Eric Falke
Director of Cognitive Research and Interventions
Carroll School, Lincoln and Waltham MA
CONFIDENTIAL, ©2013 CARROLL SCHOOL
Overview
Why Carroll sought out cognitive interventions: student outcomes and struggles.
Relationship between cognitive skills and learning differences: working memory and reading
A cognitive approach to improving reading fluency
Cognitive Profiles: students struggle with different cognitive skills
Individualized Cognitive Training Plan
2
Mythical Carroll Student’s Academic Growth
th
th
5 Grade through 8 Grade
May 2006
(PR)
May 2009
(PR)
Broad Reading
11%ile
87%ile
Broad Math
36
94
Broad Written Language
9
65
Academic Skills
17
87
Academic Fluency
2
23
Woodcock Johnson Tests
of Achievement (2002
norms)
3
WISC-IV Profile
100 is the mean score.
15 points from the mean
represents one standard
deviation.
30 points represents two
standard deviations.
4
Cognitive Skills and Academic Struggle
Basic Reading Skills
Reading
Comprehension
Math
Writing
Working Memory
Working Memory
Working Memory
Working Memory
Phonological Processing
Fluid Reasoning
Fluid Reasoning
Executive Functions
Long-Term Memory
Executive Functions
Visual Processing
Phonological Processing
Successive Processing
Long-Term Memory
Processing Speed
Processing Speed
Carroll School, decided to take on the
role of addressing whether we could
improve students’ functioning on that
which underlies learning differences.
6
Answering the call to action
Created Cognitive Development Department 2008
Director Katie Lyslo
Alex Walker
Robin Spayde
Created Cognitive Intervention and Research Department 2012
Director Eric Falke
Ben Shepard
Rachel Curie-Rubin
April Choi
7
Class of 2014 Timeline (n=55 with complete data)
2012
2013
March
May
Oct
April
Training
Pre-test
Post-test (1m)
Training
Post-test (6m)
Post-test (1yr)
8
Class of 2014 Pre-training assessment
Verbal
Working
Memory
March
2012
14%
Visual
Working
Memory
33%
Processing
Speed
33%
Executive
Functioning
32%
Verbal Short
Term
Memory
14%
Reaction
Time
68%
Table 1. Percentage of students who had a weakness (standard scale score < 90) in each domain before
receiving cognitive training.
9
Many students have more than one normative weakness
# of Carroll Students
Class of 2014
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Number of Cognitive Weaknesses
10
Class of 2014 Post-training assessment: students with normative weaknesses:
Post-training Assessment
Verbal
Working
Memory
Visual
Working
Memory
Processing
Speed
Executive
Functioning
Verbal
Short Term
Memory
Reaction Time
May 2012
(1m)
29%
65%
30%
50%
17%
14%
Oct 2012
(6m)
38%
55%
47%
65%
13%
29%
25%
20%
Additional Round of Training
April
2013
(1y)
63%
50%
60%
70%
Table 2. Percentage of students who had a weakness before training and then improved by 1 standard deviation in
standard scores in each domain 1month, 6 months, and 1 year after cognitive training. To be considered valid the
number of students who improved by a (SD) had to exceed by 3:1 the number of students who declined in a domain.
11
Class of 2014 Post-training assessment: all students:
Class of 2014: Post-training Assessment
Verbal
Working
Memory
Visual
Working
Memory
Processing
Speed
Executive
Functioning
Verbal
Short Term
Memory
Reaction
Time
May 2012
(1m)
22%
32%
20%
23%
15%
11%
Oct 2012
(6m)
22%
25%
27%
27%
8%
19%
14%
23%
Additional Round of Training
April
2013
(1y)
34%
25%
48%
36%
Table 3. Percentage of students (total population) who improved by 1 standard deviation in standard
scores each domain 1month, 6 months, and 1 year after cognitive training.
12
Overall Benefit after Cogmed @ 1 year
16%
0 Domains
17%
67%
1 Domain
>2 Domains
13
Cognitive Profile Predicts Overall Response to Cogmed
no Verbal-STM strugglers Domains of Benefit
Verbal-STM strugglers Domains of Benefit
27%
13%
18%
54%
4%
0 Domains
0 Domains
1 Domain
1 Domain
>2 Domains
>2 Domains
83%
14
Conclusions 2014
Students have specific and individual cognitive weaknesses, which we have
begun to target through training.
Cognitive training for the Class of 2014 sustainably improved working
memory, processing speed and executive functions after one year.
Students with normative weakness had the greatest response to training.
A second round of training improves processing speed and likely verbal
working memory in children with normative weaknesses.
15
Conclusions 2014
Most students have more than one weak cognitive domain and more than one domain
of benefit from Cogmed.
Verbal short-term memory and reaction time and are less responsive to Cogmed than
other cognitive domains.
Students with verbal short-term memory weaknesses are less responsive to Cogmed
overall in multiple cognitive domains.
Cognitive interventions targeting verbal short-term memory and other domains not
addressed by Cogmed are required to meet the needs of this class.
16
A cognitive framework for LD remediation
Academic abilities such as math and reading are complex and multifaceted. Multiple
reading subskills and cognitive skills are critical for reading; reading can break down
because of deficits in any one area or because of weaknesses in multiple areas.
Using a cognitive framework we analyze the critical cognitive skills required for
academic success. We then use detailed assessment to understand which cognitive
skills need remediation.
17
Reading
What senses are involved in reading?
Hearing and vision.
18
Reading
What senses are involved in reading?
19
Brain Areas and Senses