Learning About Magnetism Through Gesture and Models: The Moderating Role of Spatial Ability

• In Event: 3-219 - Exploring New Translational Science Approaches to Incorporate Spatial Thinking in Elementary Science

Integrative Statement

Gestures are hand movements which represent spatial and relational concepts. Gesture supports children’s mathematics learning (Congdon, Kwon & Levine, 2018; Novack & Goldin-Meadow, 2014), and the benefits of gesture transfer beyond the topic being taught (far transfer), over and above the use of concrete manipulatives (Novack et al, 2014). Gesture has not been used in research with children as a strategy for teaching science, yet research with adults suggest that it would be effective. In particular, learning about molecular structures in chemistry through gestures which represent these structures is as effective as learning through physical 3D models (Stieff, Lira & Scopelitis, 2016). In the first study to employ gesture within science teaching with children, we taught children about magnetism through gesture, models, or diagrams and description. We then assessed them using near (knowledge of the taught material) and far transfer questions (knowledge of other magnets). We predicted that gesture and model use would lead to better magnet knowledge than diagram-based teaching, and that teaching through gesture would lead to greater far transfer performance than model-based teaching.

75 children (mean age: 8.8 years; SD: .28 years) participated in study 1, and 73 children (mean age 8.9 years; SD: .30 years) participated in study 2.

Children were first familiarised with magnets either via concrete magnets (study 1) or photographs of magnets (study 2). For both studies, children were then taught about magnets and magnetism through either: 1) viewing and using concrete models (magnets); 2) viewing and using concrete gestures which represented magnets; 3) through verbal description and diagrams only. Children then completed two sets of questions. Near transfer questions related only to bar magnets, which were covered in the teaching, whereas far transfer questions related to other types of magnets not covered (e.g., disc magnets). Children’s spatial ability was measured through a mental folding task.

There were no significant differences across conditions on the far transfer questions for either study. For near transfer questions, when children were familiarised with concrete magnets (study 1), the gesture condition was more effective than the diagram/verbal condition, whilst neither condition differed from the concrete model condition (Fig. 1). Spatial ability did not correlate with scores. When familiarised with photographs of magnets (study 2), spatial ability correlated with scores and there was an interaction between spatial ability and condition (Fig. 2). When examined with a spatial ability median split, children with higher spatial ability performed better in the gesture condition, compared to the concrete model condition, but not the diagram condition. Performance on the gesture condition in study 2 was also higher than the concrete model and diagram conditions in study 1. For children with lower spatial ability, performance in study 2 did not differ across conditions, or to the conditions in study 1. Children with higher spatial ability may therefore sometimes learn more effectively with less exposure to concrete models. For these children, not having affordances of the model in the familiarisation phase may promote more independent construction processes and visualisation.

Authors

• Alex Hodgkiss, UCL Institute of Education
  Presenting Author

• Michael S. C. Thomas, University of London
  Non-Presenting Author

• Andrew Tolmie, Institute of Education, UCL
  Non-Presenting Author

• Emily K. Farran, University College London
  Non-Presenting Author