which suggests that an effective ‘microsystem’ in
school benefits children’s learning and development (Brofenbrenner, 1979).
Due to mixed evidence that computerized training programmes improves working
memory (Holmes et al., 2009; Shipstead et al., 2012), future research should focus
on developing a more robust and effective tool which helps ameliorate long-term
learning difficulties associated with working memory. Schools in England would
benefit from training SENCO’s to implement newly tested and improved
computerized interventions which have a successful evidence base for overcoming
working memory problems. This would enable children to use the software during
school hours to help enhance children’s classroom functioning and academic skills
as discussed in the literature by Holmes et al. (2009). Therefore, more effective
computerized interventions would be beneficial for improving children’s working
memory.
The findings in this research project suggest that more research needs to be
conducted in the area of teachers’ perceptions of working memory. Future research
should focus on finding out not only what teachers know about working memory but
what factors affect this.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
49
Bibliography
Alloway, T.P. 2006. How does working memory work in the classroom? Educational
Research and Reviews. 1 (4), pp. 134-139.
Alloway, T.P. 2007. Automated Working Memory Assessment. London: Pearson
Assessment.
Alloway, T.P. 2009. Working memory, but not IQ, predicts subsequent learning in
children with learning difficulties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
25(2), pp.92-98.
Alloway, T.P. 2012. Teachers’ perceptions of classroom behaviour and working
memory. Educational Research and Review. 7 (6), pp.138-142.
Alloway, T.P. et al. 2008. A comparison of sustained attention and behavioural
problems in children with ADHD and children with poor working memory. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Alloway, T.P. et al. 2009. The Cognitive and behavioural characteristics of children
with low working memory. Child Development. 80 (2), pp. 606-621.
Alloway, T.P. et al. 2009. The working memory rating scale: A classroom-based
behavioural assessment of working memory. Learning and Individual Differences.
19, pp.242-245.
Archibald, L.M.D. and Alloway, T.P. 2008. Comparing language profiles: Children
with specific language impairment and developmental coordination disorder.
International Journal of Communication and Language Disorders. 43, pp. 165-180.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
50
Archibald, L.M.D. and Gathercole, S.E. 2006. Nonword repetition in specific
language impairment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 14, pp.919-924.
Archibald, L.M.D. and Gathercole, S.E. 2006. Short-term memory and working
memory Specific Language Impairment. In: Alloway, T.P and Gathercole, S.E. (eds).
Working memory and neurodevelopmental conditions. UK: Psychology Press, pp.
139-160.
Aronen, E.T. et al. 2005. Working memory, psychiatric symptoms, and academic
performance at school. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 83, pp.33-42.
Arthur, J. et al. 2012. Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. London:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ashcraft, M.H. and Krause, J.A. 2007. Working memory, maths performance and
math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 14 (2), pp.243-248.
Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffrin, R.M. 1968. Human Memory: a proposed system and its
control processes. In K.W. Spence, (ed). The Psychology of Learning and
Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press, pp.89-
195.
Baddeley, A.D. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 4 (11), pp. 417-423.
Baddeley, A.D. and Hitch, G.J. 1974. Working memory. In G.A. Bower (Ed), Recent
Advances in Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 8, pp.47-89.
Baddeley, A.D. et al. 2009. Memory. New York: Psychology Press.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
51
Barker, C. et al. 2005. Research Methods in Clinical Psychology: An introduction for
Students and Practitioners. London: Wiley and Sons.
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
DfE. 2013. Children and Families Bill. London: HOM.
Cohen, L. et al. 2007. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Conners, K. 1997. Conners’ teacher rating scale revised short-form. New York: Multi-
Health Systems Inc.
Craik, F and Lockhart, R. 1972. Levels of Processing. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behaviour. 11, pp. 671-684.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. 1975. Depth of Processing and the retention of words in
episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 104 (3), pp.268-
294.
DfE. 2013. Children and Families Bill. London: HM Government.
DfEE. 1997. Excellence for all children: Meeting Special Educational Needs. London:
The Stationery Office.
DfES. 2003. Every Child Matters. London: The Stationery Office.
DiCicco-Bloom, B and Crabtree, B.F. 2006. The qualitative research interview.
