DEVELOPING STM AND WM 2 Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Stewart for her dedication to helping me complete this project. I would also like to thank Dr. Alexander for stepping in at the last minute to help, and to Ellen Doman for her time and support. The professors that I have had the pleasure to meet and work with at Weber State University have been wonderful, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to meet and work with talented classmates who are dedicated to teaching our children. I would like to thank my wonderful husband, Scott, who has supported me in this endeavor over the past two years. Not only have you supported me, but you have encouraged me, pushed me, and have kept me laughing despite my stress. To my mom, who has helped me edit paper after paper throughout the past two years, and who has given me the perspective of an experienced teacher, I am greatly appreciative. I would also like to thank my boss for his unending support. Your passion and dedication to improving the lives of children inspire me every day. I am grateful that you have given me the opportunity to work with children from all over the world, teaching me how to help them reach their full potential. Finally, I want to thank my three children. You have sacrificed the most the past two years. While you might not understand it now, I did this for you. Don’t ever stop learning! DEVELOPING STM AND WM 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM……………………………………………………………...…...5 Literature Review……………………………………………………………………….…7 Short-term and Working Memory…………………………………………….......7 Short-term memory………………………………………………………..7 Working memory………………………………………………………….8 Development of short-term and working memory………………………...9 Importance of Short-term and Working Memory………………………………..11 Correlation with learning………………………………………………...11 Correlation with language deficits……………………………………….13 Correlation with learning disabilities…………………………………….14 Training Special Education Teachers………………………………………...….17 Understanding neuroplasticity…………………………………………...17 Short-term and working memory training……………………………….19 Training in brain-based education…………………………………..…..24 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….25 PURPOSE………………………………………………………………………………………..27 METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………..29 Expert Evaluators………………………………………………………………………...29 Instrument………………………………………………………………………………..30 Procedures………………………………………………………………………………..30 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….31 RESULTS/DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………...…..32 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 4 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..37 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………...45 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………....45 Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………49 Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………..106 Appendix D……………………………………………………………………………..117 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 5 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Since the 1950s, psychologists, educators, and researchers have become more and more interested in the role that memory plays in cognition and learning. Whether it be the smell of a certain perfume that reminds people of their grandmother or the process of adding two plus two, brains are capable of storing over 2 petabytes, or over 2 million gigabytes, of information (Reber, 2010). Some of these memories are embedded in the unconscious and are not easily accessible or have been suppressed for some reason. Others are very vivid and remembered as if the memory was made the day before. The brain is where information received from the sensory channels gets processed through short-term (STM) and working memory (WM) and is stored in our long-term memory (LTM) (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Martinez, 2010). Over the past 30 years, professionals in neuroscience and psychology have dedicated research to STM and WM, its development, and its relationship to the development of language, learning, and academic achievement. The development of memory is critically important as the brain has such an enormous capacity to store information, and this is what makes learning possible (Eliot, 1999). Language plays a significant role in developing knowledge, and this knowledge flows between the three memory structures of the sensory register, STM and WM, and LTM (Martinez, 2010). Research has shown a correlation between deficits in STM and WM and language development (Baddeley, 2003; Jarrold, Baddeley, & Phillips, 2002; Montgomery, 2000; van Daal, Verhoeven, & van Balkom, 2009). Deficits in language, and STM and WM, are often seen in children with mild to moderate disabilities (Kibby & Cohen, 2007). Students who have a disability including, but not limited to, learning disability, mild cognitive impairment, attention deficit disorders, high functioning autism, speech and language DEVELOPING STM AND WM 6 impairment (SLI), and/or are not progressing at the rate of their peers in their academic achievement and intellectual ability, may qualify for special education services (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2015). Research has demonstrated that a student’s WM is a better predictor for academic achievement than intelligence tests, which partially determine special education services (Alloway & Alloway, 2009). As such, correlations between deficits in STM and WM and academic achievement exist (David, 2012; Garcia-Madruga, Vila, Gomez- Veiga, Duque, & Elosua, 2014; Gathercole, Alloway, Willis, & Adams, 2005; Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016; Malekpour, Aghababaei, & Abedi, 2013; Swanson, Zheng, & Ferman, 2009; van Daal et al., 2009). Studies have shown over the past 10-20 years that STM and WM can develop with specific training in children who may or may not have learning difficulties, and as a result positively impact language, executive function, and academic achievement (Alloway, 2013; Bigorra, Garolera, Guijarro, & Hervas, 2015; Dahlin, 2010; Diamond & Lee, 2011; Doman & Haslam, 2012; Holmes & Gathercole, 2013; Nevo & Breznitz, 2014; Peijnenborgh, Hurks, Aldenkamp, Vles, & Hendriksen, 2016; Shiran & Breznitz, 2011; Söderqvist & Bergman-Nutley, 2015; Thorell, Lindqvist, Nutley, Bohlin, & Klingberg, 2009). If elementary students who qualify for special education do not receive appropriate intervention to support their development of STM and WM, which impacts the development of language and learning, then it will be difficult for these students to achieve higher-level thinking skills and demonstrate grade-level proficiency. Providing elementary special education teachers of mild to moderate classrooms with more explicit training on how to develop their students’ STM and WM could significantly impact their students’ academic careers. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 7 Literature Review The following literature review defines how short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) develop and how they impact learning. Research will be reviewed that demonstrates the impact STM and WM have on language development and learning. The idea that STM and WM can be improved, and therefore impact academic achievement, will be explored. Finally, literature that focuses on the need for training in brain-based curriculum will be discussed. Short-term and Working Memory “Memory is not a single entity but a patchwork of several different forms of information storage that emerge progressively with the maturation of different brain circuits” (Eliot, 1999, p. 329). Memory is regulated by the hippocampus (a structure in each temporal lobe in the cerebral cortex of the brain responsible for motivation, learning, and memory). As the cortex continues to mature, long-term memory (LTM) becomes more solidified. In order for information to be stored into LTM, it must first go through the senses, followed by short-term memory (STM) and working memory (WM) (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Martinez, 2010). Short-term memory. STM is defined as a component of memory that holds limited information or immediate thoughts that come into mind (Martinez, 2010). In 1956, Miller, a professor and psychologist, theorized that a person’s immediate memory, or STM, could hold seven pieces or bits of information plus or minus two pieces. He based his theory on research related to the span of absolute judgment and immediate memory, the process of recoding, and the concepts regarding the theory of information (Miller, 1956). Miller’s (1956) “Magic number 7+/- 2” became what is known as the average amount of immediate information a person can hold in their STM. A memory span, or a digit span, has been used as an assessment of memory function DEVELOPING STM AND WM 8 since the late 1800s (Blankenship, 1938). It is a person’s ability to immediately recall a series of information that is provided to them at one time. A digit span is assessed by providing a sequence of random numbers in a one-second interval, presented in visual or verbal form to the person taking the test (Doman, 1986). The subject is asked to recall the sequence of numbers in the same order as given. Digit span tests are the most commonly used assessment for an individual’s STM. They are seen on various intelligence quotients (IQ) assessments such as the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (memory span, 2018). It is also believed that STM has a certain capacity limit in individuals, but this limit appears to increase with age during childhood (Cowan, Nugent, Elliot, Ponomarev, & Saults, 1999). Working memory. Working memory is different from STM. STM is the temporary storage of information; whereas, WM is where information gets stored and processed (van Iterson & de Jong, 2017). “WM implies mental manipulation of the information” and is “considered an executive function” (van Iterson & de Jong, 2017, p. 166). Baddeley and Hitch (1974) created a model for working memory that is commonly used today. WM is described as the mechanism that allows the brain to process and handle information that goes through short-term memory (STM). The model describes three components of WM: a central executive that acts as a supervisory system, the phonological loop that stores verbal information, and the visual-spatial sketchpad that processes and manipulates visual-spatial data (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). “The term working memory refers to a brain system that provides temporary storage and manipulation of the information necessary for such complex cognitive tasks as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning” (Baddeley, 1992, p.556). Since Baddeley and Hitch’s theory in 1974, Baddeley proposed another component to the working memory model, the episodic buffer. This subcomponent of WM is theorized to take information from our STM and DEVELOPING STM AND WM 9 other components of WM and combine with LTM into chunks (Baddeley, 2003). Simply put, one is using their WM when they are processing information that is given to them either visually or aurally, then using their previous knowledge from LTM to think and process what they are hearing or seeing. WM “is where thinking, interpreting, understanding and problem-solving takes place” (Hindal, Reid, & Badgaish, 2009, p. 190.). According to Doman (2016), founder and director of the National Association for Child Development, WM is the foundation for complexity of thought, behavior, and maturity. WM is also assessed within most IQ tests such as the WAIS or Woodcock-Johnson, presented either visually, verbally, or combined (memory span, 2018). One common test of WM is a reverse auditory or visual digit span. Random numbers are provided either visually or aurally with a one-second interval, and the subject is to recall the random sequence of numbers in reverse order (memory span, 2018). WM can also be thought of as chunks of information that can be manipulated at one time (Brooks & Shell, 2006; Cowan et al., 1999). Development of short-term and working memory. Neuroscientists have refuted the original thought that a brain is hard-wired and not malleable. The brain can change and re-wire itself with stimulation (Doidge, 2007). The brain’s ability to continue to develop and change includes the cognitive structures of STM and WM. Dornbush & Basow (1970) found that as students aged, from grades first through ninth, their combined auditory and visual digit spans improved. It should not be surprising that older students demonstrated more developed STM when viewed in the context of Piaget’s (1936) work on cognitive development. Piaget theorized that cognition developed and became more complex as a child developed. Cowan et al. (1999) conducted research on first and fourth-grade students and adults to determine the role of attention in verbal STM development. Verbal memory spans, or auditory DEVELOPING STM AND WM 10 digit spans, were provided to the subjects. Mean digit spans of the first-grade students were 5.38; the fourth-grade students had a mean score of 6.42, and adults had a mean score of 7.38. They found that the capacity limit for STM, or digit span, increased as a function of age, which confirmed: “previous theories suggesting that there is a short-term memory capacity that increases with development in childhood” (Cowan et al., 1999, p. 1093). Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, and Wearing (2004) demonstrated the development of STM and WM in childhood with over 700 students aged 4-5 through 15 years old. Subjects took a variety of tests that measured STM and WM, including digit spans forward and reverse and assessments that followed Baddeley and Hitch’s 1974 model of WM. Results showed a linear improvement across all measures indicating that STM and WM develop over time (Gathercole et al., 2004). STM and WM development are also seen in children with developmental issues. Van Iterson and de Jong (2017) found that children with epilepsy in different forms and at different age-onset developed in their STM and WM abilities, just not at the same rate as their peers who did not have epilepsy. This difference suggests that despite possible brain impairment, these mechanisms still develop. From 2004 to 2008, Doman (2008) conducted research for the National Association for Child Development (NACD) Foundation on STM and WM abilities of over 7,000 individuals, ranging in ages from four to 84, taking an online test of verbal and visual digit spans presented in both forward and reverse order. Results showed that both auditory and visual digit spans improved gradually, peaking in the 20s and 30s, then dropping significantly after the age of 35. Visual digit spans tested higher starting at the age of 7 and peaked later, then the verbal digit span (Doman, 2008). This research suggests that STM and WM develop in childhood into adulthood. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 11 Importance of Short-term and Working Memory As a brain develops, and STM and WM develop, learning occurs. How a person learns reflects how the brain receives, processes, stores, and utilizes information (Doman, 1986). Learning is impacted by receptive and expressive language, various disabilities, and behavior. All of these are correlated with STM and WM. Correlation with learning. An important issue that has been explored in recent research is whether STM and WM play a significant role in learning. Dornbush and Basow (1970) researched the relationship between auditory and visual STM and reading achievement with 72 male and female students from four different grades: first, third, fifth, and ninth. Subjects were in four different schools who were similar in socioeconomic status but in two reading groups, poor and good. Due to the difference in grade levels, not all students were provided the same reading tests or IQ tests. The experiment provided a multisensory assessment of STM by combining auditory and visual digit spans. No relationship between reading scores and recall with bi-sensory digit spans was found (Dornbush & Basow, 1970). Since then, more current research has focused on the role WM has with children, in addition to STM, and their ability to learn. Alloway and Alloway (2009) demonstrated that children who had below-average school achievement showed poor WM, and those children with regular school achievement did not. The predictive roles of WM and IQ in academic achievement in children were examined in approximately 100 male and female children with similar socio-economic status and at various academic levels at the age of five, then again at 10- 11 years of age. The subjects’ auditory STM and auditory WM were assessed utilizing the Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA) and the Weschler IQ tests appropriate for each age, respectively. “The findings indicated that children’s WM skills at five years of age DEVELOPING STM AND WM 12 were the best predictor of literacy and numeracy six years later. I.Q., in contrast, accounted for a smaller portion of unique variance to these learning outcomes” (Alloway & Alloway, 2009, p.20). Educators were advised to use the AWMA as a screen to identify children who may have a WM deficit (Alloway & Alloway, 2009). A similar conclusion showed that children with below-average school achievement demonstrated poor WM regardless of intelligence, and those children with regular school achievement did not show a deficit in WM (Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016). A relationship exists between WM and fluid intelligence (ability to reason and problem solve), with academic achievement. In a sample of third-grade students, Garcia-Madruga et al. (2014) evaluated the relationship between WM processes (semantic updating, visuo-spatial ability, and analogies) and fluid intelligence measures, with reading comprehension. They not only found a significant correlation, but they also found that WM processes and fluid intelligence significantly predicted reading comprehension outcomes. They also hypothesized that these relationships would predict academic achievement in language arts and mathematics. Working memory ability, fluid intelligence, and reading comprehension abilities reliably predicted academic achievement in language arts and mathematics (Garcia-Madruga et al., 2014). Research has indicated a positive relationship between more developed auditory STM and WM and behavior, which can impact a child’s ability to learn in a classroom. Low and Keith (2015) reviewed data of over 7,000 children whose mothers took part in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth in 1979 (NLSY79 - Children and Young Adults data set). This data set included child assessments, self-reports, and interviews of the children’s mothers. Data was collected from 1986 to 2010. Participants who initially had a higher reverse digit span (WM) at an earlier age demonstrated less anxiety, depression, antisocial behavior, and hyperactivity. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 13 Those participants who initially had a higher score on the auditory digit span forward test (STM) exhibited less hyperactive behavior (Low & Keith, 2015). Correlation with language deficits. A correlation between STM and WM and receptive and expressive language exists (Baddeley, 2003; Jarrold, Baddeley, & Phillips, 2002; Montgomery, 2000; van Daal et al., 2009). According to Morrow and Gambrell (2019), comprehensive literacy includes speaking and listening, reading and writing, and viewing and presenting. As such, receptive and expressive language provide a foundation upon which reading and writing skills are built (Gillam & Reutzel, 2013). Baddeley (2003) found that deficits within the phonological loop of WM may significantly impact language processing. Dutch researchers found that auditory STM played an important role in the problem of language acquisition, specifically showing a strong relationship between low auditory digit span and syntax (van Daal et al., 2009). They spent two years following 97 young Dutch children diagnosed with speech-language impairment (SLI). Cognitive tests, including short-term memory digit span tasks, were administered starting at four years of age. Several language tests were administered at age five and then repeated a year later. The lower the auditory digit span (STM) at the onset of the study, the more difficulty the subjects had at developing language components, syntax being the most significant (van Daal et al., 2009). Jarrold et al. (2002) determined that children with Down syndrome showed impaired verbal STM for their level of receptive vocabulary. However, this deficit was specific to memory for verbal information and not caused by auditory or speech difficulties. Limitations included a small group of subjects with a wide range of ages, who were compared with other individuals of a narrower age range who had similar receptive vocabularies (Jarrold et al., 2002). DEVELOPING STM AND WM 14 Montgomery (2000) examined WM in children with SLI compared to their normally developing peers of the same age and younger children who had the same level of receptive vocabulary. The children with SLI had less functional verbal WM capacity than their peers. In addition, they had a more difficult time managing their WM abilities and general processing ability than the same age peer group as well as the group of younger children who had the same level of receptive vocabulary (Montgomery, 2000). This result demonstrated that children with language difficulties might have deficits in their WM ability. Correlation with learning disabilities. Years of research show correlations between STM and WM deficits and special education students diagnosed with learning disabilities (David, 2012; Gathercole et al., 2005; Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016; Malekpour et al., 2013; Swanson, et.al., 2009). Regardless of intelligence, children with low academic achievement or those who struggle with learning demonstrate deficits in their STM and WM. Maehler and Schuchardt (2016) conducted a longitudinal study of over 2000 children in grade three in Germany. The sample was categorized into four groups: (a) normal intelligence, low school achievement; (b) low intelligence, low school achievement; (c) low intelligence, normal school achievement; and (d) the control group of normal intelligence and normal school achievement. Each group was provided with standardized intelligence tests, academic ability tests, and a test battery to assess the students’ WM capabilities. Using factorial design to correlate the testing of the groups, Maehler and Schuchardt (2016) found that the groups of children with low academic achievement showed deficits in their WM, regardless of intelligence. On the contrary, children with normal school achievement did not show any deficit in WM, whether they had low intelligence or not. A few limitations of this study included not knowing external factors that could attribute to student’s low intelligence; also, the sample size of the DEVELOPING STM AND WM 15 group with low intelligence with normal scholastic achievement was very small (13) compared to the other three groups (Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016). This study suggested that WM ability affected academic achievement regardless of intelligence. Some children are assessed to have normal intelligence but still struggle with learning. STM and WM ability impact those students diagnosed with learning disabilities. Malekpour et al. (2013) reviewed literature on WM performance and its impact on learning. First, the literature suggested that WM develops before other cognitive processes, such as executive functioning (EF). Within their research, struggling students in multiple studies demonstrated delayed or lower WM ability when compared to their peers and in multiple subject areas, including math, reading, and written expression (Malekpour et al., 2013). Research has shown correlations between STM and WM, and disabilities in math and reading. For example, Gathercole et al. (2005) investigated the association between STM, WM, and reading and math abilities in 46 elementary-aged students diagnosed with reading disabilities. They found that the severity of reading difficulties in the students was “significantly associated with complex memory, language, and phonological awareness abilities” (Gathercole et al., 2005, p. 265). Poor math abilities were linked with “complex memory, phonological STM, and phonological awareness scores” (Gathercole et al., 2005, p. 265). The students scored very low on the complex memory (WM tasks) and STM tasks of the Working Memory Test Battery for Children and the WMTB-C test. However, one limitation was that these were verbal tests. Valid non-verbal tests for STM and WM were not available at the time (Gathercole et al., 2005). Understanding math concepts requires the ability to problem solve, comprehend, and understand, which all require well developed STM and WM. A meta-analysis of 18 studies was conducted to determine if all three components of Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model DEVELOPING STM AND WM 16 would contribute to poor math performance in students (David, 2012). Results indicated a large effect size in the relationship of math achievement and the central executive and visual-spatial sketchpad components of the WM model. Most of the