Skip to main content
Log in

Co-thought gestures: Supporting students to successfully navigate map tasks

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study considers the role and nature of co-thought gestures when students process map-based mathematics tasks. These gestures are typically spontaneously produced silent gestures which do not accompany speech and are represented by small movements of the hands or arms often directed toward an artefact. The study analysed 43 students (aged 10–12 years) over a 3-year period as they solved map tasks that required spatial reasoning. The map tasks were representative of those typically found in mathematics classrooms for this age group and required route finding and coordinate knowledge. The results indicated that co-thought gestures were used to navigate the problem space and monitor movements within the spatial challenges of the respective map tasks. Gesturing was most influential when students encountered unfamiliar tasks or when they found the tasks spatially demanding. From a teaching and learning perspective, explicit co-thought gesturing highlights cognitive challenges students are experiencing since students tended to not use gesturing in tasks where the spatial demands were low.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alibali, M. W. (2005). Gestures in spatial cognition: Expressing, communicating and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5(4), 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., Spencer, R. C., Knox, L., & Kita, S. (2011). Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1138–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: Insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 706–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011a). The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011b). The role of spontaneous gesture in spatial problem solving. In E. Efthimiou & G. Kouroupetroglou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Gesture Workshop (pp. 16–19). Greece: Athens. Retrieved from http://access.uoa.gr/gw2011/proceedingsFiles/GW2011_05.pdf

  • Clarke, D. (2003). Are you functionally map literate? In Cartographic renaissance: Proceedings of the 21st International Cartographic Conference. Durban, South Africa: International Cartographic Association. Retrieved from http://cartography.tuwien.ac.at/ica/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2003/Papers/088.pdf

  • Ehrlich, S. B., Levine, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The importance of gesture in children’s spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1259–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, P., Alibali, M. W., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1998). Knowledge conveyed in gesture is not tied to the hands. Child Development, 69, 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, P., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2002). Gesture offers insight into problem-solving in adults and children. Cognitive Science, 26, 817–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiser, J., Tversky, B., & Silverman, M. (2004). Sketches for and from collaboration. In J. S. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Knight (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design III (pp. 69–78). Sydney: Key Centre for Design Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, C. A. (2010). Gender, spatial abilities, and wayfinding. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Gender research in general and experimental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 317–341). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liben, L. (2008). Understanding maps: Is the purple country on the map really purple? Knowledge Quest, 36, 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2011). Solving graphics tasks: Gender differences in middle-school students. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackinlay, J. (1999). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. In S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, & B. Schneiderman (Eds.), Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think (pp. 66–81). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially: GIS as a support system in the K-12 curriculum. Washington: National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2001). 2001 Queensland Year 5 test: Aspects of numeracy (p. 2). Brisbane: Queensland School Curriculum Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Studies Authority. (2002a). 2002 Queensland Year 3 test: Aspects of numeracy (p. 11). Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Studies Authority. (2002b). 2002 Queensland Year 5 test: Aspects of numeracy (p. 7). Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, L., Edwards, L. D., & Azarello, F. (2009). Introduction: Beyond words. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauter, M., Uttal, D. H., Schaal Alman, A., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2012). Learning what children know about space from looking at their hands: The added value of gesture in spatial communication. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (2007). Communicating with diagrams and gestures. In B. Choksi & C. Najaran (Eds.), Research trends in science, technology and mathematics education (pp. 112–121). Mumbai: Macmillan India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurina, H., & Williams, J. (2011). Gesturing for oneself. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education, 77, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracy Logan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Logan, T., Lowrie, T. & Diezmann, C.M. Co-thought gestures: Supporting students to successfully navigate map tasks. Educ Stud Math 87, 87–102 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9546-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9546-2

Keywords

Navigation