Actions speak louder than gestures when you are 2 years old

The effects of gesture and action training on the retention of math equivalence

Introduction

Hand gestures and actions-with-objects (hereafter 'actions') are both forms of movement that can promote learning. However, the two have unique affordances, which means that they have the potential to promote learning in different ways. Here we compare how children learn, and importantly retain, information after performing gestures, actions, or a combination of the two during instruction about mathematical equivalence. We also ask whether individual differences in children's understanding of mathematical equivalence (as assessed by spontaneous gesture before instruction) impacts the effects of gesture- and action-based instruction.

Method

Across two studies, racially and ethnically diverse third and fourth-grade students (N=142) were given instruction about how to solve mathematical equivalence problems (eg., 2+9+4=__+4) as part of a pretest-training-posttest design. In Study 1, instruction involved teaching students to produce either actions or gestures. In Study 2, instruction involved teaching students to produce either actions followed by gestures or gestures followed by actions. Across both studies, speech and gesture produced during pretest explanations were coded and analyzed to measure individual differences in pretest understanding. Children completed written posttests immediately after instruction, as well as the following day, and four weeks later, to assess learning, generalization and retention.

Results

In Study 1 we find that, regardless of individual differences in pre-test understanding of mathematical equivalence, children learn from both action and gesture, but gesture-based instruction promotes retention better than action-based instruction. In Study 2 we find an influence of individual differences: children who produced relatively few types of problem-solving strategies (as assessed by their pre-test gestures and speech) perform better when they receive action training before gesture training than when they receive gesture training first. In contrast, children who expressed many types of strategies, and thus had a more complex understanding of mathematical equivalence prior to instruction, performed equally with both orders.

Discussion

These results demonstrate that action training, followed by gesture, can be a useful stepping-stone in the initial stages of learning mathematical equivalence, and that gesture training can help learners retain what they learn.

Why is she scratching her head? Children's understanding of others' metacognitive gestures as an indicator of learning

Successful collaborative learning is supported by the coordination of one's own learning with the learning performance of others. One type of cues that guides the understanding of others' learning performances is their metacognitive gestures. In the current study, we investigated (a) whether 3- to 7-year-old children rely on others' gestures to judge someone else's learning progress and likely learning performance (Experiment 1; N = 76), (b) whether metacognitive gesture understanding depends on cognitive and theory of mind skills (Experiment 2; N = 59), and (c) whether this knowledge would influence children's future selective learning and selective teaching choices (Experiment 3; N = 96). Results of Experiment 1 showed that by 3 years of age children can interpret gestures as an indicator of a person's future performance and that this capacity improves with age, with older children differentiating better between the types of gestures. Experiment 2 revealed that the understanding of metacognitive gestures was not modulated by either nonverbal cognitive capacities or theory of mind skills. Experiment 3 showed a developmental difference in that 5- and 7-year-olds, like adults, consistently selected that successful learners should help someone to learn and that ineffective learners should receive help, whereas 3-year-olds selected learners at chance level. Overall, the results support views that children acquire an understanding of metacognitive gestures early in life and that the translation of this knowledge into selective teaching and selective learning choices improves with age.

Should I learn from you? Seeing expectancy violations about action efficiency hinders social learning in infancy

Infants generate basic expectations about their physical and social environment. This early knowledge allows them to identify opportunities for learning, preferring to explore and learn about objects that violate their prior expectations. However, less is known about how expectancy violations about people's actions influence infants' subsequent learning from others and about others. Here, we presented 18-month-old infants with an agent who acted either efficiently (expected action) or inefficiently (unexpected action) and then labeled an object. We hypothesized that infants would prefer to learn from the agent (label-object association) if she previously acted efficiently, but they would prefer to learn about the agent (voice-speaker association) if she previously acted inefficiently. As expected, infants who previously saw the agent acting efficiently showed greater attention to the demonstrated object and learned the new label-object association, but infants presented with the inefficient agent did not. However, there was no evidence that infants learned the voice-speaker association in any of the conditions. In summary, expectancy violations about people's actions may signal a situation to avoid learning from them. We discussed the results in relation to studies on surprise-induced learning, motionese, and selective social learning, and we proposed other experimental paradigms to investigate how expectancy violations influence infants' learning about others.

Visual attention for linguistic and non-linguistic body actions in non-signing and native signing children

Evidence from adult studies of deaf signers supports the dissociation between neural systems involved in processing visual linguistic and non-linguistic body actions. The question of how and when this specialization arises is poorly understood. Visual attention to these forms is likely to change with age and be affected by prior language experience. The present study used eye-tracking methodology with infants and children as they freely viewed alternating video sequences of lexical American sign language (ASL) signs and non-linguistic body actions (self-directed grooming action and object-directed pantomime). In Experiment 1, we quantified fixation patterns using an area of interest (AOI) approach and calculated face preference index (FPI) values to assess the developmental differences between 6 and 11-month-old hearing infants. Both groups were from monolingual English-speaking homes with no prior exposure to sign language. Six-month-olds attended the signer's face for grooming; but for mimes and signs, they were drawn to attend to the "articulatory space" where the hands and arms primarily fall. Eleven-month-olds, on the other hand, showed a similar attention to the face for all body action types. We interpret this to reflect an early visual language sensitivity that diminishes with age, just before the child's first birthday. In Experiment 2, we contrasted 18 hearing monolingual English-speaking children (mean age of 4.8 years) vs. 13 hearing children of deaf adults (CODAs; mean age of 5.7 years) whose primary language at home was ASL. Native signing children had a significantly greater face attentional bias than non-signing children for ASL signs, but not for grooming and mimes. The differences in the visual attention patterns that are contingent on age (in infants) and language experience (in children) may be related to both linguistic specialization over time and the emerging awareness of communicative gestural acts.

Can gesture input support toddlers' fast mapping?

Forty-eight toddlers participated in a word-learning task to assess gesture input on mapping nonce words to unfamiliar objects. Receptive fast mapping and expressive naming for target object-word pairs were tested in three conditions - with a point, with a shape gesture, and in a no-gesture, word-only condition. No statistically significant effect of gesture for receptive fast-mapping was found but age was a factor. Two year olds outperformed one year olds for both measures. Only one girl in the one-year-old group correctly named any items. There was a significant interaction between gesture and gender for expressive naming. Two-year-old girls were six times more likely than two-year-old boys to correctly name items given point and shape gestures; whereas, boys named more items taught with the word only than with a point or shape gesture. The role of gesture input remains unclear, particularly for children under two years and for toddler boys.

Gesture as representational action: A paper about function

A great deal of attention has recently been paid to gesture and its effects on thinking and learning. It is well established that the hand movements that accompany speech are an integral part of communication, ubiquitous across cultures, and a unique feature of human behavior. In an attempt to understand this intriguing phenomenon, researchers have focused on pinpointing the mechanisms that underlie gesture production. One proposal--that gesture arises from simulated action (Hostetter & Alibali Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 495-514, 2008)--has opened up discussions about action, gesture, and the relation between the two. However, there is another side to understanding a phenomenon and that is to understand its function. A phenomenon's function is its purpose rather than its precipitating cause--the why rather than the how. This paper sets forth a theoretical framework for exploring why gesture serves the functions that it does, and reviews where the current literature fits, and fails to fit, this proposal. Our framework proposes that whether or not gesture is simulated action in terms of its mechanism--it is clearly not reducible to action in terms of its function. Most notably, because gestures are abstracted representations and are not actions tied to particular events and objects, they can play a powerful role in thinking and learning beyond the particular, specifically, in supporting generalization and transfer of knowledge.