central executive tasks within all 18 studies were concurrent span tasks that required the student to manipulate and store verbal information. A large effect size also emerged in the correlation between numerical central executive measures and math ability. They did not find the phonological loop part of Baddeley and Hitch’s WM model to affect math difficulties (David, 2012). Various reasons exist why a student struggles to read. STM and WM deficits in students have been shown in multiple research studies as one probable cause. Swanson et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of literature regarding STM, WM, and reading disabilities (RD). They synthesized research that compared children with RD and without RD on measures of STM and WM. They found that children with RD were at a disadvantage on the recall of phonemes and digit spans and WM tasks that required multi-tasking elements. They found that the results of the research consistently showed a significant relationship between verbal WM and reading comprehension. The meta-analysis also found that a “verbal deficit model that fails to efficiently draw resources from both a phonological and executive system underlies RD” (Swanson et al., 2009, p. 260). These studies suggest that auditory WM plays a significant role in reading achievement. Research has demonstrated the significant impact STM and WM have on language development and learning. Deficits in receptive and expressive language and STM and WM impact learning and academic achievement. (Alloway & Alloway, 2009; Baddeley, 2003; David, 2012; Garcia-Madruga et al., 2014; Gathercole et al., 2005; Jarrold et al., 2002; Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016; Malekpour et al., 2013; Montgomery, 2000; Swanson et al., 2009; van Daal et DEVELOPING STM AND WM 17 al., 2009). Improving STM and WM should be explored as an additional strategy to develop these skills in students who struggle. Training Special Education Teachers Students who receive special education services have been identified with a disability, and are not able to show mastery of the subjects taught at the same rate as their peers (IDEA, 2015). The relationship between poor STM and WM and elementary-aged students in language ability, learning disabilities, and reading and math difficulties were noted (David, 2012; Gathercole et al., 2004; Jarrold et al., 2002; Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016; Malekpour et al., 2013; Montgomery, 2000; Swanson et al., 2009; van Daal et al., 2009). Thus, STM and WM interventions should be heavily considered as a way to address a neurological cause to the delay, in addition to modifying curriculum to meet the needs of an underdeveloped system. In Muller’s (2011) overview of links between neuroscience and special education, research suggested that special education teachers do not receive appropriate intervention to support their students’ cognitive development. If their cognitive processes, including STM and WM, are not supported, it will be difficult for students to achieve higher-level thinking skills and demonstrate grade-level proficiency. Special education teachers need more specific training on how to provide this type of intervention in their classrooms (Muller, 2011). Understanding neuroplasticity. “Neuroplasticity refers to structural and functional changes in the brain that are brought about by training and experience” (Mundker, 2005, p. 855). Essentially, learning changes the brain. Neuroscience is the study of the brain and how it develops. “Research linking neuroscience with educational/special educational outcomes is extremely limited” (Muller, 2011, p. 3). According to more recent research, Mayer (2017) stated that despite the amount of research in neuroscience, it had little impact on education. “For DEVELOPING STM AND WM 18 example, out of more than 9000 articles in the Journal of Educational Psychology database, only 6 contain the word “brain” or “neuroscience” in the title (or less than one-tenth of a percent)” (Mayer, 2017, p. 835). Muller (2011) reviewed the field of neuroscience and how important understanding neuroplasticity is for educators. Several universities in the United States and in England have created programs that create links in neuroscience and both education and special education. She concluded that there should be collaboration between neuroscientists and educators. More training in the field of brain development should be provided to educators and special education teachers with a focus on how to apply that understanding in the classroom. Most importantly, educational policy should be guided by how the brain works and learns – regardless of disability (Muller, 2011). Neuro-education is a relatively new discipline, incorporating the research of neuroscience into daily practice in the classroom. Carew and Magsamen (2010) reviewed the literature regarding the importance of this partnership between neuroscience and education. Several universities, such as Harvard and Johns Hopkins, have created degrees and professional development programs with their education departments to increase educators’ skill sets, taking research findings on what impacts cognition and applying that to the classroom (Carew & Magsamen, 2010). Mayer (2017) calls for an interdisciplinary approach among the fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, educational psychology, and educational practice, to help improve the educational outcomes of our students. Neuroscientists have researched improvement in WM and its effect on neuroplasticity. Constantinidis and Klingberg (2016) reviewed research regarding the effect of WM training in humans and primates and found that activity of prefrontal neurons and connectivity in the prefrontal cortex and between the prefrontal and parietal cortex increase with WM training. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 19 Having a deeper understanding of those mechanisms that allow students to process and retain (STM and WM) information, as well as being educated on tools and activities that actually develop processing and retention of information, could greatly benefit student outcomes. Short-term and working memory training. Researchers have explored improving STM and WM in students, with and without learning difficulties, through specific activities and how that impacts academic achievement. Computer programs designed to improve STM and WM have been produced over the past 20 years in addition to various activities that can be performed with children. (Doman, 1986). Eliot (1999) discussed training memory in younger children. While memory varies widely with each individual, children are aware of their memories at an early age. She discussed several strategies that are known to impact both WM and long term memory and stated: “that memory development can be influenced by practice” (Eliot, 1999, p.350). In regards to young children, WM performance of preschool children improved utilizing a WM computer training program, and this improvement transferred to their visual and auditory attention ability (Thorell et. al.,, 2009). Some research has indicated that STM and WM can be developed and improved in children as well as demonstrated a positive correlation in the training of STM and WM and its impact on attention, reasoning and problem solving, and academic achievement (Doman & Haslam, 2012; Nevo & Breznitz, 2014; Söderqvist & Bergman-Nutley, 2015). Redick, Shipstead, Wiemers, Melby-Lervag, and Hulme (2015) conducted a review of nine research studies on the efficacy of WM training programs. They found “very limited benefits in terms of specific gains on short-term and working memory tasks that are very similar to the training programs, but no advantage for academic and achievement-based reading and arithmetic outcomes” (Redick et al., 2015, p. 617). In contrast, Söderqvist and Nutley (2015) DEVELOPING STM AND WM 20 found that training WM using Cogmed Working Memory Training was associated with long term growth in math and reading. They followed two classrooms of students for two years, starting in their fourth-grade year. One classroom received WM training daily, whereas the other did not. At the beginning of the study, both groups were age-appropriate in their WM scores and were tested in math and reading comprehension on nationally standardized tests. The experimental group scored significantly higher in reading comprehension compared to the control group, and math showed a median effect size two years post-training. This study demonstrated that WM training provided a “boost in students’ capacity to learn.” (Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015, p. 1) Additional research has shown improvement in reading scores with WM training. Nevo and Breznitz (2014) provided their subjects, 97 third grade students, with four training activities including verbal digit spans, verbal reverse digit spans, and visual-spatial block matrix tasks for the child to recall in forward and reverse order. Reading acceleration programs combined with these WM training activities were most effective in improving academic achievement versus reading acceleration programs alone (Nevo & Breznitz, 2014). Results showed statistically significant strong and moderate correlations between improvement in STM and WM abilities on Simply Smarter (an online STM and WM training program) and academic achievement on standardized tests (Doman & Haslam, 2012). The computer training program consists of a variety of activities that include giving the student auditory digit spans (forward and reverse) and asking the student to remember the sequence and type it in forward or reverse order. The program gradually challenges the student with harder sequences to remember. Sequences are also shown visually for the student to improve their visual STM and WM. Simply Smarter was used with 22 sixth-grade students in an inner-city DEVELOPING STM AND WM 21 school. Most students spoke English as a second language, had similar socio-economic status, and over 95% of the student population was on a free/reduced lunch program. Over 16 weeks, students completed the program, which took 10-15 minutes a day. The Measure of Academics Progress Test for Primary Grades was provided to the students in the fall, winter, and spring by the school. Those results were correlated with change in the students’ STM and WM improvement from the Simply Smarter program (Doman & Haslam, 2012). Research has also shown that as special education students’ STM and WM improve through training, their academic abilities and executive functions improve (Alloway, 2013; Bigorra et al., 2015; Dahlin, 2011; Holmes & Gathercole, 2013; Peijnenborgh et al., 2016; Shiran & Breznitz, 2011;). A meta-analysis of 13 controlled studies of the efficacy of WM training in children and adolescents with learning disabilities indicated improvement in verbal and visual WM and word decoding after training, which were sustained after six months (Peijnenborgh et al., 2016). Reading comprehension scores improved significantly (d = .91) while using RoboMemo, a WM training program, used by an experimental group of students for five weeks (Dahlin, 2011). The subjects had special education needs and were diagnosed with attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Forty-two subjects formed the treatment group and completed five weeks of WM training using the RM program. Pre and post standardized reading tests were administered to each group (Dahlin, 2011). In students diagnosed with Dyslexia, Shiran and Breznitz (2011) looked at the effect of cognitive training (in WM) on recall range and speed of information processing. Results indicated that both students with and without the diagnosis were able to store more information into their WM, and their decoding, reading rate, and comprehension scores improved (Shiran & Breznitz, 2011). DEVELOPING STM AND WM 22 Bigorra et al. (2015) analyzed the effect of a computer-based working memory training program on a sample of 66 children with ADHD in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial with a six-month post-intervention follow up. The training lasted 25 days, and testing was conducted at the beginning, 1-2 weeks into the intervention, and six months post-intervention. Scales of executive function and performance-based measures of executive function were conducted each time. Results showed the training produced significant far-transfer effects (effects lasted over time) in the executive function behaviors, which included behavioral regulation ability and metacognition ability. Secondary outcome measures in ADHD symptoms composite score also showed significant improvement (Bigorra et al., 2015). These results suggest that ADHD symptoms can improve