Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning

Speakers routinely gesture with their hands when they talk, and those gestures often convey information not found anywhere in their speech. This information is typically not consciously accessible, yet it provides an early sign that the speaker is ready to learn a particular task (S. Goldin-Meadow, 2003). In this sense, the unwitting gestures that speakers produce reveal their implicit knowledge. But what if a learner was forced to gesture? Would those elicited gestures also reveal implicit knowledge and, in so doing, enhance learning? To address these questions, the authors told children to gesture while explaining their solutions to novel math problems and examined the effect of this manipulation on the expression of implicit knowledge in gesture and on learning. The authors found that, when told to gesture, children who were unable to solve the math problems often added new and correct problem-solving strategies, expressed only in gesture, to their repertoires. The authors also found that when these children were given instruction on the math problems later, they were more likely to succeed on the problems than children told not to gesture. Telling children to gesture thus encourages them to convey previously unexpressed, implicit ideas, which, in turn, makes them receptive to instruction that leads to learning.     

From children's hands to adults' ears: gesture's role in the learning process

Children can express thoughts in gesture that they do not express in speech--they produce gesture-speech mismatches. Moreover, children who produce mismatches on a given task are particularly ready to learn that task. Gesture, then, is a tool that researchers can use to predict who will profit from instruction. But is gesture also useful to adults who must decide how to instruct a particular child? We asked 8 adults to instruct 38 third- and fourth-grade children individually in a math problem. We found that the adults offered more variable instruction to children who produced mismatches than to children who produced no mismatches--more different types of instructional strategies and more instructions that contained two different strategies, one in speech and the other in gesture. The children thus appeared to be shaping their own learning environments just by moving their hands. Gesture not only reflects a child's understanding but can play a role in eliciting input that could shape that understanding. As such, it may be part of the mechanism of cognitive change.     

Number gestures predict learning of number words

When asked to explain their solutions to a problem, children often gesture and, at times, these gestures convey information that is different from the information conveyed in speech. Children who produce these gesture‐speech “mismatches” on a particular task have been found to profit from instruction on that task. We have recently found that some children produce gesture‐speech mismatches when identifying numbers at the cusp of their knowledge, for example, a child incorrectly labels a set of two objects with the word “three” and simultaneously holds up two fingers. These mismatches differ from previously studied mismatches (where the information conveyed in gesture has the potential to be integrated with the information conveyed in speech) in that the gestured response contradicts the spoken response. Here, we ask whether these contradictory number mismatches predict which learners will profit from number‐word instruction. We used the Give‐a‐Number task to measure number knowledge in 47 children (M_age = 4.1 years, SD = 0.58), and used the What's on this Card task to assess whether children produced gesture‐speech mismatches above their knower level. Children who were early in their number learning trajectories (“one‐knowers” and “two‐knowers”) were then randomly assigned, within knower level, to one of two training conditions: a Counting condition in which children practiced counting objects; or an Enriched Number Talk condition containing counting, labeling set sizes, spatial alignment of neighboring sets, and comparison of these sets. Controlling for counting ability, we found that children were more likely to learn the meaning of new number words in the Enriched Number Talk condition than in the Counting condition, but only if they had produced gesture‐speech mismatches at pretest. The findings suggest that numerical gesture‐speech mismatches are a reliable signal that a child is ready to profit from rich number instruction and provide evidence, for the first time, that cardinal number gestures have a role to play in number‐learning.     

How children make language out of gesture: morphological structure in gesture systems developed by American and Chinese deaf children

When children learn language, they apply their language-learning skills to the linguistic input they receive. But what happens if children are not exposed to input from a conventional language? Do they engage their language-learning skills nonetheless, applying them to whatever unconventional input they have? We address this question by examining gesture systems created by four American and four Chinese deaf children. The children's profound hearing losses prevented them from learning spoken language, and their hearing parents had not exposed them to sign language. Nevertheless, the children in both cultures invented gesture systems that were structured at the morphological/word level. Interestingly, the differences between the children's systems were no bigger across cultures than within cultures. The children's morphemes could not be traced to their hearing mothers' gestures; however, they were built out of forms and meanings shared with their mothers. The findings suggest that children construct morphological structure out of the input that is handed to them, even if that input is not linguistic in form.     

