From: Michael Korcok <mmk1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
To: EDEBATE@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: speak fast
The best evidence available indicates that speedy speaking makes you
smarter. This claim has a now solid base of research support from nearly
a quarter-century of studies in cognitive psychology. To a cognitive
psychologist this claim would not be surprising nor would it necessarily
even be considered controversial: a considerable body of evidence is now
available to substantiate the claim that speaking faster makes one
smarter.
Debate pedagogy is sometimes criticized because debate competitors
speak "like auctioneers", are "incomprehensibly fast", or talk "at a
ridiculous pace". Occasionally, those objecting press the point by
insisting that either individual debaters or that debate as a whole "slow
down or else". The proper response to the critics is that speedy speaking
is a pedagogically sound practice: speaking faster improves cognitive
ability.
Speech rate determines working memory capacity and working memory
capacity is a critical component of cognitive ability. The argument is
that simple, but the support for it is formidable. Two relationships must
be shown to establish this argument :
1) speech rate determines working memory capacity.
2) working memory capacity is a critical component of cognitive ability.
Initially, both of these relationships have strong support from
research in cognitive psychology. An overall sense of this argument was
presented in the October 1992 Psychology Today report of the results of
the Raine et al study:
"If friends criticize you for talking too fast, at least they can't also
accuse you of having a bad memory. Speech rate is a strong index of short
term memory span... 'Therefore, the faster you can talk, the greater your
short-term memory,' says Adrian Raine, PhD, a University of Southern
California psychologist. The link has been established for adults for
some time, Raine reports in Child Development. Now, he and his colleagues
find the correlation holds for kids as well, a finding that promises
short-term payoff in the classroom and long-term payoff in life.
Short-term memory is the power behind recall of phone numbers, directions,
and other everyday tasks. It is also the foundation of arithmetic and
reading skills... That raises the possibility that speech- training may
be a short-cut to achievement." (p.14)
*******************************************************************************
1) speech rate determines working memory capacity
The first relationship, that speech rate determines working memory
capacity, has been subjected to numerous studies over the last 20 years.
Professors Charles Hulme and Susie Mackenzie examined over 20 of these
studies in their 1992 book Working Memory and Severe Learning
Difficulties. They summarized the results of their and others' research:
"These results are striking in that the same linear function relating
recall to speech rate fits the results for all age groups. Subjects of
different ages in this study all recalled, on average, as much as they
could say in roughly 1.5 seconds. Increases in memory span with age are
seen to be very closely related to changes in speech rate with age. Thus
the results of these different studies are remarkably clear and
consistent. The dramatic improvements in serial recall performance with
increasing age are closely and quantitatively related to changes in speech
rate. In terms of the articulatory loop theory, which gave impetus to
these studies, the length of the loop appears to remain constant across
different ages; more material is stored in this system because it can be
spoken and so rehearsed more rapidly. These results, relating
developmental increases in speech rate to increases in short-term memory
efficiency, lead quite directly to a simple causal theory:
That increases in memory span with age depend upon increases in speech
rate. Needless to say, however, such a theory is not necessitated by the
findings. The findings are essentially correlational; as children get
older their speech rate increases and in line with this so does their
memory performance. It could be that both these changes depend upon some
other factor. The obvious way to test this causal theory is to conduct a
training study. If short-term memory depends upon speech rate, if we can
successfully train children to speak faster, then this should, according
to the theory, lead to a corresponding increase in short-term memory.
(p.45)
Despite the "remarkably clear and consistent" results of numerous
studies which point toward a causal relationship between speaking rate and
working memory capacity, there has been only one reported attempt to
directly test that causal relationship by training subjects to speak
faster. Hulme and Muir (1985) did not succeed in teaching their subjects
to speak faster and thus the relationship could not be tested. Cognitive
psychologists, frustrated by their inability to teach speedy speaking, a
task which nearly every debate coach accomplishes regularly, turned to
other means to explore the relationship between speech rate and working
memory capacity. The Raine et al. study is perhaps the best known attempt
to test the relationship between speech rate and working memory capacity.
Hulme and Mackenzie (1992, p. 47) explained the approach taken by Raine
et. al.:
"Most recently, Raine, Hulme, Chadderton, and Bailey (1991) have tried to
explore this causal theory about the relationship between articulation
rate and memory span in children with speech disorders. The theory
predicts that children with pathologically slow speech will show reduced
short-term memory capacity. Raine et al. set out to test this, selecting
children undergoing speech therapy who were considered to show marked
impairments in their rate of speech in the absence of any significant
receptive language difficulties."
The results of the Raine et. al. study provided further but still not
completely definitive support for the causal relationship between speech
rate and working memory capacity. Hulme and Mackenzie (1992, p. 47)
reported that:
"The results of this experiment were straightforward, and provided good
support for the theory linking developments in short-term memory capacity
to improvements in articulatory speed with age. The speech disordered
children had lower short-term memory spans, and showed smaller word-length
effects, and less evidence of speech motor activity during rehearsal
periods, than the normal children. Covariance analyses showed that these
differences were not a function of differences in intelligence or motor
speed between the groups. Furthermore, using speech rate as a covariate
actually abolished the group difference in short-term memory span between
the groups. In other words, statistically eliminating differences in
speech rate between the groups, eliminated the differences in memory span.
Finally a separate analysis of the children with dysarthria (a relatively
pure group, with peripheral problems in the control of the speech
musculature) showed exactly the same pattern."
Professor Adrian Raine et al. (1991, p.422) similarly concluded, once
again noting that speech rate as a covariate abolished group differences
in working memory capacity:
"Theoretically, the findings from both the normal and speech-disordered
children are consistent with a theory that posits a direct link between
developmental improvements in speech rate and short-term memory
performance. In particular, the finding that speech rate as a covariate
abolished group differences in short-term memory is consistent with the
hypothesis that such differences are determined by differences in speech
rate. Nevertheless, the problem of a tertium quid [intervening variable]
remains. It is still not possible to claim that a causal link between
changes in speech rate and developmental improvement in short-term memory
has been demonstrated."
The Raine et al. study confirmed once again the "remarkably clear and
consistent" results from nearly 25 years of research into the relationship
between speech rate and working memory capacity. Hulme and Mackenzie
(1992, p. 48) took stock of the results of Raine et al.:
"The overall pattern of results here is, therefore, consistent with the
idea that speech rate is a causal determinant of verbal memory span. It
is still possible that these results reflect some other difference between
the speech disordered and normal children apart from speech rate. If such
a factor exists, it would seem in any case to be closely related to speech
rate. Further studies which follow children with speech disorders
undergoing speech therapy might help to clarify the picture. If it could
be shown that increases in articulation speed in these children, following
speech therapy, are paralleled by equivalent improvements in short-term
memory, this would provide even stronger support for the theory."
Finally, here, it should be noted that there are no promising
alternatives to the theory that there is a simple causal relationship
between speech rate and working memory capacity. Hulme and Mackenzie
(1992, p. 49) conclude the discussion of the relationship between speech
rate and working memory capacity:
"The most successful explanation to date draws on the idea of an
articulatory loop, as embodied in the working memory model. It would seem
that there is no increase in the capacity of this system with age, but
that there are large increases in articulation speed. These increases in
articulation speed enable more information to be rehearsed within the
decay time of the loop, so increasing the amount that can be stored.
There is a close, quantitative relationship between the changes in
articulation rate that occur with increasing age and the increases in
memory span that are observed. The relationship between articulation rate
and memory span provides an explanation for variations in span across
individuals both within and across age groups, and across different types
of materials (words of different lengths). There is no doubt that an
explanation of short-term memory improvements in terms of increases in
articulation rate with age is by far the most successful explanation to
date. It should be stressed, however, that this causal theory is so far
based on purely correlational evidence. We cannot say that the proposed
causal link between improvements in articulatory skills with age, and
changes in short-term memory, has yet been demonstrated conclusively.
Nevertheless, this theory provides the first explanation, in quantitative
terms, for the growth of short-term memory span with age and it also
provides an explanation for the individual differences in span that exist
within all age groups, including adults."
**************************************************************************
2) working memory capacity is a critical component of cognitive ability.
The second relationship, that working memory capacity is a critical
component of cognitive ability, is universally accepted: the only
question among cognitive psychologists seems to be exactly how much of
individual differences in the various components of intelligence are
attributable to differences in working memory capacity. The best
available evidence indicates: "a lot".
Professors Charles Hulme and Susie Mackenzie explained the received view
of the role of working memory in cognition in their 1992 book Working
Memory and Severe Learning Difficulties. Hulme and Mackenzie (1992, p.21)
observe that:
"In its broadest sense, working memory refers to the use of temporary
storage mechanisms in the performance of more complex tasks. So, for
example, in order to read and understand prose, we must be able to hold
incoming information in memory. This is necessary in order to compute the
semantic and syntactic relationships among successive words, phrases, and
sentences and so construct a coherent and meaningful representation of the
meaning of the text. This temporary storage of information during reading
is said to depend on working memory. In this view the ability to
understand prose will depend on, among other things, the capacity of a
person^Òs working memory system. Such temporary storage of information is
obviously necessary for the performance of a wide variety of other tasks
apart from reading, such as mental arithmetic (Hitch, 1978) and verbal
reasoning (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)."
