Paviter Singh [t560]

Assignment 1: Annotated Bibliography

Summary
In preparing my annotated bibliography, I looked at attention. From Eric Knudsen

(2007), I learned that there were voluntary and involuntary controls or processes related to

attention. I decided to focus my own attention on the voluntary controls or the processes of

executive control. These include working memory, top down sensitivity controls and

competitive selection. Before focusing on the individual differences, I selected several

articles (Knudsen, 2007; Awh and Vogel, 2008; Suk Wok Han, 2009) that had conflicting

opinions on whether attention controlled working memory or the other way around. From my

readings, the argument put forward by Awh and Vogel (2008) that the tight links between

working memory and attention suggest that they may be the same mechanism seem to be best

supported with neurological evidence and experiments. In addition to this, the other articles I

selected helped me to understand that there were individual differences in executive control.

Michael Posner and Mary Rothbart (2007) argued that human behavior is regulated by

voluntary control. The authors added that individual differences arise partly out of the genes

we carry as well as our specific social and cultural experiences. Two studies, the first by

Burrage, Ponitz, McCready, Shah, Sims, Jewkes and Morrison (2008) and the second by

Waber, Gerber, Wagner and Forbes (2006) went on to talk about the role of the environment

and schooling in influencing executive functions in children. While both these studies agreed

that background and socialization were indicators that determined the level of executive

function in children, it was possible for children from disadvantaged environments to ‘catch

up’ with their peers through training and education in school. The diagram below outlines the

approach I have taken in researching and preparing this annotated bibliography.

  1
 Diagram: Outline of Approach1

                                                        
1
A jpeg copy of this diagram is attached separately.

  2
Journal Reference: Eric Knudsen. (2007). Fundamental Components of Attention
[Electronic Version]. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 57-80.
Journal Abstract: A mechanistic understanding of attention is necessary for the elucidation
of the neurobiological basis of conscious experience. This chapter presents a framework for
thinking about attention that facilitates the analysis of this cognitive process in terms of
underlying neural mechanisms. Four processes are fundamental to attention: working
memory, top-down sensitivity control, competitive selection, and automatic bottom-up
filtering for salient stimuli. Each process makes a distinct and essential contribution to
attention. Voluntary control of attention involves the first three processes (working memory,
top-down sensitivity control, and competitive selection) operating in a recurrent loop. Recent
results from neurobiological research on attention are discussed within this framework.

Comments: This research puts forth that attention represents an ongoing competition among
information processing hierarchies for access to working memory (Suk Won Han, 2009;
Knudsen, 2007). There is a disagreement between this article and one by Suk Won Han on
the roles of attention and working memory. Unlike Suk Won Han who argues that selective
attention “allocates” limited resources to the most critical and relevant aspects of information,
Knudsen expresses that the identification of targets or “deployment” is not carried out by
attention but working memory. According to Knudsen, it is working memory that makes the
decisions and deploys top-down signals to improve the quality of information it processes. A
third perspective is offered by Awh and Vogel (2008) who mention that attention and
working memory may essentially be the same mechanism primarily because of the overlap in
the cortical areas that are active during attention and working memory tasks.

The implications for UDL of all of the above arguments are the need to design lessons and
material that not only capture attention but are able to sustain that attention (recurrent loop)
so as to have working memory act on and retain the information.

In my view, guideline 3, checkpoint 3.3 would need to be expanded. It is necessary to

consider how in the process of summarizing, categorizing, prioritizing and contextualizing -
information can be improved so as to sustain attention to trigger working memory into
identifying this information as important.

  3
Journal Reference: Suk Won Han and Min-Shik Kim. (2009). Do the Contents of Working
Memory Capture Attention? Yes, But Cognitive Control Matters [Electronic Version].
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 1292-1302.
Journal Abstract: There has been a controversy on whether working memory can guide
attentional selection. Some researchers have reported that the contents of working memory
guide attention automatically in visual search (D. Soto, D. Heinke, G. W. Humphreys, & M.
J. Blanco, 2005). On the other hand, G.F. Woodman and S. J. Luck (2007) reported that they
could not find any evidence of attentional capture by working memory. In the present study,
we tried to find an integrative explanation for the different sets of results. We report evidence
for attentional capture by working memory, but this effect was eliminated when search was
perceptually demanding or the onset of the search was delayed long enough for cognitive
control of search to be implemented under particular conditions. We suggest that perceptual
difficulty and the time course of cognitive control as important factors that determine when
information in working memory influences attention.

Comments: This research claims mixed evidence on the method and circumstances in which
the contents of working memory influence attention. The method is clarified by Knudsen
(2007) when he explains how neural signals representing salient stimuli influence working
memory temporarily for a very short period of time of less than a few hundred ms. However,
based on these stimuli, working memory decides on information it deems to be of greatest
importance. This information is then retains control of working memory and serves as the
basis of subsequent top-down sensitivity controls. Knudsen (2007) and Suk Won Han (2009)
both express similar difficulty in terms of the circumstances under which the contents of
working memory influence attention, in particular when the information is gated into
working memory.