Medical Education. 40 (4), pp.314-321.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
52
Elliott, J.G. et al. 2010. An evaluation of a classroom-based intervention to help
overcome working memory difficulties and improve long-term academic
achievement. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 9 (3), pp.227-250.
English, M. 2012. An exploratory study into the effectiveness of an automated
assessment tool and software intervention for working memory. Ireland: Teaching
Council.
Gathercole, S.E. 2004. Working memory and classroom learning. Dyslexia Review.
15, pp.4-9.
Gathercole, S. E. 2008. Working memory in the classroom. The Psychologist. 21
(5), pp. 382-385.
Gathercole, S. E. 2011. Working memory in practice: Identifying and helping children
with working memory problems. Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. Pp. 1-38.
Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2003. Working memory assessment at school entry as
longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels. Educational and
Child Psychology. 20, pp.109-122.
Gathercole, S.E. and Alloway, T.P. 2004. Working memory and classroom learning.
Dyslexia Review. 15, pp. 4-9.
Gathercole, S.E. and Alloway, T.P. 2008. Working memory and learning: A practical
guide for teachers. London: Sage.
Gathercole, S.E. and Baddeley, A.D. 1989. Evaluation of the role of phonological
STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Memory and Language. 28, pp. 200-213.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
53
Gathercole, S.E. and Pickering, S.J. 2000. Assessment of working memory in six
and seven- year old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 92, pp.377-
390.
Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2004. Working memory skills and educational attainment:
Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied
Cognitive Psychology. 18 (1), pp.1-16.
Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2006. Working memory in the classroom. In: Pickering, S. ed.
Working memory and education. London: Elsevier Press, pp.219-240.
Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2008. Attentional and executive function behaviours of
children with poor working memory. Learning and individual differences. 18, pp.214-
223.
Gathercole, S.E. et al. 2012. Cogmed training: Let’s be realistic about intervention
research. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 1, pp.201-203.
Gross, R.D. 1987. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodder
& Stoughton.
Guion, L.A. et al. 2011. Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies.
FCS6014.
Henry, L. 2012. The Development of Working Memory in Children. London: SAGE
publications Ltd.
Hay McBer Group. 2000. Research into the effectiveness: a model of teacher
effectiveness. London: HMSO.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
54
Hiller, H.H. and DiLuzio, L. 2004. The Interviewee and the Research Interview:
Analysing a neglected Dimension in Research. Canadian Review of Sociology. 41
(1), pp.1-26.
Holmes, J. 2012. Working memory and learning difficulties. Dyslexia Review. Pp.7-
10.
Holmes, J. et al. 2009. Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor
working memory in children. Developmental Science. 12 (4), pp.F9-F15.
Holmes, J. et al. 2009. Working memory deficits can be overcome: impacts of
training and medication on working memory in children with ADHD. Applied
Cognitive Psychology. 24(6), pp.827-836.
Holmes, J. et al. 2010. Poor working memory: Impact and Interventions. In: Holmes,
J. ed. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour. Burlington: Academic Press,
pp. 1-43.
Jaeggi, S.M. et al. 2013. The role of individual differences in cognitive training and
transfer. Memory and Cognition. Pp.1-17.
Kane, M.J. et al. 2007. For whom the mind wanders, and when: an experience-
sampling study of working memory and executive control in daily life. Psychological
Science. 18, pp. 614-621.
Klingberg, T. 2010. Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 14 (7), pp.317-324.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
55
Klingberg, T. et al. 2005. Computerized training of working memory in children with
ADHD- A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry. 44, pp.177-186.
Lee, Y. et al. 2007. Effects of skill training on working memory capacity. Learning
and Instruction. 17, pp.336-344.
Melby-Lervag, M and Hulme, C. 2013. Is working memory training effective? A meta-
analytic review. Developmental Psychology. 49(2), pp.270-291.
Meyer, M.L. et al. 2010. Differential contribution of specific working memory
components to mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders. Learning and
Individual differences. 20(2), pp.101-109.
Nelson, T.O. and Vining, S.K. 1978. Effect of semantic versus structural processing
on long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and
Memory. 4 (3), pp. 198.
OFSTED. 2012. King David Primary School Inspection report. Manchester:
OFSTED.
OFSTED. 2013. Castle Hill Primary School Inspection report. Manchester: OFSTED.
