Holmes & Gathercole 2013
94 views
Skip to first unread message
Gwern Branwen
May 20, 2013, 2:30:34 PM5/20/13
to N-back
"Taking working memory training from the laboratory into schools",
Holmes & Gathercole 2013
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85192141/2013-holmes.pdf (mentioned
in the research thread)
> Working memory skills have been shown to be enhanced by adaptive training in several randomised controlled trials. Here, two field trials were conducted in which teachers administered working memory training to their own pupils in school. Twenty-two children aged 8–9 years participated in Trial 1. In Trial 2, 50 children aged 9–11 years with the lowest academic performance completed training. They were matched with a group of 50 children who were not trained. Following training, children in Trial 1 improved significantly in both trained and untrained working memory tasks, with effect sizes comparable to those reported in research studies. Improvements on the trained tasks in Trial 2 were comparable, and training was associated with significantly greater progress at school across the academic year in maths and English. These findings indicate that teacher-administered training leads to generalised and robust gains in working memory and educationally significant gains in academic performance.
The first trial did not use a control group as far as I can tell:
> All 22 children in a mixed-ability Year-4 class (mean age 8 years 8 months, SD = 4.12, 10 boys) attending a primary school in the South of England participated in training. No children were prevented from participating due to visual, motor or hearing problems.
The structure of trial 2, as indicated in the abstract, is a little weird:
> Twenty-five children were recruited from Year 5 (mean age 9 years 5 months, SD = 3.37, 16 boys) and 25 from Year 6 (mean age 10 years 6 months, SD = 3.9, 13 boys). These children had the lowest Teacher Assessment scores of their respective cohorts. No children were excluded from the study due to difficulties using a computer mouse effectively, or sight or hearing problems. They were matched with a group of 50 children on gender, age (within 30 days) and performance on Teacher Assessments from the previous cohorts of children in Years 5 and 6. For Year 5, the trainees (mean age 9 years 5 months, SD = 3.37) had an average Teacher Assessment score of 20.2 (SD = 3.03). The comparison group’s (mean age 9 years 5 months, SD = 3.36) mean score was 21.13 (SD = 2.96). For Year 6, group means were 21.66 (SD = 5.25) for the trained group (mean age 10 years 6 months and SD = 3.91) and 22.52 (SD = 2.27) for the comparison group (mean age 10 years 6 months, SD = 3.82).
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ
Holmes & Gathercole 2013
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/85192141/2013-holmes.pdf (mentioned
in the research thread)
> Working memory skills have been shown to be enhanced by adaptive training in several randomised controlled trials. Here, two field trials were conducted in which teachers administered working memory training to their own pupils in school. Twenty-two children aged 8–9 years participated in Trial 1. In Trial 2, 50 children aged 9–11 years with the lowest academic performance completed training. They were matched with a group of 50 children who were not trained. Following training, children in Trial 1 improved significantly in both trained and untrained working memory tasks, with effect sizes comparable to those reported in research studies. Improvements on the trained tasks in Trial 2 were comparable, and training was associated with significantly greater progress at school across the academic year in maths and English. These findings indicate that teacher-administered training leads to generalised and robust gains in working memory and educationally significant gains in academic performance.
The first trial did not use a control group as far as I can tell:
> All 22 children in a mixed-ability Year-4 class (mean age 8 years 8 months, SD = 4.12, 10 boys) attending a primary school in the South of England participated in training. No children were prevented from participating due to visual, motor or hearing problems.
The structure of trial 2, as indicated in the abstract, is a little weird:
> Twenty-five children were recruited from Year 5 (mean age 9 years 5 months, SD = 3.37, 16 boys) and 25 from Year 6 (mean age 10 years 6 months, SD = 3.9, 13 boys). These children had the lowest Teacher Assessment scores of their respective cohorts. No children were excluded from the study due to difficulties using a computer mouse effectively, or sight or hearing problems. They were matched with a group of 50 children on gender, age (within 30 days) and performance on Teacher Assessments from the previous cohorts of children in Years 5 and 6. For Year 5, the trainees (mean age 9 years 5 months, SD = 3.37) had an average Teacher Assessment score of 20.2 (SD = 3.03). The comparison group’s (mean age 9 years 5 months, SD = 3.36) mean score was 21.13 (SD = 2.96). For Year 6, group means were 21.66 (SD = 5.25) for the trained group (mean age 10 years 6 months and SD = 3.91) and 22.52 (SD = 2.27) for the comparison group (mean age 10 years 6 months, SD = 3.82).
--
gwern
http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages