Could a Metamemory Training Support Working Memory Intervention in Preschool-Aged Children?

Home , Metamemory

Could a metamemory training support working memory intervention in preschool-aged children? Kaisa Kanerva1, Outi Aaltonen2, Minna Kyttälä2 1University of Helsinki, Finland 2University of Turku, Finland

Introduction Measures and procedure Results: Training effects Conclusions Working memory (WM) refers to a memory system Pre- and post-tests The computerized WM training or the metamem- Scores in the metamemory training group increased in some WM tasks from pre-test to post-test, but in which information is actively maintained and pro- • Working memory: Automated Working Memory ory training did not enhance children’s WM or nu- cessed during a task (Baddeley, 2000). In preschool Test Battery, verbal and visuo-spatial WM tasks meracy compared to the other groups (Figure 1). the findings are not consistent. Children used var- age, individual differences in WM resources are re- We compared the gain in all groups separately by ious mnemonic strategies, including rehearsal and • Early mathematical skills: Banuca lated to emergent academic skills. Deficits in WM, Wilcoxons test. In the metatraining group the post- forming associations in WM tasks, and the quality in turn, are common in wide variety of learning dif- The computerized intervention in the WM training test scores were significantly higher in all phonolog- of child’s strategies was fairly, but not solely con- ficulties, such as disabilities in mathematical skills and metamemory training group were similar except ical WM tasks, matrix task, odd one out task and stant, during training. However, the metamemory and reading disabilities. Children with broad learn- that in the latter the verbal reports of strategies were in numeracy test (all Z’s = > -2.2, p < .05). In training improved the WM performance in children ing disorders must cope with even broader WM collected in every fourth trial. Children were re- metamemory training group, children low in numer- with difficulties in mathematical skills compared to deficits (Maehler abd Schuchardt, in press). Chil- quired to report their spontaneous mnemonic strate- acy showed larger gain in visuospatial WM tasks the control group. Earlier research indicate, that dren learn to use mnemonic strategies, such as re- gies and encouraged to use them more. The effect compared with children with typical numeracy (Ta- the ability of using strategies could be moderated by hearsal, at about age of six, but the use of strate- of positive support was controlled for by praising ble 1). WM capacity (Swanson, 2014), whereas the ability gies is not consistent and requires mental resources the children at the WM training group at the same to verbalize the strategies depends on verbal skills (Siegler, 1991). It is unclear if the use of memory frequency as the metamemory group. The verbal (McNamara and Scott, 2001). Thus, this study ten- strategies can be enhanced when the child is encour- reports of mnemonic strategies were classified in six Numeracy Low (N=5) Typical (N=12) tatively suggests, that even in small children the in- aged to monitor and use them. Our main research classes based on Morrison et al. (2016). We included Visuospatial WM +4.4** (4.0) +1.1 (2.0) tervention supporting spontaneous strategies could questions were (1) does a metamemory training fos- two new classes: child used concrete body parts (e.g. Verbal WM +0.9 (1.0) +1.9 (2.0) be beneficial and that encouraging to monitor ones ter children’s WM and mathematical skills and (2) fingers) and experimenter reported an overt strategy. Table 1: The mean gain (sd) in the metamemory group own strategies warrants further research especially does the emerging mnemonic strategies develop with in children with WM related learning difficulties. WM metamemory training in preschool aged children. References

Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423. Methods Maehler, C., and Schuchardt, K. (in press). Working memory in children with specific learning disorders and/or attention deficits. Learning and Individual Differences. Kanerva, K. and Kyttälä, M. (2016). Specific Training of Working Memory and Counting Skills in Kinder- Participants were 6 and 7 years old children (N=50). garten, Cursiv, 18, 159-176. McNamara, D. S., and Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory and Three experimental groups: cognition, 29(1), 10-17. Figure 1: Scores in WM and mathematics pre- and post tests (mean, sd) in each experimental group Morrison, A. B., Rosenbaum, G. M., Fair, D., and Chein, J. M. (2016). Variation in strategy use across • WM training group (N = 17) measures of verbal working memory. Memory and Cognition, 1-15. Siegler, R. S. (1991). Children’s thinking . Prentice-Hall, Inc. Swanson, H. L. (2014). Does cognitive strategy training on word problems compensate for working memory • Metatraining group (N = 17) capacity in children with math difficulties?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 831. • Active control group (N = 16) Computerized, adaptive WM training (Kanerva and Acknowledgements Kyttälä, 2016) included four tasks (two tasks at We thank Ilkka Kiistala for help with the figures every training session): Visuo-spatial STM (matrix span) and WM training (odd-one-out), Verbal STM (syllable span) and WM (verbal complex span) Contact Information training. Children had two training sessions in a kaisa.kanerva@helsinki.fi week for four weeks (total of 6 to 8 sessions).

Figure 2: Individual, verbal strategies visualized