psych questions

The Development of Children’s Memory

Wolfgang Schneider 1 and Peter A. Ornstein

2

1 University of W€urzburg, and 2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

ABSTRACT—The development of memory has been studied

for more than a century and is one of the most active

areas of research in cognitive development. In this article,

we first describe historical developments in research on

children’s memory, focusing on systematic studies that

began in the late 1960s. We then describe three impor-

tant new lines of inquiry: short- and long-term memory

development in infancy, the development of autobio-

graphical memory, and longitudinal research on memory

strategies and metamemory. We end by contrasting

research on memory development with that on the develop-

ment of memory, and identifying an emerging interest in

biological and social factors that affect developmental

change.

KEYWORDS—memory development; history

A HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

Research on children’s memory can be traced to the early days

of psychology in the 19th century, and many themes explored

then are decidedly modern in character (1). For example, labora-

tory work on age differences in digit span (2) identified memory

capacity as a foundational construct, and studies of memory for

prose passages and lists of unrelated words by Binet and Henri

(e.g., 3) demonstrated the importance of knowledge and

constructive activities long before these topics became main-

stream in the 1970s and 1980s. In addition, research on sug-

gestibility (4, 5) and autosuggestibility (4) was inspired by

applied questions concerning children’s abilities to provide evi-

dence in legal settings and anticipated many core research

themes on eyewitness testimony (6). Moreover, parallel to their

research on testimony, in the early 20th century, Stern and Stern

(7) explored young children’s ability to report personally impor-

tant events, and at about the same time, Freud (8) identified the

phenomenon of childhood amnesia, that is, adults’ inability to

recall events that occurred before ages 3 or 4. Finally, in

Hunter’s study (9) of his young daughter’s performance on a

delayed reaction task, her active search for a hidden object var-

ied as a function of the length of the delay, anticipating modern

studies of working memory (e.g., 10).

Although these early studies were important, research on the

development of children’s memory did not catch on in the early

years of the 20th century, despite interest in the applied ques-

tion of possible links between memory span and intelligence (1,

11). However, interest in studying children’s memory returned

by the middle 1960s, when Flavell launched a series of studies

on memory that focused on strategies for encoding information,

such as rehearsal (e.g., 12). Flavell positioned this work in the

context of neobehaviorist studies of verbal symbols as mediators

in complex learning situations. Thus, even though he was inter-

ested in age-related differences in children’s cognition, Flavell

et al. felt compelled to discuss deliberate strategy use in terms

of the more passive mediational framework.

From this perspective, it had become clear that even though

young children might have the appropriate words as mediators

(quite literally between stimuli and responses), their use did not

always facilitate performance. In fact, Flavell’s research began

with a focus on distinguishing between mediational deficiencies

(i.e., failures of generated mediators to work in the sense of facil-

itating remembering) and production deficiencies (i.e., failures

to produce the mediators). These pioneering studies dramatically

influenced the next generation of researchers, who used a cogni-

tive framework to focus on age-related changes in children’s

information-processing skills (e.g., 13, 14). Aided by the

Wolfgang Schneider, University of W€urzburg; Peter A. Ornstein, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

We wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wolfgang Schneider, Department of Psychology, University of W€urzburg, Wittelsbacherplatz 1, D-97074 W€urzburg, Germany; e-mail: [email protected]; or Peter A. Ornstein, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270; e-mail: [email protected].

© 2015 The Authors

Child Development Perspectives © 2015 The Society for Research in Child Development

DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12129

Volume 9, Number 3, 2015, Pages 190–195

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES

widespread interest in cognition, research on the development of

memory grew rapidly, and by 1971, enough research had been

done for Flavell to organize a symposium entitled “What is

memory development the development of?” at the biennial

meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. This

foundational question stimulated new research that changed the

focus of theoretical analyses of children’s memory, shifting the

emphasis to the interplay between the development of cognitive

resources, in general, and the functions of memory, in

particular.

