In Whose Hands?

Language Acquisition and the Use of Gestures

Edward Mordechay Edward R. Murrow High School 1600 Avenue L Brooklyn, New York 11230

Abstract Research shows that gestures play a crucial role in communication, comprehension, and development. The goal of this study was to see if creating ones own hand gestures helped participants retain more foreign language vocabulary words than did mimicking an instructors hand gestures. Two hundred and four participants were sampled from Edward R. Murrow High School. Participants were split into three groups: (1) a group that created its own gestures; (2) a group that mimicked an instructors gestures; and (3) a group that neither saw nor made gestures. Each group watched a video of an instructor presenting 14 words from the constructed language Volapuk. Once the video finished, participants were given a demographics survey and a test of the vocabulary words. A second test one week later assessed how much vocabulary participants remembered. Results showed that participants who mimicked the instructors gestures learned the most vocabulary initially; however, the group that created its own gestures retained the most vocabulary after a week (p<.05). Furthermore, participants who were in specialized screened visual arts programs learned and retained more words than participants who were in screened theater, screened music, or no screened program. The data also showed a ceiling effect of gestures on participants in advanced classes. The research suggests that creating ones own gesture requires more focus on creating a hand gesture for a word than actually learning the word which may be why fewer words were learned initially by those who created their own gesture, but once gestures are fully created, a stronger memory of the word may be retained.

Introduction While it is well known that we use gestures when we speak (McNeill, 1992), we still dont know why we gesture; however, research shows that gestures play a crucial role in communication, comprehension, and development. Many believe that non-verbal communication particularly hand gestures and verbal communication are closely related and are possibly entwined as one system in the brain (McNeill, 1992). There are different types of hand gestures. Arbitrary hand movements are not classified as hand gestures, e. g., pulling your hair back, scratching your arm. The four types of gestures that are classified as communicators are deictic, emblem, beat, and iconic gestures. Deictic gestures are pointing gestures; they are used to refer to an object, idea, or place. Emblem gestures are special gestures that are culture-specific; e. g., the thumbs up sign in the United States might mean a job well done, but the same sign in the Middle East is known as an insult. Beat gestures are hand or finger movements that are used to emphasize something in speech or to help keep rhythm; they dont convey any message, and are usually just up and down hand movements. The most important type of hand gesture is the iconic gesture. Unlike the others, iconic gestures illustrate what is being said by creating concrete ideas or messages; e. g., saying I threw the ball while winding up like a baseball player would convey that the ball was thrown hard, whereas, if the gesture was a slow, weak movement that would convey that the ball was simply let go; interestingly, in both cases the speech does not change, but a simple change in hand motion can change the whole idea of the speech. Recently, gesture-speech integration has been studied in infants. Researchers have found that gestures are present before and during language development. In an analysis of gesture research, Kelly et al. (2008) have found that children gesture even before they speak; more importantly, infants use deictic gesture before they can say their first words in order to communicate. Rowe and Goldin-Meadow (2008) wanted to see if gesture production at 18 months correlated with vocabulary and sentence complexity at 42 months. They found that 18month-olds who created many different hand gestures had a bigger vocabulary by 42 months and that 18-month-olds who used more gesture and speech combinations had more complex sentences by 42 months (Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2008). A crucial study of the gesture-speech integration system was done with blind participants. Iverson and Goldin-Meadow (2001) studied the gesticulation between blind, blind-from-birth, 2

and sighted participants, and found that there was no significant difference between the gestures of all three groups. There is no apparent necessity for blind-from-birth children to gesture to another blind person because neither can see the gesture, yet blind-from birth participants did gesture to others who were also blind. Researchers believe that there is a unified system of speech and gesture, and that gestures can aid speech which is why the innate feeling causes blind people to gesture (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2001). The enactment effect, coined by scientists in the 1980s, posits that if verbal phrases for action are encoded by self-performed representation actions, their retrieval is better than if the verbal information is only heard or read (Cook, Yip, & Goldin-Meadow, 2010; Macedonia et al., 2010; Macedonia & Knosh, 2011). Gestures are a form of action, which is why words enacted by hand gestures can have the same effect as representational actions on memory. The simplest explanation of why gestures are effective is because of the attention they receive. At times people gesture in very expressive and large movements, which cause many to focus on that person creating the gesture. Beat gestures are especially helpful at times because they align with emphasis in sentences, which can help people filter what is important (Leonard & Cummins, 2010, Hostetter, 2011). Gestures help people find words that are more discrete and compact, which helps listeners better understand what is said. An example of this idea is in tip-of-the tongue state where meanings of words are known, but are not retrieved right away; when remembering words in this state, gestures are sometimes used because they can trigger some association with the word, leading to quicker word retrieval (Beattie & Coughlan, 1999). In a study using phone conversations, participants describing something via telephone used gestures although the listener could not see them. Researchers suggest that the gestures help the speaker retrieve better words which, in turn, helps better communicate an idea (Bavelas, Gerwing, Suton, & Prevost, 2008). In Iverson and Goldin-Meadows (2001) study people who were blind from birth still used gestures even though they knew that their partners were also blind Again , it was thought that gestures made for easier cognitive retrieval of words (Iverson et al., 2001). Paivios (1971) dual-coding theory, states that learning can be reinforced if taught in two ways rather than one, as, for example, the verbal association of duck and the visual representation of a duck. This idea has been expanded to a multiple-modality theory which proposes that learning can be enhanced by multiple, different modalities and not just two 3

(Tellier, 2007); this theory has included hand gestures because they are a kinesthetic form of learning which can add to verbal and visual instructions. In a recent meta-analysis of gestures and communication, Hostteter (2011) reviewed 63 studies and found that, across all studies, gestures do significantly improve communication; the analysis was based on listener comprehension of speech when it is or is not accompanied by gestures. A related study had participants look at a video of someone performing an action while the person explained what he was doing, and then had them respond whether another video of a gesture and speech was the same. Results showed that when gestures and speech are congruent, subjects answer questions more quickly and produce fewer errors, whereas incongruent speech and gestures caused significant incorrect answers (Kelly et al., 2010). A study of chronic stutterers found that when a severe stutterer stopped speaking while retelling a story, gesture also stopped, and when speech restarted, gesture also resumed; additionally, stutterers used fewer words and half the gestures that fluent speakers did. This study suggested that gesture is affected by fluency and is almost subordinate to speech because, without the words, the gestures have no meaning, and to compensate gesture resumes when speech resumes (Mayberry et al., 1998). A study of bi-lingual subjects found that when participants heard a lecture with gestures and facial movements in a non-native language, they comprehended more and did better on subsequent tests than in lectures in which the instructor did not gesture (Sueyoshi & Hardison, 2005). Hostteter (2011) found similar results in a meta-analysis in which bi-lingual participants who saw gestures during a task were 1 standard deviation better at comprehending what the task was than a bi-lingual participant who did not see gestures (Hostteter 2011). In foreign language learning gestures have been particularly studied because learning a new language can be difficult, and if there is any way to help improve learning, then gesturing may be the link to create better learning. Gestures help in learning a foreign language because words in different languages are not related. For instance, when presented with the word manos in Spanish, with no prior knowledge, it is impossible to associate it with the English word hand; however, if the hands are waved while the word manos is said, then a link is created to the English word hands. In the context of learning a new language and speaking it, gestures go a long way in helping retrieve new words and develop fluency because the recipient can understand a word without the word actually being uttered.

