Better together: Simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention.

When teachers gesture during instruction, children retain and generalize what they are taught (Goldin-Meadow, 2014). But why does gesture have such a powerful effect on learning? Previous research shows that children learn most from a math lesson when teachers present one problem-solving strategy in speech while simultaneously presenting a different, but complementary, strategy in gesture (Singer & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). One possibility is that gesture is powerful in this context because it presents information simultaneously with speech. Alternatively, gesture may be effective simply because it involves the body, in which case the timing of information presented in speech and gesture may be less important for learning. Here we find evidence for the importance of simultaneity: 3rd grade children retain and generalize what they learn from a math lesson better when given instruction containing simultaneous speech and gesture than when given instruction containing sequential speech and gesture. Interpreting these results in the context of theories of multimodal learning, we find that gesture capitalizes on its synchrony with speech to promote learning that lasts and can be generalized.

From action to abstraction: using the hands to learn math.

Previous research has shown that children benefit from gesturing during math instruction. We asked whether gesturing promotes learning because it is itself a physical action, or because it uses physical action to represent abstract ideas. To address this question, we taught third-grade children a strategy for solving mathematical-equivalence problems that was instantiated in one of three ways: (a) in a physical action children performed on objects, (b) in a concrete gesture miming that action, or (c) in an abstract gesture. All three types of hand movements helped children learn how to solve the problems on which they were trained. However, only gesture led to success on problems that required generalizing the knowledge gained. The results provide the first evidence that gesture promotes transfer of knowledge better than direct action on objects and suggest that the beneficial effects gesture has on learning may reside in the features that differentiate it from action.

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

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.

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.

Children integrate speech and gesture across a wider temporal window than speech and action when learning a math concept.

It is well established that gesture facilitates learning, but understanding the best way to harness gesture and how gesture helps learners are still open questions. Here, we consider one of the properties that may make gesture a powerful teaching tool: its temporal alignment with spoken language. Previous work shows that the simultaneity of speech and gesture matters when children receive instruction from a teacher (Congdon et al., 2017). In Study 1, we ask whether simultaneity also matters when children themselves are the ones who produce speech and gesture strategies. Third-graders (N = 75) were taught to produce one strategy in speech and one strategy in gesture for correctly solving mathematical equivalence problems; they were told to produce these strategies either simultaneously (S + G) or sequentially (S➔G; G➔S) during a training session. Learning was assessed immediately after training, at a 24-h follow-up, and at a 4-week follow-up. Children showed evidence of learning and retention across all three conditions. Study 2 was conducted to explore whether it was the special relationship between speech and gesture that helped children learn. Third-graders (N = 87) were taught an action strategy instead of a gesture strategy; all other aspects of the design were the same. Children again learned across all three conditions. But only children who produced simultaneous speech and action retained what they had learned at the follow-up sessions. Results have implications for why gesture is beneficial to learners and, taken in relation to previous literature, reveal differences in the mechanisms by which doing versus seeing gesture facilitates learning.

Mental Transformation Skill in Young Children: The Role of Concrete and Abstract Motor Training.

We examined the effects of three different training conditions, all of which involve the motor system, on kindergarteners' mental transformation skill. We focused on three main questions. First, we asked whether training that involves making a motor movement that is relevant to the mental transformation-either concretely through action (action training) or more abstractly through gestural movements that represent the action (move-gesture training)-resulted in greater gains than training using motor movements irrelevant to the mental transformation (point-gesture training). We tested children prior to training, immediately after training (posttest), and 1 week after training (retest), and we found greater improvement in mental transformation skill in both the action and move-gesture training conditions than in the point-gesture condition, at both posttest and retest. Second, we asked whether the total gain made by retest differed depending on the abstractness of the movement-relevant training (action vs. move-gesture), and we found that it did not. Finally, we asked whether the time course of improvement differed for the two movement-relevant conditions, and we found that it did-gains in the action condition were realized immediately at posttest, with no further gains at retest; gains in the move-gesture condition were realized throughout, with comparable gains from pretest-to-posttest and from posttest-to-retest. Training that involves movement, whether concrete or abstract, can thus benefit children's mental transformation skill. However, the benefits unfold differently over time-the benefits of concrete training unfold immediately after training (online learning); the benefits of more abstract training unfold in equal steps immediately after training (online learning) and during the intervening week with no additional training (offline learning). These findings have implications for the kinds of instruction that can best support spatial learning.