Learners’ Spontaneous Gesture Before a Math Lesson Predicts the Efficacy of Seeing Versus Doing Gesture During the Lesson

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Eliza L. Congdon, Elizabeth M. Wakefield, Miriam A. Novack, Naureen Hemani-Lopez, Susan Goldin-Meadow
{"title":"Learners’ Spontaneous Gesture Before a Math Lesson Predicts the Efficacy of Seeing Versus Doing Gesture During the Lesson","authors":"Eliza L. Congdon,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Wakefield,&nbsp;Miriam A. Novack,&nbsp;Naureen Hemani-Lopez,&nbsp;Susan Goldin-Meadow","doi":"10.1111/cogs.13479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gestures—hand movements that accompany speech and express ideas—can help children learn how to solve problems, flexibly generalize learning to novel problem-solving contexts, and retain what they have learned. But does it matter who is doing the gesturing? We know that producing gesture leads to better comprehension of a message than watching someone else produce gesture. But we do not know how producing versus observing gesture impacts deeper learning outcomes such as generalization and retention across time. Moreover, not all children benefit equally from gesture instruction, suggesting that there are individual differences that may play a role in who learns from gesture. Here, we consider two factors that might impact whether gesture leads to learning, generalization, and retention after mathematical instruction: (1) whether children see gesture or do gesture and (2) whether a child spontaneously gestures before instruction when explaining their problem-solving reasoning. For children who spontaneously gestured before instruction, both doing and seeing gesture led to better generalization and retention of the knowledge gained than a comparison manipulative action. For children who did not spontaneously gesture before instruction, doing gesture was less effective than the comparison action for learning, generalization, and retention. Importantly, this learning deficit was specific to gesture, as these children did benefit from doing the comparison manipulative action. Our findings are the first evidence that a child's use of a particular representational format for communication (gesture) directly predicts that child's propensity to learn from using the same representational format.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13479","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gestures—hand movements that accompany speech and express ideas—can help children learn how to solve problems, flexibly generalize learning to novel problem-solving contexts, and retain what they have learned. But does it matter who is doing the gesturing? We know that producing gesture leads to better comprehension of a message than watching someone else produce gesture. But we do not know how producing versus observing gesture impacts deeper learning outcomes such as generalization and retention across time. Moreover, not all children benefit equally from gesture instruction, suggesting that there are individual differences that may play a role in who learns from gesture. Here, we consider two factors that might impact whether gesture leads to learning, generalization, and retention after mathematical instruction: (1) whether children see gesture or do gesture and (2) whether a child spontaneously gestures before instruction when explaining their problem-solving reasoning. For children who spontaneously gestured before instruction, both doing and seeing gesture led to better generalization and retention of the knowledge gained than a comparison manipulative action. For children who did not spontaneously gesture before instruction, doing gesture was less effective than the comparison action for learning, generalization, and retention. Importantly, this learning deficit was specific to gesture, as these children did benefit from doing the comparison manipulative action. Our findings are the first evidence that a child's use of a particular representational format for communication (gesture) directly predicts that child's propensity to learn from using the same representational format.

学习者在数学课前的自发手势可预测上课时 "看 "与 "做 "手势的效果。
手势--伴随语言和表达想法的手部动作--可以帮助儿童学习如何解决问题,灵活地将所学知识运用到新的解决问题的情境中,并保持所学知识。但是,谁做手势重要吗?我们知道,做手势比看别人做手势能更好地理解信息。但我们还不知道,做出手势与观察手势对更深层次的学习成果(如泛化和跨时间保持)有什么影响。此外,并非所有儿童都能同样从手势教学中获益,这表明个体差异可能会对谁从手势中学习产生影响。在此,我们考虑了两个可能影响数学教学后手势是否导致学习、泛化和保持的因素:(1)儿童是看到手势还是做出手势;(2)儿童在教学前解释他们解决问题的推理时是否自发地做出手势。对于在教学前自发做手势的儿童来说,做手势和看手势都比比较操作动作能更好地概括和保留所学知识。而对于在教学前没有自发做出手势的儿童来说,做手势在学习、概括和保持方面的效果都不如对比动作。重要的是,这种学习缺陷是手势特有的,因为这些儿童确实从做对比操作动作中获益。我们的研究结果首次证明,儿童使用特定的表征形式(手势)进行交流可直接预测儿童使用相同表征形式进行学习的倾向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信