as WM improves. Jungle Memory, another computerized game that provides WM training, was used in a pilot study to determine if this type of interactive training would improve learning (Alloway, 2012). In this research study, fifteen students, all with learning difficulties and on Individualized Education Plans (IEPS), were chosen to participate. All students received pre and post standardized tests on vocabulary, math, spelling, and WM. The training group did not differ significantly from the control group in the pre-test scores. The training group received eight weeks of intervention of the computerized program, averaging three times a week, completing a total of 30 trials a day that lasted 30 minutes per session. The control group received the same amount of instruction on the acquired skills relevant to their IEP, as instructed by teachers and school staff. After the intervention, post-tests were administered to each group. Alloway (2012) examined the gain of function by subtracting the pre-test scores from the post-test scores comparing the difference between the two groups. There were marked differences in the gains made between the two groups; the training group demonstrated significantly higher gains in the DEVELOPING STM AND WM 23 vocabulary, math, and WM measures than the control group, suggesting that WM training can transfer to improved academic ability in children with learning difficulties (Alloway, 2012). Finally, Holmes and Gathercole (2013) researched if educating teachers on administering WM training programs with students with and without learning difficulties, in the school setting, would impact academic achievement. Their study consisted of two parts: the first trial to measure if WM functions would improve in students with mixed abilities through teacher and staff training, and the second trial to measure improvement in academic ability in children with learning difficulties after using the WM program. Trial one consisted of 22 students, 8-9 year-olds, with mixed academic ability. Staff were trained for four hours on how to administer the Cogmed Working Memory Training (CMWT) program. In addition, staff were encouraged to provide feedback and encouragement to the students and provide reinforcement. Student compliance was 90% for the company’s recommended standard protocol of 20-25 training sessions. Before and after intervention, students were assessed individually on standardized WM tasks that were not related to the WM training. Statistically significant improvements were found in the WM functions in all students, however, more improvement was made in the students who had lower WM scores prior to training (Holmes & Gathercole, 2013). For trial two, the researchers studied 50 different children aged 9-11 with low academic performance on yearly assessments in English and math. They were matched with 50 children on gender, age, and academic performance for the comparison group. Training was provided on the use of the CMWT to staff in the school computer suite. The student’s classroom teachers who conducted the end of year assessments were not aware which children were receiving the training. The majority of the 50 students completed 20 full days of WM training. After analyzing the end of year assessments, those students that completed the training showed more improvement in their DEVELOPING STM AND WM 24 scores than the comparison group. More specifically, the year five students made significantly greater gains in math than the comparison group, and the year six students made significantly greater gains in both math and English than their comparison group. Eighty-four percent of them reached their nationally expected levels of attainment compared to 72% of the comparison group (Holmes & Gathercole, 2013). This research demonstrated that WM training can transfer to academic gains and that schools can help in this process. In a review of interventions to improve executive function in children, Diamond and Lee (2011) discussed several practices that could be helpful, including computer programs that improve WM. However, they stressed that while specific skills can be practiced, the goal needs to be improvement with intention. A child can go through the motions of an activity and not improve with that activity. This result can happen with a computer program, just like it can with doing a classroom activity. If teachers are trained in what to look for, how to create a positive activity with intention to move a child forward in activities that improve STM and WM, the results have the potential to improve all areas of a child’s function (Diamond & Lee, 2011). Training in brain-based curriculum. Educators who participated in research appreciated learning more about brain development and its impact on becoming better teachers (Diamond & Whitington, 2015). Forty-five certified preschool teachers, many of whom were considered experienced, participated in a 12-week online course on neuroscience and brain development. Teachers felt it benefitted their understanding in regard to student behavior and would help them provide more education and support to the parents of their students (Diamond & Whitington, 2015). Walk, Evers, Quante, and Hille (2018) evaluated a teacher training program designed to improve executive functions (EF) in preschoolers. Executive functions include attention, DEVELOPING STM AND WM 25 inhibition control, emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, and working memory. They provided over 28 hours of instruction to teachers in four preschools in Germany. The training intervention was EMIL, which focused on the definition, meaning, development, and training of EF that can be easily integrated into the preschool environment. Teacher attitude toward students, how to interact and communicate with students, structure within the classroom, and activities to do with the children that engage their EFs are key points to EMIL. One limitation of this study was that preschool programs in Germany are open classrooms. As a result, the training focused on educating teachers how to modify their classroom environment and interact with their students differently (Walk et al., 2018). Results after the training and intervention that lasted a year showed that the intervention group had significant gains on three out of seven EF tests compared to the control group (Walk et al., 2018). Both of these research studies indicate a need and a desire for more training in brain-based curriculum. Conclusion Just like human bodies develop, so does the brain and the mechanisms inside it. Piaget (1936) theorized that cognition developed in children. Educators play a crucial role in the development of a brain. Sensory function, STM, and WM develop, and as they develop, so does the brain’s ability to learn. There is a correlation between STM and WM and language and academic achievement (Alloway & Alloway, 2009; Baddeley, 2003; David, 2012; Garcia- Madruga et al., 2014; Gathercole et al., 2005; Jarrold et al., 2002; Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016; Malekpour et al., 2013; Montgomery, 2000; Swanson et al., 2009; van Daal et al., 2009). Research reviewed has demonstrated that STM and WM can improve in students with and without learning difficulties, with specific training and as a result, improve language, executive function, and academic ability (Alloway, 2013; Bigorra et al., 2015; Dahlin, 2010; Diamond & DEVELOPING STM AND WM 26 Lee, 2011; Doman & Haslam, 2012; Holmes & Gathercole, 2013; Nevo & Breznitz, 2014; Peijnenborgh et al., 2016; Shiran & Breznitz, 2011; Söderqvist & Nutley, 2015). Children in special education have deficits in their STM and WM, which negatively impact their ability to achieve grade-level proficiency. As a result, it would be advantageous for their teachers to provide specific activities to their students on a daily basis that promote development of these cognitive functions, which in turn could positively impact their language development, behavior, and academic goals. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 27 PURPOSE Short-term and working memory are critical to a student’s ability to learn as correlations exist between these cognitive functions and academic achievement. Educators believe that WM, which plays a role in executive function, is important to understand and learn more about. Deficits in language, in addition to learning disabilities, are often correlated with poor STM and WM. Researchers have found that as STM and WM develop, improvements in language, executive functions, and academics occur. More specifically, the more tools a special education teacher can have to develop STM and WM in their struggling learners, the more successful they can be in helping their students reach their full potential. This curriculum project is designed for elementary special education teachers who teach students with mild to moderate disabilities. Computer programs that exist are not enough. This curriculum project provides activities that are more universally accessible, are classroom friendly, and that can be integrated into classroom curriculum. The purpose of this curriculum project has four objectives. Objective 1 ● This curriculum is designed to help special education teachers better understand neuroplasticity and provide them with key components and strategies that will increase their students’ processing skills, which will increase their ability to learn. Objective 2 ● This curriculum informs educators the importance of STM and WM, how it develops, and its impact on language, behavior, and academic ability. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 28 Objective 3 ● This curriculum instructs special education teachers on how to determine where their students’ STM and WM abilities are using simple measures that don’t require any formal assessment. Objective 4 ● This curriculum provides special education teachers of mild to moderate classrooms activities to improve STM and WM in their students that are more universally accessible, are classroom friendly, and that can be integrated into classroom curriculum DEVELOPING STM AND WM 29 METHOD This curriculum project was created to provide elementary mild-moderate special education teachers with training in short-term (STM) and working memory (WM). The researcher created a google slide presentation and a supplemental handbook (see Appendix B and C) to be used as training materials. The materials included information regarding neuroplasticity and provided teachers with key components and strategies that will increase their students’ processing skills, which will increase their ability to learn. The curriculum materials consisted of information regarding the importance of STM and WM, how it develops, and its impact on language, behavior, and academic achievement. It also provided special education teachers with instruction on how to determine where their students’ STM and WM abilities are using simple measures that don’t require any formal assessment. Finally, the curriculum materials provided educators with strategies on how to increase STM and WM in their students through specific activities that do not require a computer, are more classroom friendly, and can be integrated into classroom curriculum. Expert Evaluators Three experts evaluated the content of this curriculum project. Each one of them is an expert in the significance of STM and WM and its impact on children. One is also a special education teacher. They know how to test STM and WM in children and are experts in strategies that increase processing skills in children. All three have worked with children with mild to moderate disabilities for over 20 years, both in public education and the private sector. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 30 Instrument An evaluation form was produced that addressed the major points of the trainings’ content (see Appendix A). The evaluation consisted of specific questions regarding the key objectives of the training, including understanding neuroplasticity, STM and WM development, its impact on language, behavior, and academic achievement, instruction on how to assess STM and WM, and specific activities that can be easily integrated into the classroom. Questions gathered feedback on the accuracy, clarity, and helpfulness of the curriculum content. Included in the evaluation was space to provide additional feedback on each of the above key objectives. The evaluation also provided the expert evaluators with the ability to provide feedback on the handbook of activities that was produced as a supplement to the training. See Appendix A for a copy of the evaluation instrument. Procedures The researcher created a google slides presentation and supplemental handbook (see Appendix B and C) that was the curriculum format of this project. The google slides presentation consisted of content on neuroplasticity, the importance of STM and WM, how to assess STM and WM in students, and strategies to improve STM and WM in students based on research from the literature review. The handbook consisted of descriptions of specific activities to be used in the training and was provided to the evaluators to assess its content. The curriculum, the content of the google slides presentation and the supplemental handbook, was sent electronically to the expert evaluators for review. The evaluation form was provided to the evaluators to fill out following their review of the content in both the presentation and handbook. The researcher requested the return of the evaluation forms within a week’s time in order to analyze the data. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 31 Data Analysis Following the expert evaluators’ review of the content of the google slides presentation and handbook, the researcher examined the evaluations filled out by the evaluators, and they made any necessary changes to the google slides presentation and handbook. After these modifications were made, the curriculum project was submitted for review. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 32 RESULTS/DISCUSSION This curriculum project was created to train special education teachers of mild to moderate classrooms on several objectives; understanding neuroplasticity, how STM/WM develop and how it impacts behavior and academic achievement, how to test STM/WM in students, and finally, how to improve STM/WM in their students. Objective: Neuroplasticity On the evaluation form, under the objective of neuroplasticity, each of the evaluators agreed that the content was clearly explained and that it was helpful for special education teachers to know (see Table 1). No additional feedback was provided. Table 1 Objective: Neuroplasticity Questions Yes No 1. The content provided an accurate definition of neuroplasticity. 3 0 2. The content provided a clear understanding on key components to improve a students’ ability to learn and change brain. 3 0 3. The content on this objective was helpful to know for an elementary special education teacher teaching a mild to moderate classroom. 3 0 n = 3 Objective: Importance of Short-term Memory (STM) and Working Memory(WM) On the evaluation form, under the objective of understanding the importance of STM and WM, each of the evaluators agreed that the content was accurate in defining STM and WM. The content was clear in how STM and WM develop, and how these cognitive functions impact language, behavior, and academic ability (see Table 2). In regards to the final question on whether the content would be helpful for elementary special education teachers of mild to DEVELOPING STM AND WM 33 moderate disability students to know, all three expert evaluators answered favorably. No other feedback was provided. Table 2 Objective: Importance of Short-Term Memory (STM) and Working Memory (WM) Questions Yes No 1. The content on this objective was accurate in defining STM and WM. 3 0 2. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM develop. 3 0 3. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM impact language. 3 0 4. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM impact behavior. 3 0 5. The content of this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM impact academic ability. 3 0 6. The content on this objective is helpful for elementary special education teachers of mild to moderate disability students to know. 3 0 n = 3 Objective: Determining a Student’s Current STM and WM ability On the objective “Determining a student’s current STM and WM ability,” all three expert evaluators answered “yes” to all the questions with the exception of question number two (see Table 3). The special education teacher did not think the content was clear in how to determine a more accurate score if the student was using compensation strategies. The special education teacher commented, “Though the presentation and handbook has specific details on how to administer the STM And WM activities/assessments, I did not find anything specifically addressing determining a more accurate score if the student is cheating. The introduction page may be a good location to mention that, being that activities are listed on the preceding pages.” I agreed with this feedback and added a short paragraph regarding students who may be using compensation strategies in the introduction of the handbook. I also added additional activities in DEVELOPING STM AND WM 34 the handbook to be used for those students who compensate by visualizing the auditory digit span activities. Table 3 Objective: Determining a student’s current STM and WM ability. Questions Yes No 1. The content on this objective was accurate in describing how to assess a students’ STM and WM. 3 0 2. The content on this objective was clear in how to determine a more accurate score if the student is using compensation strategies. 2 1 3. The content on this objective will be helpful for elementary special education teachers of mild to moderate students. 3 0 n = 3 Objective: Strategies to Improve Students’ STM and WM in the classroom On the objective “strategies to improve students’ STM and WM in the classroom,” all three evaluators agreed that the content was clearly taught, was accurate, and the strategies were clear. They all agreed that the strategies would be helpful for special education teachers to learn and the word “definitely” was added by the special education teacher on this question Table 4 Objective: Strategies to improve students’ STM and WM in the classroom. Questions Yes No 1. The strategies described in this objective were accurate in their ability to improve STM and WM in students. 3 0 2. The content of this objective was clear in how to implement these strategies in the classroom environment. 3 0 3. The content was clear in what strategies could be implemented 1:1 with a student or a group of students. 3 0 4. The strategies taught in the content of this objective would be helpful for elementary special education students to learn. 3 0 n = 3 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 35 Supplemental Handbook Finally, feedback was requested on the supplemental handbook that is provided in addition to the training. This handbook can be used as a tool to refer back to as needed. All three evaluators agreed that it was clear, corresponded with what was taught in the training, and was well organized and user friendly (see Table 5). Table 5 Supplemental Handbook Questions Yes No 1. The activities in the handbook are clearly stated. 3 0 2. The activities in the handbook correspond with what was taught in the training portion of the curriculum. 3 0 3. The handbook is well organized and user friendly. 3 0 n = 3 Results yielded positive feedback from the expert evaluators. A few comments were provided via email in addition to the evaluation form. It was asked to define the acronyms for STM/WM at the beginning of the training, which the researcher added to the introduction page. There were a few grammatical errors that were adjusted. It was also recommended to change some wording and to add another point under the presenter notes in the google slide presentation. I made these adjustments. Additional comments regarding the slide presentation and handbook were provided by the expert evaluators. All felt that both the slide presentation and handbook were well done and easy to follow. Both were “filled with detailed explanations for each group, class, or individual activity”, which would be “very important when working with students with various abilities in various settings.” One commented that this training could “provide a great opportunity to impact a whole new generation of lifetime learners.” DEVELOPING STM AND WM 36 Conclusion Over the past half-century, researchers have continued to study the brain and how it learns. Merging this information into teacher education is an ongoing and essential process. The amount of information continues to grow and change as technology allows scientists and researchers to analyze the brain and its ability to change. I designed this curriculum with the intent to provide strategies that could help special education teachers impact an important cognitive function in their students. While there is no magic pill to addressing learning challenges that children with mild to moderate disabilities face, research has shown that improving their STM and WM can improve their ability to learn. Having a deeper understanding of how the brain learns, and what can be done to improve the brain’s capacity to learn, can assist special education teachers in creating lasting change in their students. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 37 References Alloway, T. (2012). Can interactive working memory training improve learning? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(3), 197-207. Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2009). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003 Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89–195. Doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3 Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. doi: 10.1126/science.1736359 Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4 Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 8, 47–89. doi: 10.1016/S0079- 7421(08)60452-1 Bigorra, A., Garolera, M., Guijarro, S., & Hervas, A. (2015). Long-term far-transfer effects of working memory training in children with ADHD: A randomized controlled trial. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 853–867. doi: 10.1007/s00787-015-0804-3 Blankenship, A. B. (1938). Memory span: A review of the literature. The Psychological Bulletin, 35,(1), 1-25. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 38 Brooks, D. W., & Shell, D. F. (2006). Working memory, motivation, and teacher-initiated learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 17–29. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0353-0 Carew, T. J., & Magsamen, S. H. (2010). Neuroscience and education: An ideal partnership for producing evidence-based solutions to guide 21st century learning. Neuron, 67(5), 685– 688. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.028 Constantinidis, C., & Klingberg, T. (2016). The neuroscience of working memory capacity and training. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 438-449. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.43 Cowan, N., Nugent, L., Elliott, E., Ponomarev, I., & Saults, J. (1999). The role of attention in the development of short-term memory: Age differences in the verbal span of apprehension. Child Development, 70(5), 1082–1097. Dahlin, K. I. E. (2010). Effects of working memory training on reading in children with special needs. Reading and Writing, 24(4), 479-491. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9238-y David, C.V. (2012). Working memory deficits in math learning difficulties: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Developmental disabilities. 58(2), 67–84. doi:10.1179/2047387711Y.00000000007 Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. doi: 10.1126/science.1204529 Diamond, A., & Whitington, V. (2015). Studying early brain development: Educators reports about their learning and its applications to early childhood policies and practices. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(3), 11–19. Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. New York: Penguin books. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 39 Doman, R. J. (1986). Guide to child development–Miracles of child development. On Guide to child development–Miracles of child development [cassette] California (1980). Doman, R. J. (1986). Learning how you learn auditory and visual digit spans – What do they mean. The NACD [National Association for Child Development] Journal. 7(13). Retrieved from http://www.nacd.org/learning-how-you-learn-auditory-and-visual- digit-spans-what-do-they-mean/. Doman, R. J. (2008, October). Short-term and working memory: Clinical insights. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual International Congress of Developmental Psychology, Aguascalientes, Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.nacd.org/short-term-and-working-memory-clinical-insights/ Doman, R. J. (2016). Discussion of the relevant perception, structure, and application of NACD’s model of working memory and cognition. The NACD [National Association for Child Development] Journal. 29(2). Retrieved from http://www.nacd.org/discussion-relevant-perception-structure-application-nacds-mo del-working-memory-cognition/ Doman, R. J., & Haslam, B. W. (2012). The effect of the simply smarter program on short-term memory, working memory, and academic competency for elementary students. The NACD [National Association for Child Development] Journal, 25(7). Retrieved from http://www.nacd.org/the-effect-of-the-simply-smarter-program-on-short-term-memory-working- memory-and-academic-competency-for-elementary-students/ Dornbush, R. L. & Basow, S. (1970). The relationship between auditory and visual short-term memory and reading achievement. Child Development, 41, 1033–1044. doi: 10.2307/1127331 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 40 Eliot, L. (1999). What’s going on in there? How the brain and mind develop in the first five years of life. New York: Bantom Books. Garcia-Madruga, J. A., Vila, J. O., Gomez-Veiga, I., Duque, G., & Elosua, M. R. (2014). Executive processes, reading comprehension and academic achievement in 3th grade primary students. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 41–48. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.013 Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2005). Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265– 281. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.08.003 Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. doi:2200/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177 Gillam, S. L., & Reutzel, D. R. (2013). Speaking and listening standards. In Morrow, Shanahan, & Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with the Common Core Standards for English language arts (pp. 107–127). New York: Guilford Press. Hindal, H., Reid, N., & Badgaish, M. (2009). Working memory, performance and learner characteristics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(2), 187–204. Doi: 10.1080/02635140902853640 Holmes, J.& Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools. Educational Psychology, 34(4), 440-450. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.797338 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 300.8. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/topic-areas/#Disability_Category DEVELOPING STM AND WM 41 Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., & Phillips, C. E. (2002). Verbal short-term memory in down syndrome: A problem of memory, audition, or speech? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 531–544. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/042) Kibby, M. Y. & Cohen, M. J. (2008). Memory functioning in children with reading disabilities and/or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A clinical investigation of their working memory and long-term memory functioning. Child Neuropsychology, 14(6), 525-546. DOI: 10.1080/09297040701821752 Low, J., & Keith, T. (2015). The influence of auditory short-term memory on behavior problem development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(2), 105–112. doi: 10.1177/0165025414556519 Maehler, C. & Schuchardt, K. (2016). The importance of working memory for school achievement in primary school children with intellectual or learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 58, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.08.007 Malekpour, M., Aghababaei, S., & Abedi, A. (2013). Working memory and learning disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 59(1), 35–46. doi: 10.1179/2047387711Y.0000000011 Martinez, M. E. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. New Jersey: Pearson education. Mayer, R.E. (2017). How can brain research inform academic learning and instruction? Educational Psychology Review, 29, 835-846. doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9391-1 Memory span. (2018). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 6, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/memory_span DEVELOPING STM AND WM 42 Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158 Montgomery, J. (2000). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 43(2), 293–308. doi: 1092-4388/00/4302-0293 Morrow, L., & Gambrell, L. B. (2019). Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Muller, E. (2011). Neuroscience and special education. Retrieved from National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.nadse.org Mundker, N. (2005). Neuroplasticity in children. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 72, 855-857. doi: 10.1007/BF02731115 Nevo, E., & Breznitz, Z. (2014). Effects of working memory and reading acceleration training on improving working memory abilities and reading skills among third graders. Child Neuropsychology, 20(6), 752–765. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2013.863272 Peijnenborgh, J. C. A. W., Hurks, P. M., Aldenkamp, A. P., Vles, J. S. H., & Hendriksen, J. G. M. (2016). Efficacy of working memory training in children and adolescents with learning disabilities: A review study and meta-analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 26(5/6), 645–672. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-23 Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reber, P. (2010, May 1). What Is the Memory Capacity of the Human Brain? Retrieved January 3, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory-capacity/. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 43 Redick, T., Shipstead, Z., Wiemers, E., Melby-Lervag, M., & Hulme, C. (2015). What’s working in working memory training? An educational perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 617–633. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9314-6 Shiran, A., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). The effect of cognitive training on recall range and speed of information processing in the working memory of dyslexic and skilled readers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(5), 524–537. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.12.001 Söderqvist, S. & Bergman-Nutley, S. (2015). Working memory training is associated with long term attainments in math and reading. Frontier Psychology, 6(1711). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01711 Swanson, H. L., Zheng, X., & Jerman, O. (2009). Working memory, short-term memory, and reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 260–287. doi: 10.1177/0022219409331958 Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Nutley, S., B., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12(1), 106–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x Van Daal, J., Verhoeven, L., & van Balkom, H. (2009). Cognitive predictors of language development in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(5), 639–655. Doi: 10.1080/13682820802276930 Van Iterson, L., & de Jong, P. F. (2017). Development of verbal short-term memory and working memory in children with epilepsy: Developmental delay and impact of time-related variables. A cross-sectional study. Epilepsy & Behavior, 78, 166–174. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.10.018 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 44 Walk, L. M., Evers, W. F., Quante, S., & Hille, K. (2018). Evaluation of teacher training program to enhance executive functions in preschool children. PLoS ONE, 13(5), 1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197454 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 45 Appendix A Evaluation Form DEVELOPING STM AND WM 46 Curriculum Evaluation Objective: Neuroplasticity 1. The content provided an accurate definition of neuroplasticity. Yes No 2. The content provided a clear understanding on key components that improve a student’s ability to learn and change the brain. Yes No 3. The content on this objective was helpful to know for an elementary special education teacher teaching a mild to moderate classroom. Yes No 4. If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please provide feedback on how this can be improved. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Objective: Importance of Short-Term Memory (STM) and Working Memory (WM) 1. The content on this objective was accurate in defining STM and WM. Yes No 2. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM develop. Yes No 3. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM impact language. Yes No 4. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM impact behavior. Yes No 5. The content on this objective was clear in describing how STM and WM impact academic ability. Yes No 6. The content on this objective is helpful for elementary special education teachers of mild to moderate disability students to know. Yes No DEVELOPING STM AND WM 47 7. If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please provide feedback on how this can be improved. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Objective: Determining a student’s current STM and WM ability. 1. The content on this objective was accurate in describing how to assess a students’ STM and WM. Yes No 2. The content on this objective was clear in how to determine a more accurate score if the student is using compensation strategies.. Yes No 3. The content on this objective will be helpful for elementary special education teachers of mild to moderate students. Yes No 4. If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please provide feedback on how this can be improved. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Objective: Strategies to improve students’ STM and WM in the classroom. 1. The strategies described in this objective were accurate in in their ability to improve STM and WM in students. Yes No 2. The content of this objective was clear in how to implement these strategies in the classroom environment. Yes No 3. The content was clear in what strategies could be implemented 1:1 with a student or a group of students. Yes No 4. The strategies taught in the content of this objective would be helpful for elementary special education students to learn. Yes No DEVELOPING STM AND WM 48 5. If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please provide feedback on how this can be improved? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Supplemental Handbook 1. The activities in the handbook are clearly stated. Yes No 2. The activities in the handbook correspond with what was taught in the training portion of the curriculum. Yes No 3. The handbook is well organized and user friendly. Yes No 4. If you answered “no” to any of the above questions, please provide feedback on how this can be improved? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Please provide any additional comments regarding the slide presentation and handbook. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ DEVELOPING STM AND WM 49 Appendix B Google Slides Presentation DEVELOPING STM AND WM 50 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 51 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 52 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 53 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 54 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 55 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 56 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 57 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 58 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 59 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 60 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 61 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 62 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 63 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 64 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 65 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 66 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 67 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 68 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 69 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 70 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 71 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 72 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 73 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 74 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 75 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 76 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 77 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 78 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 79 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 80 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 81 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 82 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 83 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 84 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 85 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 86 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 