The new perspective on cognitive development proved genera-

tive and led to a melding of Piagetian and information-process-

ing points of view in the influential research of neo-Piagetian

researchers such as Case (e.g., 15) and Pascual-Leone (16).

This, in turn, yielded insights into the nature of memory capac-

ity and its development. These theoretical perspectives on mem-

ory capacity, as well as new models developed by Baddeley and

Hitch (17) and Cowan (18), attracted attention and stimulated

empirical research on the importance of working memory for

other domains and for understanding the constraints on chil-

dren’s memory performance and development. Related research

demonstrated further that the capacity of an individual’s working

memory limits the higher-order cognitive operations one can

perform (19), including those called for in academic domains

such as arithmetic and in carrying out deliberate strategies for

remembering.

Given the resulting interest in children’s memory, a detailed

picture of the development of deliberate memory skills emerged

over the next 15 years. Strategies for encoding information— such as organization, rehearsal, and elaboration—were observed to play considerable roles in children’s memory performance,

with age-related changes in the complexity of these strategies

contributing to changes in performance with age (e.g., 20). How-

ever, researchers also recognized that children’s mnemonic

skills can be influenced dramatically by context variables (e.g.,

task demands, effort requirements, motivation; 21), by what they

know about the materials being remembered (22, 23), and by

their metamemory, or their understanding of the operation of

memory, and the task and situational conditions that affect suc-

cessful remembering (24, 25).

Researchers also understood that automatic factors may

sometimes influence the use of strategies. For example, highly

organized or salient sets of stimulus materials may elicit

advanced rehearsal and organizational strategies—via interitem word associations—at a time in development when they might not otherwise be observed (26). Furthermore, with practice and

experience in executing particular strategies—along with the development of underlying information-handling capabilities

such as processing speed (27)—procedures that were once difficult to perform may later be executed with relative

ease because they become automatized and thus demand less

effort (21).

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD

The first 20 years of research on children’s memory and its

development focused mostly on documenting age-related pro-

gression in children’s verbally based memory skills. The empha-

sis was on deliberate memory, that is, on what children of

different ages could remember and what they did when con-

fronted with deliberate memory demands. Research participants

were primarily school-age children and the studies were almost

completely cross-sectional. All of this changed in the next

20 years.

During this time, several new lines of research emerged, more

or less in parallel. We outline three because of their strong links

with the historical approaches described earlier. First, research

with infants revealed surprising mnemonic skills that had been

overlooked. Second, studies of children’s autobiographical mem-

ory revealed early-developing skills in using language to report

previous experiences. Third, longitudinal studies of remember-

ing enabled the study of changes in individuals’ skills over time,

and provided an effective way of integrating several themes.

Memory Development in Infancy

Although Hunter’s classic study (9) on his young daughter’s

working memory did not receive much attention in the early

days, research on infant memory gained momentum with the

invention of new technologies in the early 1980s. Early work

with a visual paired comparison task provided evidence that

infants can retain briefly experienced visual information for up

to 2 weeks, working on the assumption that memory is indexed

by longer looking at a pre-exposed (and hence now-familiar)

stimulus than at a novel one (e.g., 28). However, because the

resulting measures of infants’ performance reflect a combination

of both short- and long-term memory processes—a distinction introduced by William James (29) that became one of the

themes of the information-processing perspective—researchers had to develop methods for generating uncontaminated measures

of these forms of memory. (Because the constructs of short-term

and working memory cannot be easily distinguished in young

children [10, 30], we will not differentiate them).

Recently, researchers (31) have obtained uncontaminated

estimates of infants’ short-term memory by adapting a change-

detection paradigm used with adults. With this technique,

infants are presented simultaneously with two visual displays

that blink on and off repeatedly, one of which changes continu-

ously (e.g., three squares presented in different locations) while

the other does not change (e.g., three squares presented in the

same locations). Assuming that infants would look longer at the

changing display if they could form a memory representation of

the information displayed and keep it active in the brief delay

between presentations, 4- and 6½-month-olds remembered only 1 or 2 items, whereas 10- and 13-month-olds remembered 3 or

4 items. Thus, infants’ initial short term/working memory is lim-

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015, Pages 190–195

The Development of Children’s Memory 191

ited but changes significantly in the first year of life. The perfor-

mance of the older infants is impressive, given that adults’

capacity for the objects used in these experiments is also limited

to three or four items.

