Edited by: Yong Luo, Educational Testing Service, United States
Reviewed by: Abeer A. Alamri, National Center for Assessment, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Tongyun Li, Educational Testing Service, United States; Qianqian Pan, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
This article was submitted to Assessment, Testing and Applied Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Education
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Learning spatial terms in a second language is often an arduous task which learners perform with varying levels of success. While classroom-based studies of gesture have shown the importance of embodied learning, predictions about which teaching gestures are most effective remain rare. In the context of learning and performing a play, this study investigates two English language teaching methods, one with teacher gestures at the level of morphology and one with gestures at the sentence level. This experiment with a diverse group of primary-school-age children from Germany and Poland (
When observing the position or trajectory of objects in space, we are usually unaware that categorical distinctions are imposed on the scene. However, talking about movement and position requires that space be divided into discrete basic spatial categories. While this process may seem effortless in a language we know well, learning to use spatial terms in a second language (L2), where space may be partitioned very differently is often a difficult task. At the same time, the semantic categories associated with words like
As humans because of our physical and neurobiological architecture, we perceive objects and actions in certain ways. Gestures or symbolic hand movements can represent this conceptual information through form and movement (McNeill,
Researchers have recently proposed the Gesture-for-Conceptualization Hypothesis (GfCH) which states that gestures schematize information and are conceptually linked not only to speaking, but also to thinking in general (Kita et al.,
Related to mental representations, the notion of embodied simulation has been proposed citing research which demonstrates that both physical and imagined manipulation lead to substantial gains in memory and language comprehension (Glenberg,
Despite the fact that the benefits of gesture for second language learning are well-documented (Macedonia and von Kriegstein,
While the relationship between gesture and L2 teaching and learning has been examined, few studies have operationalized spatial term learning in classroom settings, and even fewer with primary-school-age learners. This research gap is unfortunate because although L2 spatial language is clearly important, it is often perceived by teachers as challenging to teach (Lütke,
Previous studies involving gesture and spatial relations from english language classroom settings.
Johansson Falck ( |
9 Swedish pupils 12–13 years | Effect of learners applying body-world knowledge categories for |
Nakatsukasa ( |
48 ESL university students Mage = 20.4 years | Effect of teacher gestured corrective feedback on learner locative preposition production for |
Eskildsen and Wagner ( |
An adult Mexican Spanish-speaking learner of English, his classmates and teacher | To investigate how common L2 gesture-speech combinations are deployed by teachers and reused within the classroom by learners to facilitate production and understanding for |
Rumme et al. ( |
97 Japanese pupils Mage = 12.1 years | Effect of teacher abstract pointing gestures on preposition distinction learning between |
This paucity of research raises several more general issues. Knowing meaningful gestures tied to a word or sentence has been shown to enhance learning, however learning gestures in addition to speech initially increases cognitive demands (Macedonia and Klimesch,
To shed more light on this issue, a recent study investigated the influence of teacher gestures on oral fluency in a diverse group of primary school age children (Janzen Ulbricht,
The present study extends this research, and examines in more detail the role of these same teaching conditions in learning English spatial terms. Since gesture has the potential to embody spatial information, gesture may be especially helpful for teaching spatial terms, as has been explored by others in L1 (McGregor et al.,
The present study reports the results of a 7-week experiment that tested the effects of gesture-based L2 instruction on long-term spatial term learning. Children from two primary schools, one in Germany (
Codified gestures refer to specific hand or arm movements which have a “dictionary meaning” within a particular group (Poggi,
All of the spatial terms tested were embedded in the text of the play (for testing materials and procedures, see section Instruction). Consistent with stories and the English language in general (Crystal,
Summary of experimental conditions.
A hand movement | Per morpheme | For sentences |
Gestures for sample sentence: It's dark out there. | It + is + dark + out + there | It is dark out there [prep |
Gestures in sample sentence | Total number = 5 | Total number = 1 |
The play was learned | ||
Time in experimental conditions | 12 sessions of 15 min long spread over 4 days |
Much research on gesture and L2 learning has focused on whether gesture-based instruction benefits learners. These experiments, while necessary, lack the precision necessary to provide guidance on which gestures might support learning best. With this study we move beyond this question by testing the effects of teaching methods involving different teacher gestures at the level of linguistic units on spatial term learning outcomes. We hypothesize that during second language acquisition gestures can support the mental representation of what is being said (MRC), reducing uncertainty and resulting in more efficient language processing. We make no prior claims about one condition being more efficient than another. Matched codified gesture and scenic learning units for beginning English learners were developed and their effects on L2 spatial term learning were tested. Following a repeated-measures design, which quantifies changes over time, analyses of a gain in spatial term ability were carried out. This study is consistent with the premise that meaning is embodied and that learning occurs as a result of collaboration with others in familiar socially constructed settings (Bruner,
In the context of learning and performing a play, can a long-term gain in L2 spatial term ability be measured?
