Chapter 2, page 32
this information in working memory because her ability to translate the written letters into words is
automatic, which means that the decoding process occupies little if any working memory space. Thus, she
does not need to place individual letters in working memory as she is reading, and she has more space to
store larger chunks of information in the sentence.
Figure 2.2. The possible chunked contents of Rachel’s working memory when she has she read the
sentence. Notice she has excess working memory capacity.
lobsters taste food with hairs on
their legs
On the other hand, let’s consider a classmate of Rachel’s, Tamra, who is a very poor decoder.
Unlike Rachel, Tamra must work out the letters one by one, so that each letter or its corresponding sound
may need to be stored as separate units in working memory. Figure 2.3 shows a possible process by which
Tamra tries to read the sentence. As she begins by reading the word lobster, she may have to sound out
the word, letter by letter. The letters and sounds occupy parts of her working memory. Then, once she
realizes that the first word spells lobster and so stores the concept lobster into working memory, she must
work out the next word, taste, letter by letter. Then she tackles the word food, and then the word with. By
the time she gets to the word with, there is no room in working memory to store the first three concepts in
the sentence while she sounds out the word with. Too much of her working memory is occupied by the
letters and other information needed to decode the words bit by bit. As she decodes with, the concept
lobster might thus drop out of working memory because there is not enough room for it (see Figure 2.3).
Because Tamra has difficulty storing all of the concepts in the sentence in working memory at the same
time that she works out what the letters spell, she will have a very difficult time understanding the
sentence (Savage & Frederickson, 2005; Savage et al., 2005; Strayer & Kramer, 1990; Tronsky, 2005).