The importance of short-term or working memory to cognitive functioning
has been understood for more than 100 years. That is why all established
IQ tests, for example, contain a working memory capacity component.
Professors Hulme and Mackenzie (1992, p. 17) reported in their book:
"Memory span was also quickly accepted as a useful index of mental
capacity. A memory span test was included in the first test of mental
development devised by Binet and Simon, and a digit span test is still a
part of modern IQ and mental ability tests, such as the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), the British Ability Scales (BAS),
and the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA)."
The inclusion of measures of working memory capacity in indexes of general
intelligence has received strong support in the research literature.
Professor Susan Embretson of the University of Kansas (1995, p.169) noted
that working memory capacity as a determinant of general intelligence is
one of two extant theories of general intelligence:
"Two contrasting explanations about the basis of individual differences in
general intelligence have emerged under the information-processing
paradigm: general control processing (i.e. global metacomponent
functioning) versus working memory capacity^Å. In contrast, the working
memory capacity explanation of abstract intelligence concerns the amount
of information that may be handled simultaneously in the performance of
component processes. For example, in Pellegrino and Glaser^Òs (1980)
process analysis of inductive reasoning tasks, processing difficulty was
influenced by two major factors: (a) rule complexity, the number of
elements in the rule that must be inferred; and (b) representational
variability, ambiguity in the meaning of the item stimuli. Rule
complexity determines the working memory capacity required to
simultaneously process and store information about task solution, whereas
representational variability is more related to general control processes.
Pellegrino and Glaser (1980) emphasized working memory capacity in their
theory of individual differences. Similar sources of difficulty for
inductive reasoning tasks were also supported in Carpenter, Just and
Shell^Òs (1990) process analysis of Raven^Òs Progressive Matrices Test, a
well-established measure of general abstract intelligence^Å. Although the
role of abstraction capacity is recognized, the Carpenter et al.
theoretical analysis emphasizes working memory capacity, like Pellegrino
and Glaser."
Even though Embretson (1995, p.169) ultimately concludes that general
control processing is more important for IQ than working memory capacity,
she nonetheless argues that working memory capacity is a critical
component of general intelligence:
"With this model, working memory capacity could be separated from general
control processing because item processing requirements for the former
varies systematically across items (Carpenter, Just, and Shell, 1990),
whereas the latter remains constant. Structural equation modeling
indicated that both processing abilities were significant sources of
individual differences. However, general control processing had a
stronger impact."
Apart from questions of the contribution of working memory capacity to
general intelligence, the relationship between working memory capacity and
two parts of general intelligence have been studied more extensively:
reasoning ability and language comprehension. For both, working memory
capacity is critical.
a. reasoning ability
The most comprehensive assessment of the relationship between working
memory capacity and reasoning ability was undertaken by Kyllonen and
Christal (1990, p. 389) at the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory. They
concluded that nearly all of the individual differences in reasoning
ability could be attributed to individual differences in working memory
capacity. They explained the approach they took in their article
"Reasoning Ability Is (Little More Than) Working Memory Capacity?!":
"This paper is concerned with the relationship between two central
constructs - reasoning ability and working-memory capacity - which arise
from two distinct bodies of literature on individual differences in
cognition, the psychometric and the information-processing, respectively.
In four separate studies (N=723, 412, 415, and 594), we assessed reasoning
ability using various tests from the psychometric literature, and
working-memory capacity using tests constructed according to Baddeley's
(1986) definition of working memory. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded
consistently high estimates of the correlation between working-memory
capacity and reasoning ability factors (r = .80 to .90)."