If the same text is learned in different ways, using a gesture for every word without the written text (CG) or using a gesture for the most important sentences with access to the written text (SL), are there measurable differences between experimental groups?
Our study was conducted with 76 learners between the ages of 8 and 13 from two primary schools (
Two sets of text-learning phases were developed, each resulting in a total of 3 h of instruction. The content of the play to be taught during the project was segmented into 12 units of 15 min each. For each teaching phase both a version that utilized scenic learning (SL) forms of instruction and a codified gesture (CG) version of instruction were designed. As previously mentioned, in the SL condition the focus of the first six units was on understanding and fluently reading the play, whereas sessions 7–12 focused on using sentence-level gestures to speak together as a group and memorize the character parts.
In both the CG and the SL conditions, the children had instruction in which they separately learned the same text. In the CG condition, the teachers taught a set of gestures, one for every morpheme in the play. In this condition, most words such as
Sample gestures for the sentence It is dark out there in the codified gesture (CG) condition.
Scenic learning is an approach which combines movement and choral repetition of words, lexical chunks, or sentences. These movements, although simple, reinforce associations between words and mental images or scenes taken from daily life, hence the name scenic learning (Böttger and Sambanis,
While the text of the play remained the same, in contrast to the first six sessions, the focus of sessions 7–12 in the SL condition was on using gestures at the sentence level to memorize and practice speaking together. Following the SL approach, the most central sentences of the play were practiced accompanied by a simple movement. These movements were developed by the teachers at each school to capture the meaning of the most important sentences of the play. As can be seen in
In both Poland and Germany, it was clarified that the goal of practice was for all children to memorize each speaking part independent of the role they would eventually play in the actual performance. In the SL group children had access to the text in written form, but only during the text-learning phases. After the final text-learning phase, the CG and the SL groups were combined at the grade level (meaning grade 5 and grade 6 worked separately), character roles were assigned and a narrator from each group was chosen. For the final 5 h of instruction, the focus moved from learning the text to rehearsing the play on stage in an artistic way. Because of this different focus, during the rehearsal and performance children did not gesture. This is practice of using and then discontinuing gestures once learners have internalized the target language is also consistent with other L2 gesture-based teaching methods (e.g., Macedonia,
Each teacher taught both groups of students in both conditions, with no more than two consecutive sessions being taught by the same teacher. This design allowed for the control of teacher effects. To facilitate continuity of instruction in the SL condition, teachers created lesson plans of the activities in advance. In the CG condition, teachers provided gestures for all the words of the play and wrote brief notes in the teaching materials to document which text sections had been covered. Fidelity of implementation observers were present in each classroom ~60 percent of the time to ensure that the text was taught as designed in terms of timing, content, and activities. Observers were instructed to note any deviation from the lesson plan as well as any differences in gesture quality within conditions and recorded only little deviation. It is also important to note that before beginning teaching sessions all teachers were tested to ensure gesture proficiency and consistency.
The stimuli consisted of five objects (teddy bear, box, ball, blanket, and a book) on a table in a room with a chair, window, and a door. Some of the test items were functionally canonical in that the trajector object (e.g., a ball) would commonly go in the landmark object (e.g., a box) in everyday environments. However, many of the test items such as
At the beginning of the study, a test using a set of objects not required during subsequent teaching was administered to all initial participants. (For access to online-
The format of the baseline and both follow-up tests was the same and used three different but equivalent versions of the same test. The test objects used (bear and ball etc.) were the same for each test version, but the order of the spatial terms and the items required for a certain action were randomized and different. Using different but equivalent test versions follows the parallel-forms method for matching statistical reliability (Murphy and Davidshofer,
The format of all testing sessions was a warm-up phase, Part A in which the child heard nine recorded sentences and performed the associated actions, and Part B in which the examiner performed nine actions and the child spoke, meaning each spatial term was tested twice, once in Part A and once in Part B. The test also included part C which was deliberately designed to be difficult to avoid ceiling effects and to make retention challenging. However, since there was no evidence of ceiling effects for parts A and B across participants and sessions, data from part C was collected but is not included in the analysis. Because we see both L2 spatial term comprehension and production as closely related skills, for data analysis scores from part A and B were combined into a general accuracy score (Novack et al.,
Children first completed a warm-up phase to familiarize themselves with the room and the test objects, as well as speaking with the experimenter. This warm-up phase was scripted and involved each child repeating the name of the test objects and physically touching them.