Pearson Clinical. 2014. CogMed Working Memory Training: An evidence-based
intervention for improved working memory. [Online]. [Accessed 24 th April 2014].
Available from:
http://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/Education/BestsellingInterventions/Cogmed/Resour
ces/Cogmed-Factsheet.pdf.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
56
Rajendran, G. et al. 2009. Working memory in children with developmental
disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 42 (4), pp.372-382.
Roller, M. 2012. Interviewer Bias and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. [Online].
[Accessed 24th April 2014]. Available from:
http://researchdesignreview.com/2012/11/14/interviewer-bias-reflexivity-in-
qualitative-research/.
Roodenrys, S. 2006. Working memory function in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder. In: Alloway, T.P. and Gathercole, S.E. (eds). Working memory and
neurodevelopmental disorders. UK: Psychology Press, pp.187-212.
Shacklock, G and Smyth, J. 1998. Being Reflexive in Critical Educational and Social
Research. London: Falmer Press.
Shallice, T., and Warrington, E.K. 1970. Independent functioning of verbal memory
stores: a neuropsychological study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
22, pp.261-273.
Shipstead, Z. et al. 2012. Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence
support the claims? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 1,
pp.185-193.
St. Clair-Thompson, H.L. et al. 2010. Improving children’s working memory and
classroom performance. Educational Psychology. 30 (2), pp.203-219.
Swanson, H.L. and Saez, L. 2003. Memory difficulties in children and adults with
learning disabilities. In: Swanson, H.L, Graham. S, Harris K.R. (eds). Handbook of
learning disabilities. New York: Guildford Press, pp.182-198.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
57
Tomporowski, P.D. et al. 2008. Exercise and Children’s Intelligence, Cognition and
Academic Achievement. Educational Psychology Review. 20 (2), pp.111-131
Vallar, G. and Shallice, T. 1990. Neuropsychological Impairments of Short-term
Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Interaction between Learning and Development. In M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E Souberman (Eds). Mind in society: The development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 79-91.
Wagner, R.K. et al. 1997. Changing relations between phonological processing
abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled
readers: A 5 year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology. 33, pp.468-479.
Wood, D.J., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving.
Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology. 17 (2), pp. 89-100.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
58
Appendices
Appendix 1
Letter to head teachers
Alicia Fagelman
School of Education
University of Leeds Leeds
LS2 9JT [email protected]
14th February 2014
Dear Mrs ……,
I am a third year student based at the School of Education, University of Leeds
where I am carrying out a dissertation project under the supervision of Dr Sian
Roberts ([email protected]). I am writing to you to ask permission on whether I
can conduct research for my dissertation at …… School after the February half term.
My research project will investigate teachers’ perceptions of working memory and
will assess whether teachers know about classroom interventions to support pupils
who show symptoms of working memory problems.
The procedure will take place in the form of a semi-structured interview which will
last approximately 20 minutes. Firstly, teachers will be given a scenario which
describes the profile of a child with working memory problems and this will be
followed by 10 open-ended questions. All teachers’ responses will be recorded using
an audio device. Please be aware that I would like to use quotes in the dissertation
based on the teachers’ responses.
I would very much like to stress that the teachers themselves will be asked whether
or not they would like to take part in the interviews and will be told that they can stop
at any time should they wish to do so. All the data collected will be anonymised and
stored securely. Neither the school nor the individual teachers will be identified or
identifiable in my dissertation.
Ideally, I would like to talk to 4 teachers from your school, one being the SENCO.
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
59
I hope that you will be happy to give consent in allowing me to conduct research in
your school. Please see the enclosed consent form covering ethical issues related to
participants taking part in the study.
If you have any questions regarding the research I wish to conduct, please don’t
hesitate to contact me by email: [email protected]
Best wishes,
Alicia Fagelman
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
60
Appendix 2
Consent form to teachers and head teachers
Consent form
Following British Psychological Society (BPS) ethical guidelines.
(Please tick)
I confirm that I have been informed about the nature of the study and I have
had the opportunity to ask questions about the research.
I understand that it is the school’s choice to take part in the study.
All participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without
giving any reason and without negative consequences.