The methods in which the contents of working memory influence attention have implications
on UDL. We must provide multiple means of engagement so as to compete for attention and
influence working memory. The design must include means of engagement and re-
engagement so as to ensure that the information being presented is deemed important enough
to be retained in working memory.

For this to happen, several guidelines may be expanded and clarified. I have chosen to
elaborate on Guideline 1, checkpoint 1.1. This guideline provides a flexible format of display
for greater perceptional clarity. The degree of customization that is mentioned in this
guideline must be expanded to provide interest and challenge that will engage and re-engage
learners.

  4
Journal Reference: Edward Awh and Edward K Vogel. (2008). The bouncer in the brain
[Electronic Version]. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 5-6.
Journal Abstract: Efficiency variations in the filtering of relevant from irrelevant
information could contribute to individual differences in working memory. A new functional
imaging study suggests that the basal ganglia act as this filter because activity in this region
before stimulus presentation was inversely correlated with unnecessary storage.

Comments: As mentioned in the summary, Awh and Vogel disagree with Knudsen (2007)
and Sun Wok Han (2009) and put forth that the tight links between attention and working
memory suggest that they are essentially the same mechanism. This view is supported by the
overlap in the cortical areas that are active during attention and working memory tasks. Awh
and Vogel (2008) also argue that an individual’s working memory capacity is highly
predictive of his performance, a view that supports the earlier work by Randall Engle (2002)
who studied performances of individuals on the Stroop test among others. This article also
puts forward that individuals with lower working memory capacity may actually hold more
information than those with higher working memory capacity except for the fact that the
information being held may not be relevant to the current task (Engle, 2002).

If this is true, the implications for UDL are that tasks must be designed in such a way as to
guide the learner to prioritize what is important over what is not. In addition, there should be
as few distracters as possible because not all individuals would be able to distinguish these
from the main body of information.

While I feel that several guidelines may need to be relooked at, I will use guideline 2,
checkpoint 2.5 as an example. In this guideline, we prepare material to explain key concepts
non-linguistically. However, in doing this, would we be distracting the learner and providing
him with more information (quantity) over quality?

  5
Journal Reference: Michael I. Posner and Mary K Rothbart. (2007). Research on Attention
Networks as a Model for the Integration of Psychological Science [Electronic Version].
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 1-23.
Journal Abstract: As Titchener pointed out more than one hundred years ago, attention is at
the center of the psychological enterprise. Attention research investigates how voluntary
control and subjective experience arise from and regulate our behavior. In recent years,
attention has been one of the fastest growing of all fields within cognitive psychology and
cognitive neuroscience. This review examines attention as characterized by linking common
neural networks with individual differences in their efficient utilization. The development of
attentional networks is partly specified by genes, but is also open to specific experiences
through the actions of caregivers and the culture. We believe that the connection between
neural networks, genes, and socialization provides a common approach to all aspects of
human cognition and emotion. Pursuit of this approach can provide a basis for psychology
that unifies social, cultural, differential, experimental, and physiological areas, and allows
normal development to serve as a baseline for understanding various forms of pathology.
D.O. Hebb proposed this approach 50 years ago in his volume Organization of Behavior and
continued with introductory textbooks that dealt with all of the topics of psychology in a
common framework. Use of a common network approach to psychological science may
allow a foundation for predicting and understanding human behavior in its varied forms.

Comments: In reviewing this article, I focused on the fact that voluntary control (executive
control) and subjective experience arise from and regulate human behavior. This article goes
on to argue in favor of individual differences in voluntary control, an argument that is
supported by Burrage, Ponitz, McCready, Shah, Sims, Jewkes and Morrison (2008) and
Waber, Gerber, Wagner and Forbes (2006) in their study of young children. What I find
particularly interesting is the fact that this article attributes individual differences to social
and cultural settings.
The implications of this on UDL are that we need to cater for differences that our learners
might have in terms of their level of socialization and cultural background. How do we
equalize for such differences?
While guideline 2, checkpoint 2.4 provides options for cross-linguistic understanding; we
would need to expand this to include cultural differences that are embedded in language. It
may not be enough, for example to translate the lesson into another language, as there would
be nuances that have not been catered for.

