Untangling the Contribution of the Subcomponents of Working Memory to Mathematical Proficiency as Measured by the National Tests: A Study among Swedish Third Graders

Abstract

The aim with the present study was to examine the relationship between the subcomponents in working memory (WM) and mathematical performance, as measured by the National tests in a sample of 597 Swedish third-grade pupils. In line with compelling evidence of other studies, individual differences in WM capacity significantly predicted mathematical performance. Dividing the sample into four groups, based on their mathematical performance, revealed that mathematical ability can be conceptualized in terms of different WM profiles. Pupils categorized as High-math performers particularly differed from the other three groups in having a significant higher phonological ability. In contrast, pupils categorized as Low-math performers were particularly characterized by having a significant lower visuo-spatial ability. Findings suggest that it is important for educators to recognize and acknowledge individual differences in WM to support mathematical achievement at an individual level.

The Relationship between Visuospatial Working Memory and Mathematical Performance in School-Aged Children: a Systematic Review

“…It is to be expected that the range of effect sizes resulting from studies of Mathematical Reasoning would have been greater if more studies had investigated Mathematical Reasoning alone. Two studies (Maennamaa et al 2012;Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al 2016) investigated both types of mathematics using large samples, which may have skewed the average effect size generated for this subgroup as 13 studies used small samples. However, as suggested by Button et al (2013), it may be the case that these larger samples provide the power to detect effects within the data and increase the likelihood that statistically significant results are reflective of true effects.…”

“…Further, it may suggest the more stable development of simultaneous VSWM by the age of children included in these studies (5 and 6 years, respectively, for both types of VSWM and simultaneous only). All four studies involving large sample sizes (Maennamaa et al 2012;Mix et al, 2015;Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al 2015;Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al 2016) concerned both types of VSWM, which may explain, in part, the large range of effect sizes for this category (14 used small samples), whereas all studies concerning only simultaneous or sequential VSWM used small sample sizes.…”

How Is Working Memory Training Likely to Influence Academic Performance? Current Evidence and Methodological Considerations

“…WMC predicts measures of current and future mathematical abilities (Passolunghi et al, 2007 ; De Smedt et al, 2009 ; Raghubar et al, 2010 ; Dumontheil and Klingberg, 2012 ; Peng et al, 2016 ) and their partly overlapping neuroanatomical correlates have been suggested to account for at least some of this observable relation (Zago et al, 2002 ; Swanson et al, 2008 ; Metcalfe et al, 2013 ). However, longitudinal studies have found different components of WM to be related to mathematics performance at different ages (De Smedt et al, 2009 ; Holmes et al, 2009 ; Raghubar et al, 2010 ) and between aspects of mathematics within the same age (Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al, 2016 ). The developmental stage of the participants does not only relate to the cognitive development (linked closely to age) but also to the quality and quantity of exposure participants have had to mathematical training (Morrison et al, 1997 ; Roberts et al, 2015 ).…”

“…These two domains both rely on a number of cognitive functions, of which WM (and its different components) has been demonstrated to be one (Swanson and Jerman, 2006 ; Swanson et al, 2008 ; Geary, 2011 ). How WM relates to mathematics does not only depend on which domains of WM and mathematics are being assessed (Peng et al, 2016 ; Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al, 2016 ) but also on other aspects such developmental stage of the subjects and how tasks are presented (DeStefano et al, 2004 ).…”

Data_Sheet_1.PDF

“…In his model, Baddeley (2000) added the episodic buffer, which is alleged to be responsible for the temporary storage of information from the two sub-systems and the long-term memory. Individual differences in the performance of complex working memory tasks, which are commonly defined as measures of the working memory capacity (WMC), arise from differences in an individual's cognitive ability to actively store, actively process, and selectively consider the information required to produce an output in a setting with potentially interfering distractions (Shah and Miyake, 1996;Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al, 2016).…”