Gesture during math instruction specifically benefits learners with high visuospatial working memory capacity.
Gesture
Math learning
Working memory
Journal
Cognitive research: principles and implications
ISSN: 2365-7464
Titre abrégé: Cogn Res Princ Implic
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697632
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 06 2020
09 06 2020
Historique:
received:
01
10
2019
accepted:
12
02
2020
entrez:
11
6
2020
pubmed:
11
6
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Characteristics of both teachers and learners influence mathematical learning. For example, when teachers use hand gestures to support instruction, students learn more than others who learn the same concept with only speech, and students with higher working memory capacity (WMC) learn more rapidly than those with lower WMC. One hypothesis for the effect of gesture on math learning is that gestures provide a signal to learners that can reduce demand on working memory resources during learning. However, it is not known what sort of working memory resources support learning with gesture. Gestures are motoric; they co-occur with verbal language and they are perceived visually. In two studies, we investigated the relationship between mathematical learning with or without gesture and individual variation in verbal, visuospatial, and kinesthetic WMC. Students observed a videotaped lesson in a novel mathematical system that either included instruction with both speech and gesture (Study 1) or instruction with only speech (Study 2). After instruction, students solved novel problems in the instructed system and transfer problems in a related system. Finally, students completed verbal, visuospatial, and kinesthetic working memory assessments. There was a positive relationship between visuospatial WMC and math learning when gesture was present, but no relationship between visuospatial WMC and math learning when gesture was absent. Rather, when gesture was absent, there was a relationship between verbal WMC and math learning. Providing gesture during instruction appears to change the cognitive resources recruited when learning a novel math task.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Characteristics of both teachers and learners influence mathematical learning. For example, when teachers use hand gestures to support instruction, students learn more than others who learn the same concept with only speech, and students with higher working memory capacity (WMC) learn more rapidly than those with lower WMC. One hypothesis for the effect of gesture on math learning is that gestures provide a signal to learners that can reduce demand on working memory resources during learning. However, it is not known what sort of working memory resources support learning with gesture. Gestures are motoric; they co-occur with verbal language and they are perceived visually.
METHODS
In two studies, we investigated the relationship between mathematical learning with or without gesture and individual variation in verbal, visuospatial, and kinesthetic WMC. Students observed a videotaped lesson in a novel mathematical system that either included instruction with both speech and gesture (Study 1) or instruction with only speech (Study 2). After instruction, students solved novel problems in the instructed system and transfer problems in a related system. Finally, students completed verbal, visuospatial, and kinesthetic working memory assessments.
RESULTS
There was a positive relationship between visuospatial WMC and math learning when gesture was present, but no relationship between visuospatial WMC and math learning when gesture was absent. Rather, when gesture was absent, there was a relationship between verbal WMC and math learning.
CONCLUSION
Providing gesture during instruction appears to change the cognitive resources recruited when learning a novel math task.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32519045
doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00215-8
pii: 10.1186/s41235-020-00215-8
pmc: PMC7283399
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27Références
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 21;9(1):e84834
pubmed: 24465437
Brain Lang. 2011 Dec;119(3):184-95
pubmed: 21864890
Br J Educ Psychol. 2000 Jun;70 ( Pt 2):177-94
pubmed: 10900777
J Exp Child Psychol. 2010 May;106(1):20-9
pubmed: 20018296
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Dec;130(4):621-640
pubmed: 11757872
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Feb;47(1):173-86
pubmed: 15072537
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1996 Feb;49(1):51-75
pubmed: 8920099
Psychol Sci. 2014 Apr;25(4):903-10
pubmed: 24503873
Psychol Sci. 2015 Nov;26(11):1717-27
pubmed: 26381507
Dev Sci. 2009 Jan;12(1):182-7
pubmed: 19120426
J Commun Disord. 2019 Jan - Feb;77:17-30
pubmed: 30472369
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Jun;20(3):496-500
pubmed: 23288659
Dev Psychol. 2008 Sep;44(5):1277-87
pubmed: 18793062
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Feb;140(1):102-16
pubmed: 21299319
Child Dev. 2013 Nov-Dec;84(6):1863-71
pubmed: 23551027
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Apr;59(4):745-59
pubmed: 16707360
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Nov;153:39-50
pubmed: 25282199
Science. 2008 Apr 25;320(5875):454-5
pubmed: 18436760
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:884
pubmed: 24324454
Cogn Sci. 2017 Mar;41(2):518-535
pubmed: 27128822
Br J Dev Psychol. 2018 Jun;36(2):153-168
pubmed: 28857223
Brain Lang. 2007 Jun;101(3):234-45
pubmed: 17222897