In a study where French children learned English words either without gestures, by hearing the words and watching an instructor gesture, or by hearing and repeating gestures, those who repeated the gestures were able to recall significantly more words than the other two groups (Tellier, 2007). Tellier (2008) conducted this study again, but tested childrens long-term memory of the new words instead. The results showed that learning through gestures yielded higher scores over a long period of time than learning with images (Tellier, 2008). Another study found that when words are taught through gestures (1) memory is improved because the gestures enriched the foreign words with plausible sensory motor connotation; (2) gestures are able to both help learn new words and new phrases; and, (3) subjects who had created their own sentences with the new vocabulary used the words accompanied by gestures more often than those who had learned without gestures, possibly because gesture-speech combinations create stronger memories than speech alone (Macedonia & Knosche, 2011). Further research has found that gestures can help students retain what they learn. A study that taught children a mathematical problem solving technique found that the children who learned with gestures were able to answer more questions correctly than children who were taught only verbally (Cook, Mitchell, & Goldin-Meadow, 2008). In another study participants were asked to retell an animation of Aesops Fables (many of these stories elicited gesticulation) and then were tested for what they remembered; the results showed that participants who gestured more during retelling a story were better able to recall the stories three weeks later (Cook, Yip, & Goldin-Meadow, 2010). Although these studies are not related to learning a new language, they do provide stronger evidence that gestures would play a similar role during language acquisition and retention; also, although the procedures were manipulated, and were not natural, the results were good indications of what would occur in more natural situations. In Hostteters (2011) meta-analysis, scripted and spontaneous gesture studies had similar results, which defends the results of research that manipulated situations (Hostteter, 2011). Many teachers and instructors dont use gestures in teaching. In a study to assess whether teachers can be taught to gesture more and listen to students gestures, Hostetter et al.(2006) found that if teachers were told that gestures are helpful, the teachers gestured more (Hostetter, Bieda, Alibali, Nathan, & Knuth 2006). This study examines gestures effects on foreign language acquisition and retention and whether if having participants create their own gesture associations for words would be more 5

helpful in retaining those words than asking them to mimic an instructors gesture. Although the procedures are manipulated, and are not natural, Hostteters (2011) meta-analysis found that manipulated and natural set-ups yielded similar results. Hypotheses 1. The group that neither sees nor enacts gestures, when learning foreign language vocabulary, retains less vocabulary than the group that creates its own gestures or the group that mimics the instructors gestures. 2. The group that creates its own gestures, when learning foreign language vocabulary, retains more vocabulary than either the group that mimics the instructors gestures or the group that neither sees nor enacts gestures. 3. Within each of the three groups, participants who are part of a screened theater program retain more foreign language vocabulary than participants who are not in the same theater program.

Methods Materials Johann Martin Schleyer created Volapuk because he wanted to bring peace to the world with an international language. Although Schleyer adapted the vocabulary of Volapuk from English, French, and German, I chose Volapuk because many words were modified and are hard for English speakers to recognize. When finding words to teach, I chose those that were easy to recognize through hand gestures and that were in no way connected to English. For example, the word doat in Volapuk means finger and the associated gesture is wiggling fingers. Three videos were created for three different groups. Each video began with a script that introduced the topic. 1. The no-gesture groups were presented the no-gesture video: In the video I read the words, and then the Volapuk words were projected in the background, which changed every 15 seconds. After every word was projected, I pronounced the word and its translation three times, and then asked the participants to repeat the words three times.

2. The mimic gesture group saw the mimic gesture video: The video follows the same format as video 1; however, along with each pronunciation, I add an iconic gesture for each word; subsequently, the participants were asked to repeat the words and the gestures. 3. The self-devised gesture group saw the self-devise gesture video: This video followed the same format as video 1, except participants were asked to create their own gestures for each word and then repeat the self-devised gestures as they repeated the words. I did not gesture in this video. Procedure In all, 12 classes participated in this experiment. The classes were divided into three groups, each composed of four classes. Most classes viewed the videos on a Smart Board or a projector. Each video presented the fourteen words in the order shown in Table 1. After the participants finished watching the video, they were given a demographics survey. Items 1-10, except 5, were taken from the College Board demographics section. Item 5 asked whether students were part of the schools screened theater, screened music, or screened visual arts program. Item 11 asked if participants were in honors programs. After participants completed the demographics section, each student had to take a test pertaining to the words learned from the video. The first test consisted of the English words from Table 1 randomized, with blank space for participants to write the Volapuk translation. A randomized word bank of Volapuk words, with 6 extra words that had not been taught, was given to ensure correct spelling and correct recognition of words. The questions were also randomized in order for participants to answer the questions based on memory and not order. This was the first test. One week later, without prior notification, the participants took a second test based on what they had learned from the prior session. The first session lasted roughly 10-15 minutes and the second session lasted 5-10 minutes.

Table 1: Volapuk-English translation, and corresponding hand gestures Volapuk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Doat Ol Jim Glidis Zonul Pun Eko Frakaton Kvar Pud Pam Vef Lad Bal English Finger You Scissors Hello Belt Fist Here Snap Square Peace Book Wave Heart One Wiggling fingers Uncle Sam I want you gesture Index and middle finger coming together and apart Waving hand Both my hands going across the belt area My fingers enclosed like a fist Pointing downward Actual finger snapping Make an outline of a square using my index fingers Peace symbol: index and middle finger separated Hands flat and touching and hands look like Im flipping pages My hand goes across my chest as it makes a wave movement Heart outline with my fingers, the putting fingers over my heart All of the fingers closed except for the index finger Hand Gesture

Sample Design This experiment tested 281 students from Edward R. Murrow High School in Brooklyn, New York, where more than a dozen languages are spoken. Students who didnt take both tests were not included in the analysis; furthermore, because birthdays, rather than names, were used to match the three survey parts, those who did not provide their birthdays were also excluded. The final sample consisted of 204 students divided into three groups: 55 in the self-devised gesture group, 70 in the mimic gesture group, and 79 in the no-gesture group. The sample 8

consisted of: four Advanced Placement (AP) classes, six core curriculum classes, and two selfcontained special education classes. The survey, first test, and second test were all confidential, but each form asked for the students birthday in order to match tests and surveys. There were several limitations to this experiment. The sample group was unequally represented in student strength with the self-devised group containing two self-contained special education classes and one AP class; the mimicked gesture group had no special education classes or AP classes; and the no-gesture group had no special education classes but had three AP classes. The videos for each were filmed with a digital camera and, when projected on the Smart Board, were difficult to hear and see. Participants could not hear some words, misheard words, and were unable to clearly see the words. Since many of the Smart Boards had broken speakers, the computer desktop was used to play back sound, but the desktops sound volume was very low, which forced me to repeat the words because all the students were not able to hear. Each video contained an introduction to the topic of this experiment, but since no one could hear the word in 12 of the 14 classes, I was forced to repeat everything in the video to the participants. During repetition, I often made mistakes, adding extra gestures for words, repeating gestures, and falsely translating words. In one classroom, I misrepresented two words, which led to confusion on the test. On the first four tests in four classes, the word Vef was misspelled Zef on the first test, but was corrected on the other tests. Because I was unable to repeat the instructions, many participants did not understand what they needed to do. Some students in the mimic and self-devised gesture groups did not gesture while repeating words, which they were asked to do, and, in all the groups, some participants did not repeat all the words or gesture.. Since participants were not told that a test was going to be given immediately after the video was finished, many might not have focused on the video, which could have meant a lower level of word acquisition. Participants were also not informed that a second test was going to be given a week later. Many students were in multiple classes that I surveyed, so while the class was taking the exam, the students who had taken the exam previously were distracting others. Furthermore, the students who saw the video in different classes got twice the time to learn the vocabulary, and because there was a second test, those students could have gotten higher scores one week later. Each word had only one gesture, but the words lad which means heart, and kvar which means square, had two gestures because I thought that the initial gestures used did not fully 9

represent the word. Thus, students might have better remembered the words heart and square than the other words.

