Exploring relationships between working memory and writing: Individual differences associated with gender

Abstract

Gender differences in the relationships between working memory (short-term storage and combined storage and processing) in both the visuo-spatial and verbal domains and children's alphabet transcription and text writing abilities were investigated. Data from 81 children (43 males) aged between 5;2 to 8;5 revealed no significant group differences between boys and girls in working memory or writing performance. However, individual differences analyses demonstrated variation associated with age and gender in the memory skills underpinning writing. Regression analyses revealed that verbal short-term memory abilities predicted the alphabet transcription skills of boys but not girls. Although visuo-spatial short-term memory predicted writing quality in both genders, predictors of writing fluency differed with verbal working memory skills predicting boys' writing fluency and visuo-spatial short-term memory predicting writing fluency in girls. The need to consider gender differences more critically from the perspective of individual differences in cognitive skills underpinning writing development and the strategic application of these skills during writing is discussed.

Exploring individual and gender differences in early writing performance

“…These differences, identified in the absence of gender differences in vocabulary knowledge, led the researchers to conclude that the effect arose because females were more likely to recruit long-term memory phonological representations during the task. Similar conclusions regarding the tendency to utilise phonological processes were drawn by Adams et al (2015) relating to the differences between boys and girls in applying phonological recoding skills in writing. It is thus predicted that there may be a female advantage in both PSTM, the retention of externally supplied phonological information and inner speech, the ability to spontaneously generate a phonological code indexed by the ability to recall sequences of pictured objects (Henry et al, 2012) may differ between the genders.…”

“…The aim of the current study was to examine the extent to which the transcription skills of spelling and handwriting fluency and phonological skills were able to predict both individual and gender differences in writing performance. Despite girls demonstrating an advantage in text composition, they did not outperform boys in transcription skills or their phonological skills which thus adds to the narrative of inconsistent findings in this area (Adams et al, 2015;Babayigit, 2015;Beard & Burrell, 2010;Williams & Larkin, 2013). Within the whole sample, phonological skills along with vocabulary and letter knowledge, were not associated with text composition skills (with the exception of phonological awareness and writing quality and text spelling percentage accuracy), although they were all related to dictated spelling performance.…”

“…Children's recall of sequences of pictured objects has a long history as a methodology to identify such developmental changes in PSTM performance (Flavell, Beach, & Chinsky, 1966;Hitch et al, 1991) and is considered to be a valid index of the development of spontaneous phonological recoding of visual material in children (Henry et al, 2012). Inner speech might be expected to make a significant contribution to writing development and indeed evidence of a relationship between PSTM and children's writing abilities has been reported (Adams et al, 2015;Bourke & Adams, 2010;Swanson & Berninger, 1996). Moreover, children's ability to spontaneously apply a phonological code to remember pictures (inner speech) has been shown to predict significant unique variance in writing productivity, independently of individual differences in letter transcription skills (Adams, Simmons, Willis, & Porter, 2013).…”

“…Babayigit, 2015;Beard & Burrell, 2010;Bourke & Adams, 2011;Malecki & Jewell, 2003;Olinghouse, 2008), others do not (e.g. Adams, Simmons, & Willis, 2015;Jones & Myhill, 2007;Williams & Larkin, 2013). A first step towards understanding this variation should be the systematic exploration of factors suggested to underpin gender differences, examined using educationally relevant tools comparable to measures used for progress monitoring and identification of writing difficulties in schools (Jewell & Malecki, 2005;Kim, Al Otaiba, Wanzek, & Gatlin, 2015).…”

“…Gender differences tend to be found more consistently in assessments of writing productivity than writing quality (Fearrington et al, 2014;Mäki, Voeten, Vauras, & Poskiparta, 2001). For example, although some studies have found gender differences in both writing productivity and quality (Babayigit, 2015;Kim et al, 2015;Malecki & Jewell, 2003;Olinghouse, 2008), others have found differences only in production-dependent measures or failed to identify gender differences based on indices of text quality (Adams et al, 2015;Jewell & Malecki, 2005;Jones & Myhill, 2007;Williams & Larkin, 2013). Such inconsistencies emphasise the importance of assessing both productivity and quality on the basis of educationally valid aspects of writing performance, in any exploration of factors proposed to underpin gender differences in writing abilities.…”