I understand that the responses in the interview will be recorded using an
audio device in the school. They will be stored securely and will not be used in
any other research or heard by anyone else except by the researcher in this
study.
I understand that the responses recorded will be strictly confidential.
I understand that the school’s name and the teachers’ names will not be
identified in the dissertation.
________________________ ________________ ____________________
Name of teacher Date Signature
_________________________ ________________ ____________________ Lead researcher Date Signature
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
61
Appendix 3
Information letter to teachers
Please read the following instructions:
Dear participant,
Thank you for giving up your time to take part in my research today.
There will be two schools taking part in this research project and there will be four
teachers being interviewed from each school, one being a SENCO.
My research project will investigate teachers’ perceptions of working memory and
will assess whether you incorporate classroom strategies or computerized training
programmes to support children’s working memory.
The procedure will take place in the form of a semi-structured interview which will
last approximately 20 minutes. Firstly, I will give you a scenario and I would like you
to read it and think about what learning difficulties the child experiences. This will be
followed by the researcher asking you 13 open-ended questions. Please respond to
these questions to the best of your ability.
All your responses will be recorded using an audio devise which will be stored
securely. The responses to the questions are strictly confidential and will not be used
in any other research or heard by anyone else except by the researcher in this study.
Once the interview is completed I will give you a debriefing. This is when I will ask
you how you found the experience of taking part in the research. You will also have a
chance to ask any questions to the researcher.
I would like to make it clear that I am not here to pass any judgement on your
teaching or professional practice. The reason for conducting this research is to find
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
62
out whether or not ideas which I studied on my degree course are actually impacting
on professional practice. Recently, I have become very interested in children’s
working memory and therefore I would like to find out whether this is recognised as
an issue in schools.
If you are happy to take part in this research please fill in the enclosed consent form.
Alicia Fagelman
Student researcher at the University of Leeds
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
63
Appendix 4
Vignette
Please read the following scenario:
Adam is a 10 year old boy. He is viewed by his teacher as experiencing many
problems within the classroom; and on occasions can be a disruptive influence due
to his high level of distractibility. He often appears restless and fidgety, and on
several occasions has broken classroom equipment. On some occasions, he forgets
the teacher’s instructions and consequently does not carry out the directed task. His
work is of low-average standard, with its quality varying from day to day. Sometimes,
he misses words out in sentences when he is copying from the board. His teacher is
yet unsure whether he will attain Level 4 in his Key Stage 2 National Curriculum
assessments in English, Maths and Science, although she feels sure he has the
ability to (adopted from Gathercole, 2011).
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
64
Appendix 5
Semi-structured interview questions
1. When reading the scenario, what type of learning difficulties come to mind?
2. Do you know anything about working memory?
3. (ASK THIS TO TEACHERS) Have you ever taught someone who seems to
have a working memory problem? (prompt: slow to learn in reading, maths
and science, unable to meet memory demands in structured learning
activities, abandons tasks).
4. (ASK THIS TO SENCO) From your own knowledge have there been any
children in the whole school that have been assessed for working memory
deficits?
5. (ASK THIS TO SENCO & TEACHERS) How would you go about supporting a
child who shows signs of working memory difficulties?
6. If a child in your class had poor working memory, do you think this might
affect them in the classroom? (prompt: learning, behaviour)
7. Have you ever had any training on working memory?
8. Do you know about classroom interventions which support children’s working
memory? (prompt: have you read about it etc).
9. Do you do things in the classroom to try to support children with working
memory problems? (prompt: monitor the child, do you use visual aids to help
children remember what they are supposed to do, reduce working memory
demands, repeat information)?
10. If answer is yes to question 8 & 9, how effective are these strategies?
11. Do you know about computerised training programmes which enhance
children’s working memory?
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
65
12. Are you using any computer programmes to support children’s working
memory? (prompt: Robomemo).
13. Are children with poor working memory being supported in class with a
teaching assistant?
Student No: 200388117 EDUC 3805 Dissertation
66
Appendix 6
Key:
School A:
Participant A3- Year 3 Teacher
Participant A1- Year 1 Teacher
Participant AS – SENCO
Participant A2- Year 2 Teacher
School B:
Participant BS- SENCO
Participant B4- Year 4 Teacher
Participant B2-Year 2 Teacher
Participant B6- Year 6 Teacher