Results Hypothesis 1 The group that neither sees nor enacts gestures, when learning foreign language vocabulary, retains less vocabulary than the group that creates its own gestures or the group that mimics the instructors gestures. The experiment had participants take a first test immediately after learning the Volapuk vocabulary words and a second test a week later. A one-way ANOVA was conducted on participant vocabulary acquisition in the first test, second test, and the score difference from first test to second test. There was a significant difference in the vocabulary learned by the three gesture groups in the first test [F (2,201) = 17.776, p =.000], there was a significant difference in the second test [F (2,201) = 8.821, p =.000], and there was a significant difference between first test and second test scores [F (2,201) = 4.503, p=.012]. A Scheffe post hoc test of the first test scores revealed a significantly higher number of words learned in the no-gesture group over the self-devised group (p<. 05), but significantly fewer than the mimic gesture group (p<. 05), as seen in Figure 1. A Scheffe post hoc test of the second test revealed a significantly lower number of words learned by the no-gesture group than by the mimic gesture group (p<. 05), and a higher number than the self-devised gesture group, which did not reach significance (p>. 05), as seen in Figure 2. A Scheffe post hoc test of the difference score revealed that the no-gesture group retained fewer words than the self-devise gesture group, but more than the mimic gesture group; however, neither results were significant (p>. 05), as seen in Figure 3. Although the results of the difference score did not reach significance, and the no-gesture group retained fewer vocabulary words than the mimic gesture group, the no-gesture group did retain more vocabulary words than the self-devised gesture group, invalidating the hypothesis.

10

Hypothesis 2 The group that creates its own gestures, when learning foreign language vocabulary, retains more vocabulary than either the group that mimics the instructors gestures or the group that neither sees nor enacts gestures.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted of participant vocabulary acquisition in the first test and second test, and the score difference was analyzed. There was a significant difference in the words learned between the three gesture groups in the first test [F(2,201) = 17. 776, p = . 000], there was a significant difference in the second test [F(2,201) = 8. 821, p = . 000], and there was a significant difference between first test and second test scores [F(2,201) = 4. 503, p=. 012]. A Scheffe post hoc test of the first test scores revealed a significantly lower average number of words learned in the self-devised gesture group compared with the no-gesture group and mimic gesture group (p<. 05), as seen in Figure 1. A Scheffe post hoc test of the second test revealed a significantly lower average number of words learned in the self-devised group than the mimic gesture group (p<. 05), and a lower average in the self-devised group compared with the nogesture group, but the difference did not reach significance (p>. 05), as seen in Figure 2. A Scheffe post hoc test of the difference score revealed that the self-devised gesture group was statistically better at retaining the vocabulary form first test to second test over the mimic gesture group (p<. 05) and no-gesture group, as seen in Figure 3. Although the self-devised gesture group was better at retaining the vocabulary it had learned, the group had learned fewer words than either the no-gesture group or mimic gesture group; hence, the hypothesis was not supported.

11

Figure 1: A post hoc test comparing the scores of the First test between the self-devised gesture, mimic gesture, and no-gesture groups. A negative number indicates that the (i) group scored less than the (j) group, and a positive number indicates the opposite.
95% Confidence Interval (J) GROUP (I) GROUP Mimic Gesture No Gesture Self-Devised No Gesture Self-Devised Mimic Gesture -21.9202(*) -10.6970(*) 21.9202(*) 11.2232(*) 10.6970(*) -11.2232(*) 3.6913 3.5976 3.6913 3.3627 3.5976 3.3627 .000 .013 .000 .004 .013 .004 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound -31.0233 -19.5690 12.8172 2.9305 1.8251 -19.5158 Upper Bound -12.8172 -1.8251 31.0233 19.5158 19.5690 -2.9305

Self-Devised

Mimic Gesture

No Gesture

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Figure 2: A post hoc test comparing the scores of the Second test between the self-devised gesture, mimic gesture, and no-gesture groups. A negative number indicates that the (i) group scored less than the (j) group, and a positive number indicates the opposite.
95% Confidence Interval (J) GROUP (I) GROUP Mimic Gesture No Gesture Self-Devised No Gesture Self-Devised Mimic Gesture -12.6160(*) -5.1554 12.6160(*) 7.4606(*) 5.1554 -7.4606(*) 3.1554 3.0753 3.1554 2.8745 3.0753 2.8745 .000 .248 .000 .036 .248 .036 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound -20.3974 -12.7393 4.8345 .3719 -2.4286 -14.5493 Upper Bound -4.8345 2.4286 20.3974 14.5493 12.7393 -.3719