Hands in the air: using ungrounded iconic gestures to teach children conservation of quantity

Including gesture in instruction facilitates learning. Why? One possibility is that gesture points out objects in the immediate context and thus helps ground the words learners hear in the world they see. Previous work on gesture's role in instruction has used gestures that either point to or trace paths on objects, thus providing support for this hypothesis. The experiments described here investigated the possibility that gesture helps children learn even when it is not produced in relation to an object but is instead produced "in the air." Children were given instruction in Piagetian conservation problems with or without gesture and with or without concrete objects. The results indicate that children given instruction with speech and gesture learned more about conservation than children given instruction with speech alone, whether or not objects were present during instruction. Gesture in instruction can thus help learners learn even when those gestures do not direct attention to visible objects, suggesting that gesture can do more for learners than simply ground arbitrary, symbolic language in the physical, observable world.     

注音方式与教学形式在儿童课堂汉字学习中的作用

通过真实课堂中的教学实验法,以107名一年级小学生为研究对象,探讨了注音方式和教学形式在儿童课堂汉字学习中的作用。结果发现：（1）在课堂教学条件下,重点教学和伴随学习生字的学习效果都不受阅读材料注音方式的影响;（2）与伴随学习相比,重点教学能更好地促进学生的汉字学习,减少中等生和优等生之间的差距;（3）全体学生都能进行有效的伴随学习,学生原有的语文能力越高,伴随学习的可能性越大。     

The importance of gesture in children's spatial reasoning

On average, men outperform women on mental rotation tasks. Even boys as young as 4 1/2 perform better than girls on simplified spatial transformation tasks. The goal of our study was to explore ways of improving 5-year-olds' performance on a spatial transformation task and to examine the strategies children use to solve this task. We found that boys performed better than girls before training and that both boys and girls improved with training, whether they were given explicit instruction or just practice. Regardless of training condition, the more children gestured about moving the pieces when asked to explain how they solved the spatial transformation task, the better they performed on the task, with boys gesturing about movement significantly more (and performing better) than girls. Gesture thus provides useful information about children's spatial strategies, raising the possibility that gesture training may be particularly effective in improving children's mental rotation skills.     

Doing gesture promotes learning a mental transformation task better than seeing gesture

Performing action has been found to have a greater impact on learning than observing action. Here we ask whether a particular type of action – the gestures that accompany talk – affect learning in a comparable way. We gave 158 6‐year‐old children instruction in a mental transformation task. Half the children were asked to produce a Move gesture relevant to the task; half were asked to produce a Point gesture. The children also observed the experimenter producing either a Move or Point gesture. Children who produced a Move gesture improved more than children who observed the Move gesture. Neither producing nor observing the Point gesture facilitated learning. Doing gesture promotes learning better than seeing gesture, as long as the gesture conveys information that could help solve the task.     

Young children use their hands to tell their mothers what to say

Children produce their first gestures before their first words, and their first gesture+word sentences before their first word+word sentences. These gestural accomplishments have been found not only to predate linguistic milestones, but also to predict them. Findings of this sort suggest that gesture itself might be playing a role in the language‐learning process. But what role does it play? Children's gestures could elicit from their mothers the kinds of words and sentences that the children need to hear in order to take their next linguistic step. We examined maternal responses to the gestures and speech that 10 children produced during the one‐word period. We found that all 10 mothers ‘translated’ their children's gestures into words, providing timely models for how one‐ and two‐word ideas can be expressed in English. Gesture thus offers a mechanism by which children can point out their thoughts to mothers, who then calibrate their speech to those thoughts, and potentially facilitate language‐learning.     

Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model

Utterances expressing generic kinds ("birds fly") highlight qualities of a category that are stable and enduring, and thus provide insight into conceptual organization. To explore the role that linguistic input plays in children's production of generic nouns, we observed American and Chinese deaf children whose hearing losses prevented them from learning speech and whose hearing parents had not exposed them to sign. These children develop gesture systems that have language-like structure at many different levels. The specific question we addressed in this study was whether the gesture systems, developed without input from a conventional language model, would contain generics. We found that the deaf children used generics in the gestures they invented, and did so at about the same rate as hearing children growing up in the same cultures and learning English or Mandarin. Moreover, the deaf children produced more generics for animals than for artifacts, a bias found previously in adult English- and Mandarin-speakers and also found in both groups of hearing children in our current study. This bias has been hypothesized to reflect the different conceptual organizations underlying animal and artifact categories. Our results suggest that not only is a language model not necessary for young children to produce generic utterances, but the bias to produce more generics for animals than artifacts also does not require linguistic input to develop.     

Moving to Learn: How Guiding the Hands Can Set the Stage for Learning

Previous work has found that guiding problem‐solvers' movements can have an immediate effect on their ability to solve a problem. Here we explore these processes in a learning paradigm. We ask whether guiding a learner's movements can have a delayed effect on learning, setting the stage for change that comes about only after instruction. Children were taught movements that were either relevant or irrelevant to solving mathematical equivalence problems and were told to produce the movements on a series of problems before they received instruction in mathematical equivalence. Children in the relevant movement condition improved after instruction significantly more than children in the irrelevant movement condition, despite the fact that the children showed no improvement in their understanding of mathematical equivalence on a ratings task or on a paper‐and‐pencil test taken immediately after the movements but before instruction. Movements of the body can thus be used to sow the seeds of conceptual change. But those seeds do not necessarily come to fruition until after the learner has received explicit instruction in the concept, suggesting a “sleeper effect” of gesture on learning.     

The role of gesture in children's learning to count.

The role of spontaneous gesture was examined in children's counting and in their assessment of counting accuracy. Eighty-five 2-, 3-, and 4-year-olds counted 6 sets of 2-, 4-, and 6-object arrays. In addition, children assessed the counting accuracy of a puppet whose gestures varied as he counted (i.e., gesture matched the number words, gesture mismatched the number words, no gesture at all). Results showed that the correspondence of children's speech and gesture varied systematically across the age groups and that children adhered to the one-to-one correspondence principle in gesture prior to speech. Moreover, children's correspondence of speech and gesture, adherence to the one-to-one principle in gesture, and assessment of the puppet's counting accuracy were related to children's counting accuracy. Findings are discussed in terms of the role that gesture may play in children's understanding of counting.     

A maturation effect in response inhibition in the rat

The finding that there are maturational differences between the ability to learn and to perform a task requiring young Wistar rats to inhibit a response was examined. Using an operant task, different from that employed in the previous studies, it was established that the finding was not task specific. The relative contribution of different periods in the early training stage to later savings in learning was also examined. It was confirmed that there is an early performance deficit by weanling rats on tasks requiring them to inhibit a previously learned response in the presence of a discriminative cue. Rats given early training on the task during this period of performance deficit nevertheless showed significant savings in later learning of the task, indicating that they had learned as much in that stage as they would have if given the same training at an age when performance is at the adult level. It was revealed that despite age-related differences in performance it was not so much the age at which early training took place as the amount of training given that affected later savings. The results are discussed in light of evidence of similar differences between the learning and performance of discrimination tasks exhibited by young children.     

Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load

Why is it that people cannot keep their hands still when they talk? One reason may be that gesturing actually lightens cognitive load while a person is thinking of what to say. We asked adults and children to remember a list of letters or words while explaining how they solved a math problem. Both groups remembered significantly more items when they gestured during their math explanations than when they did not gesture. Gesturing appeared to save the speakers' cognitive resources on the explanation task, permitting the speakers to allocate more resources to the memory task. It is widely accepted that gesturing reflects a speaker's cognitive state, but our observations suggest that, by reducing cognitive load, gesturing may also play a role in shaping that state.     

Stigma building blocks: how instruction and experience teach children about rejection by outgroups

Gaining an understanding of intergroup relations and outgroup rejection is an important childhood development. Children learn about rejection by outgroups via their own experiences and external instruction. A comparison of the impact of experience and instruction on first-, third-, and fifth-grade children's evaluations of rejection by outgroups in a minimal-groups paradigm suggests that the relative impact of experience and instruction differs as children age. In Study 1, younger children were more influenced by instruction, and older children were more influenced by what they experienced for themselves. In Study 2, younger children were more influenced by instruction, even when that instruction conflicted with what they experienced; older children were more influenced by their own experiences, even when those experiences contradicted what they were told to expect. These findings suggest that children begin learning about outgroup rejection through instruction but start to rely more on their own experiences as they age.     

Children learn when their teacher's gestures and speech differ

Teachers gesture when they teach, and those gestures do not always convey the same information as their speech. Gesture thus offers learners a second message. To determine whether learners take advantage of this offer, we gave 160 children in the third and fourth grades instruction in mathematical equivalence. Children were taught either one or two problem-solving strategies in speech accompanied by no gesture, gesture conveying the same strategy, or gesture conveying a different strategy. The children were likely to profit from instruction with gesture, but only when it conveyed a different strategy than speech did. Moreover, two strategies were effective in promoting learning only when the second strategy was taught in gesture, not speech. Gesture thus has an active hand in learning.     

The timing and mechanisms of children's use of morphological information in spelling: A review of evidence from English and French

We present a review of the research on English and French children's learning of the place of morphemes in spelling. Traditional models suggest that children use morphology relatively late in their spelling careers and that the end-point of development lies in rule-based performance. In contrast, we show that (a) children are sensitive to the role of morphemes in determining spelling at a young age and (b) they do not rely (at least exclusively) on rules. We discuss the features that may account for discrepancies between studies demonstrating late versus early use of morphology and we examine the processes that children might rely on in their learning, specifically statistical learning of intra- and inter-word regularities and retrieval of item-specific representations. This proposal provides a potential explanation for how children learn about the representation of morphology in print.     

How our hands help us learn

When people talk they gesture, and those gestures often reflect thoughts not expressed in their words. In this sense, gesture and the speech it accompanies can mismatch. Gesture-speech 'mismatches' are found when learners are on the verge of making progress on a task - when they are ready to learn. Moreover, mismatches provide insight into the mental processes that characterize learners when in this transitional state. Gesture is not just handwaving - it reflects how we think. However, evidence is mounting that gesture goes beyond reflecting our thoughts and can have a hand in changing those thoughts. We consider two ways in which gesture could change the course of learning: indirectly by influencing learning environments or directly by influencing learners themselves.     

Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention

By the age of 3, children easily learn to name new objects, extending new names for unfamiliar objects by similarity in shape. Two experiments tested the proposal that experience in learning object names tunes children's attention to the properties relevant for naming—in the present case, to the property of shape—and thus facilitates the learning of more object names. In Experiment 1, a 9-week longitudinal study, 17-month-old children who repeatedly played with and heard names for members of unfamiliar object categories well organized by shape formed the generalization that only objects with similar shapes have the same name. Trained children also showed a dramatic increase in acquisition of new object names outside of the laboratory during the course of the study. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and showed that they depended on children's learning both a coherent category structure and object names. Thus, children who learn specific names for specific things in categories with a common organizing property—in this case, shape—also learn to attend to just the right property—in this case, shape—for learning more object names.