The first section of the test was about understanding and implementing action statements by moving or positioning objects in physical space (see
If a child complied with the action statement, they received one point.
If a child did not comply with an action statement, and did not make a movement, but did make eye contact, the examiner said, “Just do the best you can.”
If a child did not comply with an action, make any movement, or make eye contact, after 10 s the examiner said, “Just try the next one.” and the next recording was played.
If a child made an action that was incorrect, they did not receive a point and the next recording was played.
Coding examples for test item put the ball under the box. The first picture is correct, the second and third are incorrect.
The second section of the test was about recognizing actions and naming the position of objects in physical space. For the sentence
Performance was measured in the following way:
If a child named the correct spatial term, they received one point.
If the child demonstrated understanding in movement (e.g., through a spontaneous gesture or repeating a gesture from the training phase) or a language other than English, they did not receive a point.
If a child named an incorrect spatial term, they did not receive a point and the next recording was played.
Children themselves were not given any feedback about whether or not an answer was correct, but were thanked for their participation at the end of the test. Exit interviews for all children established that in general children enjoyed the test. Even children who received no points for spatial term knowledge, reported feeling successful because they had recognized and spoken English words and in conclusion many said the test “wasn't hard.”
Van den Broeck et al. (
We conducted multiple regression analyses on long-term comprehension and use of L2 spatial terms to test the long-term effects of learning a text using two English language teaching methods, one with teacher gestures at the level of morphology without access to the written text (CG), and one with gestures at the sentence level with access to the written text (SL). Our binary dependent variable (correct vs. incorrect responses on the spatial term test) was analyzed using a multilevel modeling approach. We used a hierarchical model including class and preposition as random effects with students nested within classes. Experimental group and session, meaning the time point when the tests were conducted, were included as fixed effects. All analyses were conducted with R Version 3.4.3 with the lme4 package (Bates et al.,
Our analysis of student outcomes includes 76 students who completed all assessments and for whom a questionnaire was received about their age, years of English language tuition, and whether the primary home language was the language of school instruction. Because of data privacy laws, while it was possible to ask if a child's L1 was or was not the language of instruction (i.e., German in Germany or Polish in Poland), it was not permitted to ask what a child's L1 was. As noted above, knowledge of English spatial terms was tested before the project began. For each participant, an accuracy score (i.e., number correct on test) was calculated. Preliminary analyses indicated that there were no significant effects or interactions found for gender or age,
After the text-learning phases, experimental groups were combined (in Germany into one group and in Poland at the grade level) and the final 5 h of teaching time were used to focus on presenting the play on stage in an artistic way. Given that the children had learned and practiced an adventure story which contained spatial language, but that the focus of the performance had passed, it was unknown whether spatial term comprehension and production would improve on the test. The posttest took place in the week following the final presentation of gestures, followed by the retest 7 weeks after the initial test and 5 weeks after the theater project. Comparing the two experimental groups in
Change in mean spatial term accuracy over time between teaching methods. The
To further investigate these differences, children's spatial term ability (correct vs. incorrect responses) was entered in a hierarchical model including class and preposition as random effects, with students nested within classes. Experimental group and session were included as fixed effects.