The extremely high correlation between working memory capacity and
reasoning ability was further noted by Kyllonen and Christal. Kyllonen
and Christal (1990, p. 426) concluded:
"This series of studies was concerned with determining the relationship
between general reasoning ability (R ) and general working-memory capacity
(WM). In four studies, with over 2000 subjects, using a variety of tests
to measure reasoning ability and working-memory capacity, we have
demonstrated a consistent and remarkably high correlation between the two
factors. Our best estimates of the correlation between the WM and R were
.82, .88, .80, and .82 for Studies 1 through 4, respectively. These
estimates were fairly robust with respect to the sample of subjects, the
tests used as factor indicators, and to the modeling procedure. In each
study, various alternative models, which made differing assumptions about
tests' factorial compositions, were fit to the data, without much effect
on the estimate of the correlation between the two factors. The finding
of such a high correlation between these two factors may surprise some."
b. language comprehension
The outstanding cognitive psychology research examining the relationship
between working memory capacity and language comprehension has been
undertaken by Marcel Just and Patricia Carpenter of Carnegie Mellon
University. Following the standard interpretation of the role of working
memory in cognition, Just and Carpenter (1992, p. 122) observed the
putative importance of working memory capacity in language comprehension:
"Working memory plays a central role in all forms of complex thinking,
such as reasoning, problem solving, and language comprehension. However,
its function in language comprehension is especially evident because
comprehension entails processing a sequence of symbols that is produced
and perceived over time. Working memory plays a critical role in storing
the intermediate and final products of a reader^Òs or listener^Òs
computations as she or he constructs and integrates ideas from the stream
of successive words in a text or spoken discourse. In addition to its
role in storage, working memory can also be viewed as a pool of
operational resources that perform the symbolic computations and thereby
generate the intermediate and final products."
Stine, Wingfield, and Poon (1986, p.303) expanded on this shared
understanding of the critical role played by working memory in the
processing of language:
"At a very fast rate, several things must be accomplished. The various
processes required to recode linguistic stimuli into meaning have been
articulated for both spoken language (Just & Carpenter, 1980;
Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980) and written text (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978;
J. Miller & Kintsch, 1980). There must be some initial phase in which the
stimulus is encoded, physical features (visual or acoustic) are extracted,
and lexical access is achieved (Just & Carpenter, 1980). Next, the
language content must be parsed into meaningful idea units in which
relationships are determined among words (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978). These
relationships are typically represented in terms of propositions
consisting of a predicate and one or more arguments that are related by
the predicate. Third, relationships between idea units of the text must
be established in order to construct overall structural coherence in the
text. Finally, the text must be related to and integrated with world
knowledge. Although such processes would undoubtedly have to work in both
a top-down and bottom-up fashion, the output at each of these stages would
have to be held in an online working memory for an effective integration
of meaning."
Unsurprisingly, Just and Carpenter found that individual differences in
working memory capacity account for individual differences in language
comprehension. Just and Carpenter (1992, p. 122, 124) concluded:
"Individual differences in working memory capacity for language can
account for qualitative and quantitative differences among college-age
adults in several aspects of language comprehension. One aspect is
syntactic modularity: The larger capacity of some individuals permits
interaction among syntactic and pragmatic information, so that their
syntactic processes are not informationally encapsulated. Another aspect
is syntactic ambiguity: The larger capacity of some individuals permits
them to maintain multiple interpretations^Å. Performance differences
among college student readers are small and often negligible when the
comprehension task is easy, but large and systematic when the
comprehension task is demanding. This result is easily explained by the
total capacity hypothesis, because capacity limitations would affect
performance only when the resource demands of the task exceed the
available supply."
In summary, the best available evidence establishes both portions of the
argument that speedy speech makes you smarter:
1) speech rate determines working memory capacity.
2) working memory capacity is a critical component of cognitive
ability.
Despite the fact that a final causal test of the first relationship awaits
a debate coach willing and able to teach a test group to speak more
rapidly in a pre-test/post-test control group design, the extant evidence
provides a nonetheless compelling pedagogical justification for debaters^Ò
speedy speaking. Works Cited
Embretson, Susan E. (1995). The role of working memory capacity and
general control processes in intelligence. Intelligence, 20, 169-189.
Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory and Severe
Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hulme, Charles & Muir, C. (1985). Developmental changes in speech rate
and memory span: A causal relationship? British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 3, 175-181.
Just, Marcel & Carpenter, Patricia A. (1992). A capacity theory of
comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological
Review, vol. 99, no. 1, 122-149.
Kyllonen, Patrick C., & Christal, Raymond E. (1990). Reasoning ability is
(little more than) working-memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14, 389-433.
Raine, Adrian, Hulme, Charles, Chadderton, Helen, & Bailey, Pauline,
(1991). Verbal short-term memory span in speech-disordered children:
Implications for articulatory coding in short-term memory. Child
Development, 62, 415-423.
Stine, Elizabeth L., Wingfield, Arthur, & Poon, Leonard. (1986). How much
and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language in later adulthood.
Psychology and Aging, vol. 1, no. 4, 303-311.
|