Self-Devised

Mimic Gesture

No Gesture

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

12

Figure 3: A post hoc test comparing the difference score from the first test to the second test. A negative number indicates that the (i) group scored less than the (j) group, and a positive number indicates the opposite.
95% Confidence Interval (J) GROUP (I) GROUP Mimic Gesture No Gesture Self-Devised No Gesture Self-Devised Mimic Gesture 9.3043(*) 5.5417 -9.3043(*) -3.7626 -5.5417 3.7626 3.1035 3.0247 3.1035 2.8272 3.0247 2.8272 .012 .189 .012 .414 .189 .414 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound 1.6508 -1.9175 -16.9577 -10.7347 -13.0008 -3.2095 Upper Bound 16.9577 13.0008 -1.6508 3.2095 1.9175 10.7347

Self-Devised

Mimic Gesture

No Gesture

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Hypothesis 3 Within each of the three groups, participants who are part of a screened theater program retain more foreign language vocabulary than participants who are not in the same theater program. About12% of students at Edward R. Murrow High School are admitted by audition to art, theater, and music programs. Multiple one-way ANOVAs were conducted on the first test, second test, and score difference by program: art, music, theater, and no program. There was a significant difference in words learned in the first test [F(3,159) = 9. 586, p = . 000], a significant difference in words learned in the second test [F(3,159) = 9. 685, p = . 000], and no significant difference in the words learned of the difference score [F(3,159) = 1. 225, p = . 302]. A Scheffe post hoc test of the first test revealed that participants in the visual arts program learned statistically more words than the no-program or theater groups (p<. 05), but not statistically more than the music program (p>. 05). A Scheffe post hoc test of the second test revealed that participants in the visual arts program, once again, learned statistically more words than those in the music, theater, and no program groups (p<. 05). The information is given in Figure 4. Because the ANOVA for the difference score did not reveal any significance, the Scheffe post hoc test of the difference score did not reveal any significant difference between the groups. Since the theater group did not retain more words than any group, except slightly more than the no-program group in the first test, the hypothesis was not supported. 13

Figure 4: A post hoc test comparing the scores of the first test, second test, and the difference score of the two tests between the screened visual art, screened music, screened theater, and non-screened students
95% Confidence Interval (J) ARTCAT Dependent Variable (I) ARTCAT Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

art No Program music theater No Program art First Test music music theater No Program art theater No Program theater art music art No Program music theater No Program art Second Test music music theater No Program art theater No Program theater art music art No Program music theater No Program art DIFFSCOR music music theater No Program art theater No Program theater art music

-22.5761(*) -10.9715 -.5231 22.5761(*) 11.6045 22.0529(*) 10.9715 -11.6045 10.4484 .5231 -22.0529(*) -10.4484 -18.6592(*) -4.2548 1.2043 18.6592(*) 14.4044(*) 19.8635(*) 4.2548 -14.4044(*) 5.4591 -1.2043 -19.8635(*) -5.4591 3.9169 6.7167 1.7274 -3.9169 2.7999 -2.1895 -6.7167 -2.7999 -4.9894 -1.7274 2.1895 4.9894

4.4860 4.5846 4.8842 4.4860 5.3491 5.6080 4.5846 5.3491 5.6872 4.8842 5.6080 5.6872 3.6797 3.7605 4.0063 3.6797 4.3876 4.6000 3.7605 4.3876 4.6649 4.0063 4.6000 4.6649 3.6043 3.6835 3.9243 3.6043 4.2977 4.5058 3.6835 4.2977 4.5694 3.9243 4.5058 4.5694