  6
Journal Reference: Marie Burrage, Claire C Ponitz, Elizabeth A McCready, Priti Shah,
Brian C Sims, Abigail M Jewkes and Fredrick J Morrison. (2008). Age and Schooling-
Related Effects on Executive Functions in Young Children: A Natural Experiment
[Electronic Version]. Child Neuropsychology. 14, 510-524.
Journal Abstract: We employed a cutoff design in order to examine age- and schooling-
related effects on executive functions. Specifically, we looked at development of working
memory and response inhibition over the period of 1 school year in prekindergarten and
kindergarten students born within 4 months of each other. All children improved on
executive function and word-decoding tasks from the beginning to the end of the year.
Additionally, we found prekindergarten- and kindergarten-schooling effects for the working
memory and worddecoding asks (p < .05), and a trend-level prekindergarten-schooling effect
for the response inhibition task (p < .10).

Comments: The article, like the one by Waber, Gerber, Wagner and Forbes (2006) focused
on executive function in young children. Both articles agree that executive function in both
adults and young children can be improved through training. This article also agrees with
Posner and Rothbart (2007) that there are significant cultural differences in executive
functions that become evident from a young age. Burrage et al., also agree with Posner and
Rothbart (2007) on the important role economic background and status plays in determining
individual differences in executive function.

If this is true, the implications for UDL are that we need to be aware that there will be
learners who come from different economic backgrounds and therefore do not have access to
the same contextual information as other learners. It would be incorrect to assume that all
learners for example have parents and eat three meals a day.

As such, guideline 3, checkpoint 3.1 would need to be expanded. Not enough is mentioned
about how additional support can be provided to learners from disadvantaged or poor
economic backgrounds to provide them with the necessary background and contextual
knowledge.

  7
Journal Reference: Deborah P Waber, Emily B Gerber, Viana Turcios, Erin Wagner and
Peter Forbes. (2006). Executive Functions and Performance on High-Stakes Testing in
Children From Urban Schools [Electronic Version]. Developmental Neuropsychology. 29,
459-477.
Journal Abstract: High-stakes achievement testing is a centerpiece of education reform.
Children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds typically perform more poorly than their
more advantaged peers. The authors evaluated 91 fifth-grade children from low-income
urban schools using clinical neuropsychological tests and behavioral questionnaires and
obtained fourth-grade scores on state mandated standards- based testing. Goals were to
determine whether executive functions are selectively diminished in children from poor urban
environments and to evaluate to what extent integrity of executive functions is associated
with test scores. Neuropsychological variables (particularly executive functions) accounted
for 40% of the variance in English scores and 30% in mathematics. Efforts to improve
children’s academic achievement should consider developmental factors as well as curricular
content.

Comments: This article, like the one by Burrage, Ponitz, McCready, Shah, Sims, Jewkes and
Morrison (2008) focuses on executive functions in young children. According to Waber et
al., (2006), children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may show higher levels
of cognitive dysregulation (Posner and Rothbart, 2007; Burrage et al., 2008). However while
this article agrees with Burrage et al. that individual differences brought about by
socialization and economic hardship can be overcome, these disadvantages would not be
completely overcome. As such, although executive functions are not “hard wired” (Waber et
al., p. 462, 2006) especially for such individuals, individual differences cannot be completely
overcome by schooling or training.

If this is true, the implications for UDL are to provide support and scaffolding to enable
learners who come from severely disadvantaged backgrounds to operate on a level playing
field? For example, can we provide lessons that embed the principles of UDL without the use
of expensive technology that is potentially restrictive and not accessible to learners from poor
economic backgrounds?

This therefore applies to all UDL principles. Although we have at present been using
technology to demonstrate how these principles and the various checkpoints can be
embedded in lessons, we must move beyond the use of technology to print media and other
forms of teaching that are more easily accessible to learners of diverse backgrounds.

  8
Bibliography

Deborah P Waber, Emily B Gerber, Viana Turcios, Erin Wagner and Peter Forbes. (2006).
Executive Functions and Performance on High-Stakes Testing in Children From Urban
Schools [Electronic Version]. Developmental Neuropsychology. 29, 459-477.
Edward Awh and Edward K Vogel. (2008). The bouncer in the brain [Electronic Version].
Nature Neuroscience, 11, 5-6.

Eric Knudsen. (2007). Fundamental Components of Attention [Electronic Version]. Annual

Review of Neuroscience, 30, 57-80.

Marie Burrage, Claire C Ponitz, Elizabeth A McCready, Priti Shah, Brian C Sims, Abigail M
Jewkes and Fredrick J Morrison. (2008). Age and Schooling-Related Effects on Executive
Functions in Young Children: A Natural Experiment [Electronic Version]. Child
Neuropsychology. 14, 510-524.

Michael I. Posner and Mary K Rothbart. (2007). Research on Attention Networks as a Model
for the Integration of Psychological Science [Electronic Version]. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 1-23.

Suk Won Han and Min-Shik Kim. (2009). Do the Contents of Working Memory Capture
Attention? Yes, But Cognitive Control Matters [Electronic Version]. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 35, 1292-1302.
 

  9