Is working memory just short-term memory? For instance, DD has a superior digit span, as I mentioned; however, she can also easily memorize entire play scripts, which have to be retained in long-term memory. She has great recall for all kinds of facts, like scientific names of plants, as well as stuff like geography and what types of clouds look like, which involves visual memory. She had to use all this memory stuff to be an early reader, too, I assume.
It seems to be that long-term memory HAS to be part of the package of giftedness, doesn't it? If you can't retain information, then you don't really present as gifted. Possibly gifted with LDs. Short-term memory seems less relevant to me.
BTW, my own short-term memory is not very good. I have some weird holes in my math fact recall (for instance, I always used to have to do 8+4+1 to get to 8+5--it was not automatic) that, interestingly, have been somewhat remediated by doing math fact review with DD. (I wonder why this worked when years of doing math didn't??)
I have to agree.
I'll add, here, that I am a reasonably proficient physical scientist and that I have a MAJOR hole in my working memory in a functional sense. I can't hold more than
three digits in my working memory.
Truly.
I have to use long-term memory for things like phone numbers, account numbers, etc. Now, once I have that information in long term memory, then I can play with it at will and my recall pretty much NEVER goes away. I can remember every phone number I've had since I was five, every address, every zip code, etc. But I can't dial a seven-digit-- nevermind a ten-digit-- phone number without referring back to the written number at least once, usually twice.
Math facts were
hellish for me, personally, as a timed-test exercise in school. Just a seemingly impossible/pointless task that seemed aimed at destroying my self-esteem and any thought that I might be "good at math." I was a real shock to teachers in a split 3rd/4th classroom that introduced a geometry "pullout" for the 4th graders.... when as a 'not-particularly-mathy' 3rd grade me ran circles around all of the 4th graders and quickly outstripped the teacher's expertise, too. Kind of wish that they'd have mentioned that before I incorporated "crappy at math" into my self-image. That would have saved me a lot of years of grief later.
ANYway...
I say that because my working memory is otherwise not that great for
some kinds of information, and distinctly average for others, and yet...
extraordinary for yet others. (I have that freakish, savant-type short-term and working memory for
colors. While an interesting and sometimes convenient parlor trick, it's little more in my life since I'm not an artist or designer.) Having conversed with a few people that have similar recall for numbers, most of them feel similarly. It's not really that useful, working memory, without the faster processor to go with it.
I do
not believe that a single evaluation
can shed light on "working memory" in any way which is meaningful functionally. It's too dependent on the nature of the input. I have
very good working memory for some types of input, and very poor working memory with others. I do not have any learning disability to account for this discrepancy.
I also disagree that good working memory is necessary for working at high level in a subject. I have seen far too many examples where that is very very clearly not the case. Including Nobel and Fields winners. They may have areas of prodigious ability in working memory, but not necessarily. Some of them really are "I have to write it down or I'll lose it" types, and occasionally even 'globally' so, including their area of expertise.
Michaela is right, here, in my opinion; I don't think that WM is all that well understood, and I suspect that the theoretical underpinnings have some flaws. This entire construct isn't very robust when one looks at how it works in pragmatic, uncontrolled settings.