.000 .130 1.000 .000 .199 .002 .130 .199 .341 1.000 .002 .341 .000 .734 .993 .000 .015 .001 .734 .015 .713 .993 .001 .713 .758 .348 .979 .758 .935 .971 .348 .935 .755 .979 .971 .755

-35.2521 -23.9261 -14.3243 9.9000 -3.5102 6.2066 -1.9830 -26.7192 -5.6216 -13.2781 -37.8993 -26.5185 -29.0567 -14.8807 -10.1162 8.2617 2.0066 6.8655 -6.3712 -26.8022 -7.7224 -12.5247 -32.8615 -18.6405 -6.2677 -3.6916 -9.3613 -14.1015 -9.3441 -14.9213 -17.1251 -14.9439 -17.9009 -12.8160 -10.5424 -7.9222

-9.9000 1.9830 13.2781 35.2521 26.7192 37.8993 23.9261 3.5102 26.5185 14.3243 -6.2066 5.6216 -8.2617 6.3712 12.5247 29.0567 26.8022 32.8615 14.8807 -2.0066 18.6405 10.1162 -6.8655 7.7224 14.1015 17.1251 12.8160 6.2677 14.9439 10.5424 3.6916 9.3441 7.9222 9.3613 14.9213 17.9009

14

Discussion Gestures have been widely studied for their effects on communication. However, gestures are more than just conversation aids; they are capable of enhancing teaching methods and improving comprehension. My research may be consistent and valid although the study was manipulated, but because there so many extraneous factors the results are more likely inaccurate and will need further research under more controlled conditions. The most important aim of this study was to see how creating gestures would affect memory compared to mimicking an instructors gestures, or using no gestures at all. In previous studies, almost all groups that learned solely through speaking did worse than their counterparts who learned through some form of gestures. Likewise, I thought the same would occur in this study and the no-gesture group would do worse than the mimic or selfdevised group. However, the no-gesture group learned more words than the self-devised gesture group but fewer than the mimic gesture group in both the first test and second test. These results dont seem likely because they indicate that it would be better for a learner to be inactive while the teacher is active. There likely are confounding variables that have skewed the data. The most likely mistake leading to these results occurred during sampling where the class distribution was not fairly distributed. The no-gesture group had three AP classes, and many of the students in these classes are high achieving, focused learners who are more apt to learn 14 words in 5 minutes, the allotted time to learn the Volapuk words. On the other hand, the self-devised gesture group had two self-contained special education classes, and the students in these classes are composed of special needs students who need more time and help to learn; thus, the 5 minutes given to learn 14 words would not be realistic. To adequately measure the effects of gestures, class strengths need to be evenly distributed throughout sample groups. Because previous research found that spontaneous gestures helped participants recall more information in three weeks after watching a video (Cook et al., 2010), I thought that conscious gesturing would show similar results. Once again, the hypothesis was not supported. The self-devised group learned fewer words in the first test and second test compared to the nogesture and mimic gesture groups. However, the results also indicated that from first test to second test the self-devised gesture group retained the most words whereas the mimic gesture 15

group forgot the most words and the no-gesture group fell between the two; nonetheless, overall the mimic and no-gesture group learned a greater number of words than the self-devised gesture group. These results may be explained by the multiple-modality theory (Tellier, 2007). When participants were learning through creating their own gestures, there were two forms of input: a verbal form and the kinesthetic form. However the mimic gesture group had three forms of input: the verbal, the visual, (seeing the instructors gestures) and a kinesthetic (mimicking the gestures). This would suggest that the mimic gesture group would do better, which it did, but the no-gesture group would do worse because it only had one form of input, the verbal form, yet it did not do worse. The self-devised gesture group did worst, and once again it was probably because the sample groups were not equal. Future research needs to be done with an equal distribution across all groups. Acting is not simply speaking lines, but expressing them through expressions, movements, and hand gestures, which is why I assumed that the students in the screened theater program would remember more words than the students in the screened visual arts group, screened music group, and the students in no screened group. Unexpectedly, the visual arts students did a lot better than all the other students. These results suggest that art students are more capable of learning words while creating gestures or mimicking them. A particular reason for this could be because artists are very visual people who are more attuned to their own kinesthetic creations; thus creating gestures or seeing them can create stronger associations with words because the images create a stronger combination in the brain. These results are, however, in need of more research because of multiple problems: (1) there was not an equal number of art, theater, or music students in all the gesturing groups; (2) the students in the art class were harder to check on while taking the test and may have cheated; and (3) the academic level of the students in each screened group was not accounted for which could have potentially showed confounding results especially since screened classes have students from all grade levels. The best way to really measure the impact of gestures would be to test individually, which would better help control the outside factors. Although individual testing would take longer, results will be more reliable. The only result that was not greatly altered by the sampling error was that in every group honors students did better than the mainstream or special education students in their groups. This could indicate a ceiling effect of gestures on participants in advanced classes. A ceiling 16

