Increase Working Memory and Increase IQ
A key research report on working memory was summarized in a recent guest column in the New York Times by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt. Below is a summary of what they said in the article:
J. R. Flynn first noted that standardized intelligence quotient (I.Q.) scores were rising by three points per decade in many countries, and even faster in some countries like the Netherlands and Israel. For instance, in verbal and performance I.Q., an average Dutch 14-year-old in 1982 scored 20 points higher than the average person of the same age in his parents’ generation in 1952. These I.Q. increases over a single generation suggest that the environmental conditions for developing brains have become more favorable in some way.
What might be changing? One strong candidate is working memory, defined as the ability to hold information in mind while manipulating it to achieve a cognitive goal. Examples include remembering a clause while figuring out how it relates the rest of a sentence, or keeping track of the solutions you’ve already tried while solving a puzzle. Flynn has pointed out that modern times have increasingly rewarded complex and abstract reasoning. Differences in working memory capacity account for 50 to 70 percent of individual differences in fluid intelligence (abstract reasoning ability) in various meta-analyses, suggesting that it is one of the major building blocks of I.Q. (2-4). This idea is intriguing because working memory can be improved by training.
A common way to measure working memory is called the "n-back" task. Presented with a sequential series of items, the person taking the test has to report when the current item is identical to the item that was presented a certain number (n) of items ago in the series. For example, the test taker might see a sequence of letters like
Tags: Advanced Progressive Matrices, Individual Differences, Netherlands, Psychological BulletinRelated posts
Make Them Learn: With Carrot or Stick?
Feedback is essential for learning. Not only does the feedback need to ensure that learning was achieved (as in testing), but feedback also needs to reinforce the motivation to learn. The age-old questions arises: do we use the carrot or the stick? Which works best, negative or positive reinforcement? Most people have an opinion, but now we have scientific studies of the question. And the answer is, it depends.
For example, three studies showed that adults correct their behavior better in response to negative feedback rather than positive feedback, whereas 8- to 11-year old children respond just the opposite. A follow-up study by Anna van Duijvenvoorde and colleagues in the