Moving beyond the assessment of short-term/working memory,

studies using conditioning and imitation-based paradigms have

informed our understanding of infants’ long-term memory. A

conjugate reinforcement task (e.g., 32) used an operant condi-

tioning method to study learning and retention in 2- to 6-

month-olds. In this work, a ribbon connected an infant’s foot to

an attractive mobile that was placed overhead so with each

kick, children saw the mobile move. Remembering was inferred

if the rate of kicking when the ribbon was disconnected from

the mobile was greater than that in a baseline period. In the

elicited imitation-based tasks (33), an infant witnessed the mod-

eling of simple sets of actions (e.g., making a gong), and mem-

ory was inferred if he or she could later act out the modeled

sequences.

Although the researchers who developed these tasks differ in

their interpretation of the underlying memory systems that are

tapped by the conjugate reinforcement and imitation paradigms,

taken together, research with these techniques demonstrates

long-term memory in young infants, illustrating that they can

retrieve information after extended periods. In many studies

using variants of the conjugate reinforcement procedure, reten-

tion increases linearly between 2 and 18 months. The imitation-

based procedures also reveal long-term memory in very young

children and indicate strides in recall across the first year of

infancy and beyond. Whereas the temporal extent of memory

seems limited in the first 6 months of life, 6-month-olds can

remember simple events after 24 hr, and 9- to 12-month-olds

recall multistep sequences after 4–6 weeks. Although additional research is needed to understand how

these indicators converge to characterize children’s skill at any

one point in development, a high-functioning memory system is

in place before language is available for encoding and reporting

information. Of course, children’s abilities change once they can

use language, as is seen in studies of autobiographical memory.

Development of Autobiographical Memory

As already indicated by the Sterns’ early case studies (7), chil-

dren’s autobiographical memory is reflected in their accounts of

specific, distinctive events that they have experienced. In this

section, we first discuss children’s memory for salient target

events and then consider event memories expressed in conversa-

tions between parents and children, as well as the implications

of this work for understanding eyewitness testimony.

In some studies of autobiographical memory, preschoolers and

children in the early elementary grades were exposed to spe-

cially crafted stimulus events, such as visiting a pretend zoo

(34), whereas in others, the focus was on naturally occurring

medical experiences (e.g., 35). Many studies of children’s auto-

biographical memory indicate that with increases in age, chil-

dren had more overall recall, reported more information in

response to open-ended questions, and thus depended less on

yes/no questions to elicit memory (e.g., 36). Moreover, older

children forgot less over time (e.g., 37) and were less susceptible

to suggestive questions (38).

Young children’s autobiographical memory is also reflected in

their conversations with parents and other adults about events

they have experienced. In this regard, children begin to talk

about past activities almost as soon as they produce their first

words, and their skills for recalling past experiences in

parent–child conversations develop rapidly between ages 2 and 4. Nevertheless, when children first begin to reminisce, the adult

partner provides most of the content and structure, with the

child assuming more responsibility for the conversation as he or

she grows older. Indeed, with age and increased experience

talking about the past, children’s reports become more detailed

and complex, and depend less on information provided by adult

conversational partners (e.g., 39).

One salient feature of the now-extensive literature on remi-

niscing is that of variability across parents in how they structure

these conversations. Put simply, researchers have identified two

broad reminiscing styles: high elaborative engagement and low

elaborative engagement (39). In contrast with parents who use a

low elaborative style, those who use a high elaborative style ask

many questions, follow in on their children’s efforts to contribute

to the conversation, and continue to add new information even

when children do not. These reminiscing styles generalize across

different types of discussions about past events (e.g., excursions

and holidays, outings to the zoo or a museum) and are consistent

over several years with the same children. Children exposed to

highly elaborative conversation remember more than children

who experience low elaborative conversation. These differences

in maternal reminiscing are associated with later differences in

children’s abilities to recall personally experienced events.

