Hands-on Learning? It's all in the hand

If you teach in the early years, the odds are your classroom is full of physical learning materials. From plastic letters to wooden blocks, these materials provide children with the hands-on experience that is so important for their learning. But why is hands-on experience important for learning? It seems obvious, but this is a question that researchers have spent many decades trying to understand. This question becomes even more troublesome when considering subjects such as Maths. Why should learning something as abstract as fractions or tens and units, be supported by manipulating objects like blocks or tiles?

Froebel’s gifts c1820s. That different from what we use 200 years later?

 

Frobel, Montessori, Dienes. There are just a few of the many educational pioneers who have advocated the importance of physical materials in early learning. In the 1960s, Jean Piaget provided a theoretical rationale by describing how children progressed from concrete to abstract forms of thinking. This ‘concrete to abstract’ development is echoed in practice today – with children progressing from physical materials in the early years to more symbolic forms of representations (e.g. numerals on a page) as they advance through the years. It’s not surprising that many children start to associate physical materials with their younger, or less able, peers.

 

Piaget’s work inspired many others to better understand how children’s thinking develops. It also provided a starting point for researchers to examine how using physical materials influences children’s thinking and learning. Unfortunately, this wealth of research[e.g. 1] has failed to provide us with any clear understanding of if and how physical materials benefit children, and importantly, how and when teachers should use them in the classroom.

 

In the last couple of decades there has been a renewed interest in physical materials and hands-on learning for two main reasons. Firstly, new digital learning materials raise pertinent questions. Does moving blocks on a screen using a mouse or touchscreen still constitute hands-on learning? Are there any unique benefits of manipulating materials physically as opposed to through a device? Is there anything to be gained from new technologies that can capture and respond a wide range of physical actions (e.g. Nintendo wii/ Kinect)? The second reason for renewed interest in physical materials reflects some major new thinking about the relationship between our bodies and minds.

 

The mind-body split articulated by Descartes dominates how we think about the relationship between our everyday physical actions and the ideas we learn. Hands-on experience may be important, but ultimately distinct from the concepts children develop in their brains. This position is being challenged. The last couple of decades a new theoretical paradigm, entitled Embodied Cognition, has emerged that argues that several cognitive processes are best understood when they are seen as grounded in (inseparably linked to) our body’s interaction with the world. There are several claims made under the umbrella term Embodied Cognition[2]. Many of these talk about the way we all use the environment to support our everyday thinking: children’s using their fingers to reduce the demands of adding, or their parents using phones to reduce the task of remembering friends’ phone numbers, for example. However, a more radical claim of Embodied Cognition refers to the nature of our thinking even when not using such ‘task-relevant’ tools – our ‘offline cognition’, for example, solving a maths problem ‘in our heads’, or working out the way across town when you haven’t a map.

 

We are finding increasing evidence that our ‘offline’ thinking is still body-based – we still activate systems that are concerned with sensing and moving in the world. This can sound confusing, and perhaps more confusing is how we can possibly know what is going on in people’s heads when they are thinking. Here we have several exciting new research methods that are building our understanding. One method is brain scans – looking at what parts of the brain light up when asked to think about different ideas. Another method is gesture research. This is my research area.

 

When we explain our ideas to people we often gesture. People have studied gestures since the time of the Greeks. Gestures are a communication tool – just look at the way our politicians use them. So why then do we gesture on the phone when the listener can’t hear us? Why does a baby born blind still gesture to another child also born blind[3]? In the last twenty years there has been increasing evidence that the main function of gesture is not to support the listener (although they do) so much as the speaker[4]. Our gestures help us think. This is because gestures help us express the nature of how we are thinking. And for this reason, gestures provide a rich window into the nature of thought itself. Examining children’s gestures is a way to examine what images and actions are inseparably linked in the concepts they hold.

 

 

Gesturing when solving a maths problem

 

Look at the video linked to image above[5]. This child is solving a maths problem. Without reading the text, could you guess what they are doing with their fingers? The child trained to solve complex numerical sums using an abacus. Their gestures show how they are simulating this abacus to solve the problem ‘in their head’. By examining children’s (and adults’) gestures we are starting to build a picture of what type of sensory and movement experiences provide the foundations for thinking in different areas. My research has sought to examine what type of hands-on experience ground children’s concepts of number.
 

Why does 1+8 make the same as 2+7?

 

This question was designed to tap into how children conceptualise numbers. There are many ways to explain this numerical relationship, with one way (often used by adults) is to talk in terms of how 7 is one less than 8 and 2 is one more than 1. Often children’s language reveals much about how they are thinking about numbers, often it does not. Another window is how they gesture when they explain this relationship.