Summary of model fit statistics.
m | 9 | 3060.217 | 3113.266 | −1521.109 | 3042.217 | 6.59 | 2 | 0.04 |
m0 | 7 | 3062.809 | 3104.069 | −1524.404 | 3048.809 | NA | NA | NA |
As can be seen from the output of the first model (see
These results in L2 spatial term learning show that while there are enhancements for both experimental groups and both lead to long-term learning processes as indicated by the retest measurement, the CG condition appears to be the initially more efficient learning procedure. The error bars for the retest, especially for the SL group, indicate more variation in learning, meaning differences between experimental groups become much less clear over time. Especially for learning which is new, this suggests that teaching over time is important in order to consolidate what has been learned (Kelley et al.,
Through work on cross-linguistic categories of spatial relations, Brala (
In the context of learning and performing a play, can a long-term gain in L2 spatial term ability be measured?
If the same text is learned in different ways, using a gesture for every word without the written text (CG) or using a gesture for the most important sentences with access to the written text (SL), are there measurable differences between experimental groups?
Regarding question one, visual inspection (
The two additional questions we would like to address are:
Why is the CG condition more efficient?
What else is learned in the SL condition?
Because gestures on the level of morphology were the only input form in the CG condition, children in this condition saw more gestures. On the part of the teachers, producing more gestures meant more practice, possibly leading to more gesture consistency. In support of this viewpoint, observers also remarked on an increase in the gesture quality over time. Gesture practice also improved in the SL condition, but here, because there were simply fewer gestures, this effect would be expected to be less.
Although the Retrieval-Integration account of language processing is largely based on language data, Gunter et al. (
The question about what else was learned in the SL condition is difficult to answer. Other experiments using SL have shown positive long-term effects, but in these experiments the teaching time was considerably longer and was compared to teaching methods which were not embodied (Hille et al.,
In previous experiments when measuring fluency (Janzen Ulbricht,
This naturalistic study with a diverse group of learners examined the affects of teacher gestures on long-term spatial term learning. It is widely known that gestures can embody speech and facilitate L2 learning, but gesture research from the classroom on spatial term learning is rare. Although both teaching conditions led to an increase in spatial term ability, in this study children who received gestures at the level of morphology were sooner able to retain and generalize learning than children who received gestures at the sentence level with access to the written text. Children in the CG condition learned their text through interpreting their teachers' gestures, so learners who struggle with reading and writing in an additional language may especially benefit from the opportunity to learn texts through multimodal means. Further more focused research is needed to isolate whether other factors, such the learning modalities themselves (reading vs. not reading or gesture type) are relevant. Because both teaching methods described here may be applicable to the teaching of other languages, the results of this study should be of interest to researchers seeking effective methods for teaching spatial terms in languages other than English.
There are, of course, many limitations to this study. The careful reader may have noticed that the
Gestures are an integral part of classroom situations and offer teachers a powerful tool for helping learners to acquire, retain and apply knowledge to new situations. In addition to exploring instructional gestures in experimental settings, research from the classroom is necessary since conditions in the classroom have a complexity that cannot be reduced while doing justice to how education is really practiced.
Because participants in this study are children, while reviewers were granted access to the raw data, for reasons of privacy, permission for a wider audience was not. Further inquiries can be made directed to the corresponding author.
A reviewer pointed out the uneven distribution of refugee, German and Polish participants. Children from these groups were randomly assigned to the experimental learning conditions specifically for this reason; however, since the unit of inclusion was entire classes, it was beyond the author's control to manipulate the exact number of participants in the study.
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
This paper benefits from interdisciplinary collaboration with many FU colleagues. I would also like to extend my thanks to the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Psycholinguistic Colloquium for useful and constructive comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. In addition, the final version of this paper benefited immensely from the constructive comments of the reviewers.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
The complete spatial term testing materials and procedures can be found at
1In this experiment, as in others, variability in participant characteristics may affect individual learning outcomes. While it is known that linguistic and socioeconomic variables often influence language learning processes (Krifka et al.,
2When asked to use gesture participants often produce responses that are more strategic and thoughtful (Hattie and Yates,
3All analyses were conducted with R Version 3.4.3 with two-tailed tests using
4A follow-up experiment could have the following four groups: (1) + gestures for every morpheme – access to the written text; (2) + gestures for every morpheme + access to the written text; (3) + gestures at the sentence level – access to the written text; and finally (4) + gestures at the sentence level + access to the written text. Because of statistical power such an experiment would require more resources (in terms of participant numbers and teacher time etc.) but could shed light on the interaction between gesture type and access to the written text inherent in the present experiment. Given that gesture and text are readily available in classrooms, an experiment focusing on these different forms could be a worthwhile investment.