Download files
Abstract
Previous research found animated instructions can lead to better learning of a human movement task when compared to equivalent statics (Ayres et al 2009), due to our innate ability to learn by observing movements. Moreover, De Koning & Tabbers’ (2011) review found gestures, also forms of human movement, can facilitate learning. A previous study (Marcus et al, CLT 2013) that focussed on adults learning Mandarin characters, found gestures improved learning from statics significantly more than animations. In this study we consider whether gestures can improve learning of a motor task for children, if there is a difference for static versus animated instructions, and tasks of different difficulty levels. We focus on primary school children learning Persian characters.
We hypothesize that including human movement into an instructional format will benefit learning as it taps into our movement processor. Thus the first hypothesis is that animations will lead to better performance than statics. Our second is that including gesture will lead to better learning than no gesture. Lastly we predict an interaction effect, and hypothesize that gesture will facilitate learning more for statics than animation. Gesturing may become redundant for more difficult animations when cognitive load is higher.
Method: Four groups of 11 grade 1 and 2 students, were given a series of 9 Persian characters to learn to write, ranging in difficulty level from easy to medium to difficult. Two groups received animated instructional materials, with one group asked to gesture while learning. The other two groups received equivalent static graphics, with one group gesturing. All groups had equal learning times. The students were then tested on ability to reproduce the characters including correct strokes and dots, drawing order, and positioning relative to a guide line.
Results from a MANOVA supported our hypothesis with a significant overall interaction between gesture and instructional format (F(3, 38) = 7.42, p < .001) as well as significant main effects for presentation format (F = 28.0, p < .001), with animations outperforming statics, and gesturing (F = 16.5, p < .001), with gesturing outperforming non-gesturing. Univariate tests indicated a significant interaction for both easy and medium tasks, but not the difficult task. Simple effects tests showed that for the static presentation, all three tasks found gesturing superior to non-gesturing. For the animated presentation, only the easy task produced a gesturing advantage.
Conclusion: Our results provide support for the existence of a human movement processor that when invoked can support learning, particularly for human movement tasks. Gesturing supported learning for young children, particularly for easier tasks (when less cognitively loaded) and when learning from statics (movement is not inherent to this instructional format). As expected, animations led to better learning than statics. Gesturing was redundant for the more difficult animated tasks when children were cognitively challenged, and movement was inherent.
References
Ayres, P, Marcus, N, Chan, C, & Qian, N. (2009). Learning Hand Manipulative Tasks: When Instructional Animations are Superior to Equivalent Static Representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 348-353
De Koning, B. B, & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating Understanding of Movements in Dynamic Visualizations: an Embodied Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 501-521