87 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 88 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 89 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 90 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 91 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 92 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 93 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 94 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 95 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 96 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 97 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 98 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 99 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 100 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 101 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 102 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 103 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 104 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 105 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 106 Appendix C Supplemental Handbook DEVELOPING STM AND WM 107 Short-Term and Working Memory Activities A handbook of strategies for special education teachers Image Source: www.epictop10.com Sara Erling 2020 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 108 INTRODUCTION The following activities are designed to improve both auditory and visual short-term and working memory in students. It is important for teachers to keep in mind that students can improve in these fundamental areas of thinking and that improvement in these areas will assist the children in all areas of learning and academic performance. For auditory/verbal sequences, they must be given in a monotone voice with each individual piece of information given at about one second intervals. Changes in tonality or giving the sequence at a faster speed will result in inflated outcomes and less progress. It is important to remember that each sequence needs to be different than the last. We do not want our students to memorize the sequences. For visual sequences, if shown one item at a time, they must be flashed in about one second intervals. If shown together, they must be shown for a full three seconds. Younger, and lower processing, students can read/say them out loud as they look at them. The teacher does not say them but can point to each piece of information from left to right. As the students get older, it is encouraged for them to read/say the sequence to themselves as they look at what is shown to them. The students must be able to clearly hear each item for the auditory activities and see each item for the visual activities. Be sure to project your voice sufficiently, enunciate clearly, and make your visual materials large enough for all to see. Activities that have a “Working memory” heading are meant to be done only when working with students who have a reverse auditory digit span of 3 or higher. Students who are strong visualizers, common in children with high functioning Autism or ADD/ADHD, can have escalated auditory digit spans scores due to visualizing the sequence. If they have elevated scores, watch for eye gaze, as well as ask them how they are able to get the sequence right. (Often they will tell you that they picture the numbers in their head). At that time give conceptual word sequences to see if the scores line up. If the conceptual words are lower and a better reflection of function, that is a better assessment. It is important for the teacher to praise effort on the part of the students and to seek progress and improvement. Improving short-term and working memory takes effort and attention. In order to motivate the students, teachers must be positive and give praise for attempts not just for success. In order for cognition to improve, progress on these activities must be made. Simply giving and having the students do the exact same level of processing each day will not yield improved cognitive skills. Progressing in doing more complex or longer sequences will result in global improvement in the students. These activities are not meant to be done for extended periods of time. Since every classroom is composed of students at various processing levels, it is inevitable that you will reach points at which some of the students can still do the tasks while others cannot. In general, if less than a third of the class is able to continue with higher sequences and you have a large class, the remainder of the students will become too restless for you to be able to continue. You will need to use your judgment in determining how long to continue. Try starting at gradually higher levels as your class as a whole becomes more adept at the activities. You will see progress in other areas as the children improve in their processing abilities. Activities with ** next to them have been approved to be used through the National Association for Child Development (NACD). DEVELOPING STM AND WM 109 ACTIVITIES FOR LARGE GROUPS (FOR CHILDREN WHO KNOW THEIR LETTERS/NUMBERS) AUDITORY DIGIT SPANS**/LETTER SEQUENCES METHOD 1: If children are familiar with numbers from one to ten, as well as their letters, the teacher can say a sequence of random numbers (or letters) at one-second intervals and ask the students to repeat them back. The teacher praises the students. The teacher will then say a higher amount of random numbers (or letters) and ask the students to say them back. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a third or more of the students were correct, the teacher will continue and say more random numbers and ask the students to say them back. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a significant group of students were successful, the teacher will continue with higher amounts of random numbers. METHOD 2: If the students have dry erase boards, each child has theirs out and ready to use. The teacher will say a sequence of random numbers/letters at one-second intervals and then ask the students to write them on their dry erase board, in the same order, and show them to the teacher. The teacher will then praise the students and provide external reinforcers for those students that got the sequence correct. The teacher will then say a higher amount of random numbers/letters and ask the students to write them down, then show their boards to the teacher. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a third or more of the students were correct, the teacher will continue and say more random numbers/letters and ask the students to write them down and show the teacher. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a significant group of students were successful, the teacher will continue with higher amounts of random numbers/letters. METHOD 3: Students line up into two teams. One child from each team stands at the chalkboard/dry erase board at the front of the class. The teacher gives a sequence of numbers or letters starting with easy sequences and gradually giving harder sequences. The children at the board write down what they heard the teacher say. Each team gets a point for each child’s correct response until every child has had two turns at the board. The team with the most points wins. VISUAL DIGIT SPANS** METHOD 1: The teacher selects the amount of numbers to use based on her students. The teacher holds up a large card with a single random number for only one second each, then on to the next number, and so on until she has shown her students all the cards for the sequence. Initially, the teacher will show the students an amount of random numbers that she is confident all the students will be able to process. The teacher will then ask the students to say what the numbers were in the order that they were shown. The teacher will praise their effort. The teacher then repeats the procedure this time showing more random numbers in a sequence that is different from the previous sequence. The teacher then asks DEVELOPING STM AND WM 110 the students to say what the numbers were in the order that they were shown. The teacher will praise their effort. If a third or more of the students were correct, the teacher will then go on and show a higher amount of random numbers in the same fashion and ask that the students repeat the number sequence back. The teacher will praise their effort. Again, if a third or more of the students were able to repeat the sequence accurately, the teacher will continue and show a higher amount of random numbers in a sequence using the same procedure. METHOD 2: The teacher writes a sequence of numbers on the board and then erases it. Students write what they recall was on the board. The teacher then says the sequence and the students who wrote it down correctly raise their hands. The teacher starts with a sequence that she feels the entire class will be successful with and works up to higher numbers in the sequence until the children can no longer recall the sequence. The class earns a prize if any of the students get a higher sequence than the group did the day before. METHOD 3: Have each student use their individual dry erase boards. The teacher writes a sequence of numbers on her dry erase board, shows it to the class for three seconds, and then flips it over. Students are instructed to write what the sequence was in the same order as best they can on their own dry erase board and show it to the teacher. The teacher then shows the sequence again and praises the students’ efforts. The teacher starts with a sequence that she feels the entire class will be successful with and works up to higher numbers in the sequence until the children can no longer recall the sequence. The class earns a prize if any of the students get a higher sequence than the group did the day before. WORKING MEMORY ACTIVITY REVERSE AUDITORY DIGIT SPANS**/LETTER SEQUENCES METHOD 1: If children are familiar with numbers from one to ten, as well as their letters, the teacher can say a sequence of random numbers (or letters) at one-second intervals and ask the students to repeat them back in REVERSE order. The teacher praises the students. The teacher will then say a higher amount of random numbers (or letters) and ask the students to say them back in REVERSE order. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a third or more of the students were correct, the teacher will continue and say more random numbers and ask the students to say them backwards. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a significant group of students were successful, the teacher will continue with higher amounts of random numbers. METHOD 2: If the students have dry erase boards, each child has theirs out and ready to use. The teacher will say a sequence of random numbers/letters at one-second intervals and then ask the students to write them on their dry erase board, in REVERSE order, and show them to the teacher. The teacher will then praise the students and provide external reinforcers for those students that got the sequence correct. The teacher will then say a higher amount of random numbers/letters and ask the students to write them down in reverse order, then show their boards to the teacher. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a DEVELOPING STM AND WM 111 third or more of the students were correct, the teacher will continue and say more random numbers/letters and ask the students to write them down in reverse order and show the teacher. The teacher will then praise their effort. If a significant group of students were successful, the teacher will continue with higher amounts of random numbers/letters. METHOD 3: Students line up into two teams. One child from each team stands at the chalkboard/dry erase board at the front of the class. The teacher gives a sequence of numbers or letters starting with easy sequences and gradually giving harder sequences. The children at the board write down the sequence the teacher said in REVERSE order. Each team gets a point for each child’s correct response until every child has had two turns at the board. The team with the most points wins. ACTIVITIES FOR LARGE GROUPS (FOR CHILDREN WHO DO NOT KNOW THEIR LETTERS/NUMBERS) AUDITORY DIRECTION SEQUENCE/ “SIMON SAYS” The teacher has the class stand up to play “Simon Says”. To make it an auditory processing activity, the teacher will provide multiple step directions. An example would be “Simon Says clap your hands, shake your head, and look up to the sky!” The students need to be instructed to complete the directions in the same order as given by the teacher. The teacher then praises their effort. If a third or more of the students were successful, the teacher will then repeat the activity giving a higher amount of random directions to follow in order and praise the students for their effort. In order to play Simon Says correctly, the teacher will need to include direction sequences that don’t have “Simon Says” stated before. STUDENT NAME SEQUENCE The teacher has the students sitting either at their desk or on the floor. The teacher says a sequence of students’ names. The teacher then calls on students who were not named to repeat the sequence. As the students attempt to say the sequence back in the correct order the students stand as they are named. The teacher then asks the class to say if that order is correct or not. The teacher gradually gives the students harder sequences to follow. AUDITORY COLOR SEQUENCE The teacher says a sequence of colors. The teacher then asks students to stand in the order of the color sequence if they are wearing that color. The teacher may say red, green, blue, yellow. Students wearing red would then stand first. Students wearing green would then stand. Students wearing blue would then stand and students wearing yellow would then stand. The teacher praises their efforts, instructs them to sit down, and then provides the class with a different and more difficult sequence if more than a third of the class gets the sequence correct. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 112 VISUAL PICTURE SEQUENCE The teacher shows the students a series of large pictures of single objects (that are common) for one second each and then takes them away. The teacher then chooses random students to state what the pictures were in correct order or asks the entire class to state what the objects were. The teacher praises the effort. If a third or more of the class was correct, the teacher repeats the procedure with more pictures. If they were not, the teacher will show a lesser amount of pictures. The teacher will progress showing longer sequences of random pictures as long as a third or more of the students are able to respond correctly. AUDITORY STM ACTIVITIES FOR SMALL GROUPS OR 1:1 AUDITORY ANIMAL SEQUENCE Taking turns, the teacher says a sequence of animals to a student in the small group. The student is asked to repeat the sequence in the order that they were given. The teacher then asks the other students in the group to identify the classification of each animal in the sequence. The teacher is to keep track of how many animals each child can sequence so that when it is their turn again, the teacher can provide them a harder sequence to process. AUDITORY OBJECT SEQUENCE (with or without content words)/CONCEPTUAL WORDS** Taking turns, the teacher says a sequence of random objects to the student in the small group and asks the student to repeat them back. The objects can be of high interest to the student such as superhero characters, names of friends, Disney princesses, etc. The teacher praises the child for their effort. The teacher repeats the process with each child in the small group keeping track of how many each child can correctly repeat back. The teacher again praises the children for their effort. The teacher does the process again using different objects and a higher amount of objects in the sequence. Praise is continually offered and rewards can be earned for getting sequences correct. For content knowledge, the teacher can give the group a sequence of words related to what they are studying such as countries, names of individuals in history, types of plants, planets. The students recite it back to the teacher. Again, the teacher is to keep track of what each student can process so that they can be challenged with harder sequences the next time. SPELL WORDS FORWARD, REPEAT AND IDENTIFY** Identify spelling words the students are learning. Taking turns, without identifying the spelling word, the teacher spells a word to a student in the small group (as if giving a digit span/object sequence), the student is asked to repeat back the spelling in the correct order, then he/she is to identify what the word is. The other students in the small group can write the spelling word down on a piece of paper or dry erase board quietly after the teacher gives the sequence for extra practice. The teacher praises the child, DEVELOPING STM AND WM 113 and group, for their effort. The teacher repeats the process with each child taking turns with the different spelling words. Those with lower processing levels should be given spelling words with fewer letters than those with higher processing levels. The teacher is to gradually increase the difficulty of the spelling words. AUDITORY SEQUENCE WITH SIGHT WORD CARDS For this activity, the teacher will need to have a stack of sight word cards that are being learned by the students, working with no more than 10 at a time. The teacher asks the students to close their eyes while he/she lays out 5-10 of the sight word cards on the table. Taking turns, the teacher will ask a student to point to a sequence of sight words, then instruct them to open their eyes and find them. Each student that can do a sequence correct earns a point. Whoever has the most points wins. Adjust how many cards you have on the table based on their current processing level. Ideally, the teacher should put out only two more than what is currently being asked for in the sequence. At each turn, the teacher is to shuffle the cards, add or take cards, and repeat with the next student. VISUAL STM ACTIVITIES FOR SMALL GROUPS OR 1:1 VISUAL SIGHT WORD SEQUENCE Taking turns, the teacher shows a student a series of their sight words on flashcards for one second each and then takes them away. The teacher then asks the student to state what the sight words were in correct order. The teacher praises the student for their effort. Each student in the group has a turn. As the activity progresses, the teacher will show longer sequences of random sight words for each student. The teacher will need to keep record of how many a child can do in order to keep challenging them to the next level of processing. VISUAL SHAPE SEQUENCE Taking turns, the teacher shows a student a series of shapes that he/she draws on their individual dry erase board OR they can lay out a random series of cards with shapes on them. The teacher then shows the student the series of shapes for a full three seconds then flips it over or covers up the cards. The student is asked to draw the shapes on their individual dry erase board in the same order. The teacher praises the student for their effort. Each student in the group has a turn. As the activity progresses, the teacher will show longer sequences of random shapes for each student either drawing them or on flashcards. The teacher will need to keep record of how many a child can do in order to keep challenging them to the next level of processing. VISUAL LANDFORM SEQUENCE Taking turns, the teacher shows a student a series of landform pictures on flashcards for one DEVELOPING STM AND WM 114 second each and then takes them away. The teacher then asks the student to state what the landforms were in correct order. The teacher praises the student for their effort. Each student in the group has a turn. As the activity progresses, the teacher will show longer sequences of random landforms for each student. The teacher will need to keep record of how many a child can do in order to keep challenging them to the next level of processing. AUDITORY WM ACTIVITIES FOR SMALL GROUPS OR 1:1 AUDITORY MATH SEQUENCE The teacher gives the group a sequence of random numbers. The teacher then calls on random students and asks for a specific combination of mathematical operations that can be done with the numbers. For example: the sequence is 85294. The teacher may call on an individual student or two of the students and tell them to add the first three numbers and divide by the sum of the last two. For the next student, after giving a different sequence of numbers, the teacher may state that the first two numbers should be added, the next number subtracted and the last two numbers added to that amount. Over the course of sessions, continue increasing the amount of numbers in the sequence and the complexity of the mathematical operations. AUDITORY SEQUENCE WITH QUESTION/ANSWER Taking turns, the teacher asks a random student a sequence of questions that are related to a particular content area. The student will be instructed to listen to the entire sequence, then provide the answers to those questions in the same sequential order. If the teacher prefers to do this with the entire group, have the students listen to the teacher’s questions, then write their answers down on a piece of paper or dry erase boards. The teacher should gradually increase the amount of questions given to challenge the processing of each student. Praise should follow each sequence provided for the students’ efforts. AUDITORY NOUN/VERB SEQUENCE The teacher gives a verbal, random sequence with a mixture of nouns and verbs. The students will be instructed to listen to the sequence first. The teacher will then ask certain students to stand and repeat just the nouns. Then, the other students will be asked to repeat the verbs. The same can be done with adjectives, adverbs, and preposition words. The students should be reinforced for their efforts. Gradually increase how many words are provided in each sequence. AUDITORY SYNONYM/ANTONYM SEQUENCE The teacher gives the students in the group sequence of adjectives. The students are instructed to listen to the sequence. The teacher calls on random students and requires each student to give a synonym DEVELOPING STM AND WM 115 or antonym for consecutive words in the sequence. By calling on random students one at a time, the whole group is motivated to accurately recall and retain the sequence. The students should be reinforced for their efforts. Gradually increase how many adjectives the small group is provided. AUDITORY CAPITAL/STATE SEQUENCE The teacher gives the students in the group a sequence of states and/or capital city names. The students are instructed to listen to the sequence and provide either the capital cities of the states given or the names of the states of the capital cities given. The teacher calls on random students, requiring each student to give the proper response in the sequence. By calling on random students one at a time, the whole group is motivated to accurately recall and retain the sequence. The students should be reinforced for their efforts. Gradually increase how many states and/or capital cities the small group is provided. VISUAL WM ACTIVITIES FOR SMALL GROUPS OR 1:1 REVERSE VISUAL DIGIT SPAN** Have each student use their individual dry erase boards. The teacher writes a sequence of numbers on her dry erase board, shows it to the group for three seconds, and then flips it over. Students are instructed to write what the sequence was in reverse order, from left to right, as best they can on their own dry erase board and show it to the teacher. For example, the teacher may write 6,2,8,1 and the students should write 1,8,2,6. The teacher then shows the sequence again and praises the students’ efforts. The teacher starts with a sequence that she feels they will all be successful with and works up to higher numbers in the sequence until the children can no longer recall the sequence. The group earns a prize if any of the students get a higher sequence than the group did the day before. VISUAL DIGIT SPAN WITH MATH OPERATION The teacher shows the group a sequence of random numbers with random math operations in between each number for three seconds. For example, 5 + 3 - 2 x 4 = . The teacher should instruct the students to read the sequence quietly to themselves. Once the teacher removes the sequence, the students should be instructed to write the sequence on their dry erase board and solve the equation. Over the course of sessions, continue increasing the amount of numbers in the sequence and the complexity of the mathematical operations. Remember to praise students for their efforts. VISUAL VOCABULARY SEQUENCE The teacher shows the group a sequence of words on flashcards that are vocabulary words being introduced for the week. The teacher will flash through each card showing each one approximately for one second. The students will be instructed to remember the words in the sequence. The teacher will call upon random students in the group, and he/she is to give the meaning of that vocabulary word that is DEVELOPING STM AND WM 116 shown in consecutive order. The teacher will call on each student in the group randomly, and perhaps more than one time, depending on the length of the sequence of words. The group earns a prize if they get a higher sequence than they did the day before. Praise students for their efforts. DEVELOPING STM AND WM 117 Appendix D IRB Approval DEVELOPING STM AND WM 118 DEVELOPING STM AND WM 119