effect occurs when one variable stops affecting another variable, and since honors students learned and retained more words than the participants in their respective groups, the fact that they did or did not gesture might have become irrelevant in affecting how well they did. This may be because honors students are well adapted to learning so gestures dont really have an effect on retention. To counter the limitations of this study, it would best to begin by controlling for age. Although this study did not categorize students based on age, age in adolescence is significant. Future studies should control for age, academic level of the age groups, participants talents, and the amount of time devoted to teaching the words, because if some students get more time to learn words, than they will remember more. If all of these circumstances are controlled, more reliable results could be obtained. Further research should expand on the value of using self-gesticulation. Previous research involved participants mimicking the instructor (Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2005; Iverson & Goldin-Meadow, 2001). This study opened up a new line of study for gesticulation: self-devised gestures. Future research should repeat previous experiments on gesticulation, but, instead, having participants create their own gestures, instead of mimicking others gestures.

17

Works Cited Beattie, G. , & Coughlan, J. (1999). An experimental investigation of the role of iconic gestures in lexical access using the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 90(1), 35-56. Bavelas, J. , Gerwing, J. , Sutton, C. , & Prevost, D. (2008). Gesturing on the telephone: Independent Cook, S. W. , Mitchell, Z. , & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106(2), 1047-1058. Cook, S. W. , Yip, T. K. , & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing makes memories that last. Journal of memory and language, 63(4), 465-475. Hostetter, A. B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297. Hostetter, A. B. , Bieda, K. , Alibali, M. W. , Nathan, M. J. , & Knuth, E. J. (2006). Don't just tell them, show them! Teachers can intentionally alter their instructional gestures. In Proceedings of The 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1523-1528). Iverson, Jana M. , and Susan Goldin-Meadow. "The resilience of gesture in talk: Gesture in blind speakers and listeners. " Developmental Science 4. 4 (2001): 416-422. Kelly, S. D. , Manning, S. M. , & Rodak, S. (2008). Gesture gives a hand to language and learning: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology and education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 569-588. Kelly, S. D. , zyrek, A. , & Maris, E. (2010). Two sides of the same coin: speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychological Science, 21(2), 260267. Leonard, T. , & Cummins, F. (2010). The temporal relation between beat gestures and speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 12951309. Macedonia, M. , Mller, K. , & Friederici, A. D. (2010). The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate. Human Brain Mapping, 32(6), 982-998. Macedonia, Manuela, and Thomas R. Knsche. Body in mind: How gestures empower foreign language learning. Mind, Brain, and Education 5. 4 (2011): 196-211. Mayberry, R. I. , Jaques, J. , & DeDe, G. (1998). What stuttering reveals about the development of the gesture-speech relationship. New Directions for Child Development, 79, 77-87. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Rowe, M. L. , & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Early gesture selectively predicts later language learning. Developmental Science, 12(1), 182-187. Sueyoshi, A. , & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661-699. Tellier, M. (2007). How do teacher's gestures help young children in second language acquisition? Proceedings of the Meeting of International Society of Gesture Studies, ISGS 2005: Interacting Bodies. Tellier, M. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture, 8(2), 219-235. 18