To some extent, research on children’s autobiographical mem-

ory was prompted by concerns about their abilities to provide

evidence in legal situations (38), and findings such as those

reported here have enhanced our understanding of children’s

testimony. Overall, several early findings (e.g., 5) have been

confirmed (e.g., age differences in recall and the negative effects

of misleading questions and repeated questioning), but early

assumptions that young children are generally unreliable wit-

nesses have not been supported. Admittedly, young children’s

eyewitness testimony can be less accurate than that of older

children and adults, but when young children are questioned

with appropriate interview protocols about events they under-

stand, they can provide accurate reports. Guidelines for inter-

viewing children in the legal system have emerged from this

research (e.g., 40).

The Impact of Recent Longitudinal Memory Research

Most of the foundational work on memory development was

based on cross-sectional studies that documented the skills of

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015, Pages 190–195

192 Wolfgang Schneider and Peter A. Ornstein

children of different ages but provided little insight into devel-

opmental change in individual children. Longitudinal research

designs are necessary to track such change, and several studies

(e.g., the Munich Longitudinal Study of the Ontogenesis of Indi-

vidual Competencies) were launched in the mid-1980s that

lasted a decade or more, included many participants, and

tapped several features of memory and cognition.

One contribution of this longitudinal work is the understand-

ing that several factors contribute to the growth of working mem-

ory, including a type of domain-general cognitive primitive

mechanism (41). More specifically, factors such as brain growth,

increases in knowledge, strategy use, and processing speed, as

well as changes in the rate of memory trace decay, contribute to

developmental changes in working memory (42).

A second contribution relates to our greater understanding of

developmental changes in children’s strategic competence. In

cross-sectional studies, strategy use appears to improve continu-

ously with age, but longitudinal studies indicate that these tech-

niques do not develop in such a straightforward way. Instead,

individual children’s use of memory strategies may actually

increase abruptly at different points, and the ages at which

mnemonic techniques are acquired are apparently relative and

variable across different strategies. For example, even pre-

school- and kindergarten-age children use intentional strategies,

both in ecologically valid settings such as hide-and-seek tasks

and in assessments in the laboratory (43). The longitudinal stud-

ies also demonstrate that acquiring strategies involves more than

replacing an ineffective technique with a more effective proce-

dure. Indeed, simple and inefficient strategies reside alongside

more sophisticated and efficient ones, and strategies do not

always help performance, although most children use strategies

competently by the end of elementary school (see also 44, 45).

A third contribution of longitudinal work has been to clarify

the developmental links between metamemory and later use of

strategies. Most researchers have assumed that children would

not use strategies for remembering until they have adequate

levels of metamnemonic understanding. However, testing this

assumption requires information about strategies and metame-

mory from the same child over time to determine whether

knowledge of the use of strategies leads to their later use. In

fact, longitudinal studies support the link between earlier

metamemory and later use of strategies (46). Longitudinal

work also shows that links among strategy usage, metamemory,

and recall strengthen with age, and that knowledge of a strat-

egy is connected more strongly to use of a strategy than to

recall performance, primarily because strategy use directed by

metamemory is only one of several determinants of perfor-

mance (30).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this article, we provided a historical perspective for the study

of children’s memory and demonstrated that the field has

remained vibrant and relevant for both basic understanding and

application. We also showed how the 1971 symposium, “What

is memory development the development of?” set the stage for

40 years of productive research (47). Of course, the answers to

Flavell’s question have changed over the years and include

strategies, metacognition, capacity, and autobiographical reports.

As a result, researchers have learned much about memory

development, in the sense of characterizing the skills of children

of different ages. However, what has been missing is a focus on

the development of memory, that is, on understanding the endog-

enous and exogenous factors that affect developmental changes

in the skills that have been well-documented. Nonetheless,

researchers have begun to address this critical issue, and we

can see tentative answers emerging from research in develop-

mental cognitive neuroscience (e.g., 48) and studies of the

socialization of children’s memory (e.g., 49). Both of these areas

demonstrate how one can study both the development of memory

and memory development.

REFERENCES

1. Schneider, W. (2000). Research on memory development: Historical trends and current themes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 407–420. doi: 10.1080/016502500750037955

2. Jacobs, J. (1887). Experiments on “prehension”. Mind, 12, 75– 79.

3. Binet, H., & Henri, V. (1894). La m�emoire des phrases (m�emoire des id�ees) [Memory for sentences (memory for ideas)]. L’Annee Psy- chologique, 1, 24–59.

4. Binet, H. (1900). La suggestibilit�e [Suggestibility]. Paris, France: Schleicher.

5. Stern, W. (1910). Abstracts of lectures on the psychology of testi- mony and on the study of individuality. American Journal of Psy- chology, 21, 270–282. doi: 10.2307/1413003

6. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (1999). The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419–439. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.psych.50.1.419

7. Stern, C., & Stern, W. (1909). Recollection, testimony and lying in early childhood. Leipzig, Germany: J.A. Barth.

8. Freud, S. (1905/1953). Childhood and concealing memories. In A. A. Brill (Trans. & Ed.), The basic writings of Sigmund Freud (pp. 62–68). New York, NY: The Modern Library.

9. Hunter, W. S. (1917). The delayed reaction in a child. Psychological Review, 24, 74–87. doi: 10.1037/h0074768

10. Reznick, J. S. (2009). Working memory in infants and toddlers. In M. L. Courage & N. Cowan (Eds.), The development of memory in infancy and childhood (pp. 343–365). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

11. Baker-Ward, L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2014). The coaction of theory and methods in the study of the development of memory. In P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the development of children’s memory (Vol. I, pp. 41–64). Chichester, UK: Wiley- Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118597705.ch3

12. Flavell, J. H., Beach, D. H., & Chinsky, J. M. (1966). Spontaneous verbal rehearsal in a memory task as a function of age. Child Devel- opment, 37, 283–299. doi: 10.2307/1126804

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015, Pages 190–195

The Development of Children’s Memory 193

13. Hagen, J. W. (1971). Some thoughts on how children learn to remember. Human Development, 14, 262–271. doi: 10.1159/ 000271220

14. Ornstein, P. A., Naus, M. J., & Liberty, C. (1975). Rehearsal and organizational processes in children’s memory. Child Development, 46, 818–830. doi: 10.2307/1128385

15. Case, R. (1978). Intellectual development from birth to adulthood: A neo-Piagetian interpretation. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 37–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

16. Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget’s developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 63, 301– 345. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(70)90108-3

17. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1

18. Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 163–191. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.163

19. Bjorklund, D. F., & Sellers, P. D., II. (2014). Memory development in evolutionary perspective. In P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the development of children’s memory (Vol. I, pp. 126–156). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/ 9781118597705.ch7

20. Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development between two and twenty (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

21. Ornstein, P. A., Baker-Ward, L., & Naus, M. J. (1988). The develop- ment of mnemonic skill. In F. E. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22. Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory develop- ment. In R. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops? (pp. 73–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

23. Bjorklund, D. F. (1985). The role of conceptual knowledge in the development of organization in children’s memory. In C. J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Basic processes in memory development (pp. 103–142). New York, NY: Springer.

24. Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

25. Schneider, W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory- memory behavior relationship: An integrated review. In D.-L. For- rest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 57–109). New York, NY: Academic Press.

26. Lange, G. (1973). The development of conceptual and rote recall skills among school age children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 394–406. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(73) 90090-8

27. Kail, R. V. (1993). Processing time decreases globally at an expo- nential rate during childhood and adolescence. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology, 56, 254–265. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1993. 1034

28. Fagan, J. F., III. (1970). Memory in the infant. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology, 9, 217–226. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(70) 90087-1

29. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Dover.

30. Schneider, W. (2015). Memory development from early childhood to emerging adulthood. New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-09611-7

31. Oakes, L. M., Ross-Sheehy, S., & Luck, S. J. (2007). The develop- ment of visual short-term memory in infancy. In L. M. Oakes & P. J. Bauer (Eds.), Short- and long-term memory in infancy and child- hood: Taking the first steps toward remembering (pp. 75–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32. Rovee-Collier, C., & Cuevas, K. (2009). The development of infant memory. In M. L. Courage & N. Cowan (Eds.), The development of memory in infancy and childhood (pp. 11–41). Hove, UK: Psychol- ogy Press.

33. Bauer, P. J. (2007). Remembering the times of our lives: Memory in infancy and beyond. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

34. McGuigan, F., & Salmon, K. (2004). The time to talk: The influence of the timing of adult–child talk on children’s event memory. Child Development, 75, 669–686. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00700.x

35. Ornstein, P. A., Baker-Ward, L., Gordon, B. N., & Merritt, K. A. (1997). Children’s memory for medical experiences: Implications for testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 87–104. doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1099-0720(199712)11:7<S87::AID-ACP556>3.0.CO;2-Z

36. Ornstein, P. A., Haden, C. A., & San Souci, P. (2008). The develop- ment of skilled remembering in children. In H. L. Roediger, III & J. H. Byrne (Eds.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (Vol. 2, pp. 715–744). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

37. Bauer, P. J., & Larkina, M. (2014). Childhood amnesia in the mak- ing: Different distributions of autobiographical memories in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 597– 611. doi: 10.1037/a0033307

38. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scien- tific analysis of children’s testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

39. Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Reese, E. (2006). Elaborating on elabo- rations: Role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive and socio- emotional development. Child Development, 77, 1568–1588. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00960.x

40. Pipe, M.-E., & Salmon, K. (2009). Memory development and the forensic context. In M. L. Courage & N. Cowan (Eds.), The develop- ment of memory in infancy and childhood (pp. 241–282). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

41. Kail, R. V., & Ferrer, E. (2007). Processing speed in childhood and adolescence: Longitudinal models for examining developmental change. Child Development, 78, 1760–1770. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2007.01088.x

42. Cowan, N. (2014). Short-term and working memory in childhood. In P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the develop- ment of children’s memory (Vol. I, pp. 202–229). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118597705.ch10

43. Schneider, W. (2014). Individual differences in memory develop- ment and educational implications: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence. In P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the development of children’s memory (Vol. II, pp. 947–971). Chich- ester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118597705.ch40

44. Kron-Sperl, V., Schneider, W., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). The devel- opment and effectiveness of memory strategies in kindergarten and elementary school: Findings from the W€urzburg and G€ottingen lon- gitudinal studies. Cognitive Development, 23, 79–104. doi: 10.1016/ j.cogdev.2007.08.011

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015, Pages 190–195

194 Wolfgang Schneider and Peter A. Ornstein

45. Siegler, R. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Editors-in-Chief), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, per- ception, and language (Vol. 2, pp. 464–510). New York, NY: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0211

46. Grammer, J. K., Purtell, K. M., Coffman, J. L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2011). Relations between children’s metamemory and strategic per- formance: Time-varying covariates in early elementary school. Jour- nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 139–155. doi: 10.1016/ j.jecp.2010.08.001

47. Ornstein, P. A., & Haden, C. A. (2001). Memory development or the development of memory? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 202–209. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00149

48. Ghetti, S., & Lee, J. K. (2014). The development of recollection and familiarity during childhood: Insight from studies of behaviour and brain. In P. J. Bauer & R. Fivush (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the development of children’s memory (pp. 309–335). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118597705.ch14

49. Ornstein, P. A., Haden, C. A., & Coffman, J. L. (2011). Learning to remember: Mothers and teachers talking with children. In N. L. Stein & S. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental science goes to school (pp. 69–83). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Child Development Perspectives, Volume 9, Number 3, 2015, Pages 190–195

The Development of Children’s Memory 195