In one study[6] with 104 children, 62% of children gestured when explaining this relationship. By watching video clips over (and over…) again, it has been possible to code the types of gestures children use. Gestures generally fell into two types – those that looked like children were manipulating imaginary objects, and those where children seemed to be indicating points along an imaginary line running left to right.  This is significant, because these gestures relate to interaction with two different types of maths materials – physical materials, and number lines. Traditional theory might suggest that the less able children’s gestures simulated actions with objects and more able children’s gestures simulated actions with a ‘less-concrete’ number line. This was not the case. Indeed, our research is examining how the opposite may be true for this particular problem.

 

     

 

 

Gesturing when explaining maths

As a researcher, I love to take a small study and generate a major theory that goes well beyond the evidence. In journals, I get caught out, so here I have a chance. I believe my research supports theoretical work in cognitive science saying that all numerical concepts are grounded upon two major ‘metaphors’ – that we conceptualise numbers as ‘collections of objects’ or as ‘points along a path’. But I also believe that we draw differently upon these metaphors depending on the problem at hand. Want to add numbers? It’s maybe better to think of them as being along a line, which you can ‘count up’ or ‘count down’. Want to solve a fraction problem? Then you may find it easier to think of numbers as collections you can ‘break’ into smaller collections.

 

If, as I believe, we draw upon these two metaphors in different ways for all number concepts – from counting to calculus – that would suggest we need to think carefully about the materials we provide throughout children’s development. It would contend the traditional move away from ‘concrete’ objects.

 

So where was I? Oh, what is the importance of hands-on learning? It is possible that our hands-on experiences of moving objects into collections or walking in steps along a path (then linked to tracing arcs along a number line) are internalised into our very concepts of number. Consequently, when explaining our thinking about numbers we often simulate these experiences – observable in our gestures.

 

I hope I haven’t confused in this blog. Take away points?

·         Think critically about what materials children are using and how that relates to the way you can talk about different number ideas.

·         Encourage children to increasingly imagine these materials in their heads

·         Don’t let children (or adults) stigmatise physical materials as being for the less able

·         Look at how children gesture. Teachers don’t have video cameras and hours to analyse gestures but even in real time, they can provide an interesting window into children’s thinking

·         Look at how you gesture to children. Research tells us that teachers very often gesture and naturally change their gestures according to children’s understanding. Yet when’s the last time you had gesture training?

·         Think critically about technology. How do they change children’s physical actions? Do you think that matters?

 

The main message however is we now have a way to examine and understand questions that have been in education for decades. There are implications for classrooms, but no definitive solutions yet. What we do know is that once we are able to see how children gesture to express their thinking in a classroom each day, we are in a strong position to contribute to our understanding of the importance of hands-on learning; and the relationship between our minds and bodies.

 

Bio:

 

Dr Andrew Manches is a Chancellor’s Fellow in the School of Education, University of Edinburgh.  He has 20 years experience working with children, first as a teacher, then as an academic. His research focuses on the role of interaction in thinking, and the implications this has for early learning and new forms of technology.  He was awarded a Future Research Leader grant by the Economic Social Research Council to conduct his research. 

 

 

 

1          McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309-316.

2          Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625-636.

3          Iverson, J. M., & GoldinMeadow, S. (1997). What's communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 453-467.

4          Goldin-Meadow, S. (2000). Beyond words: The importance of gesture to researchers and learners. Child Development, 71(1), 231-239.

5          Brooks, N., Barner, D., Frank, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Gesture in Mental Abacus Calculation. SILC Showcase. from http://www.silccenter.org/index.php/showcase/167-showcase-november-2012-gesture-in-mental-abacus-calculation

6          Manches, A., & Dragomir, M. (2015). Gesture as a means to examine the role of physical interaction in early numerical development. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the 2015 annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, US.

 

Cognitive flexibility and reading

Cognitive flexibility is an important executive function skill that prevents us from becoming stuck in a rigid approach to solving a problem. Having cognitive flexibility allows us to switch strategies to find the correct solution or to consider alternative perspectives on a complicated situation (Diamond, 2013). Perhaps unsurprisingly flexibility has been linked to school performance (Yeniad et al., 2013), but little is known about the exact nature of this relationship.

Our research focuses on reading development and so we have examined whether cognitive flexibility has any role to play in early reading. As reading is a complex cognitive task that demands the use of visual symbols relating to both sound and meaning, it seems possible that cognitive flexibility may be required to coordinate all of this information efficiently (Berninger & Nagy, 2008).

Children begin to develop cognitive flexibility prior to learning to read around the ages of 3-5 years. Researchers measure this using card sorting games where the sorting rules change and children’s ability to adapt to the new rule reflects their flexibility. By 7-9 years of age, children show an increasing capacity to deal with complex sorting rules including sorting according to several dimensions at one time in matrix classification tasks.

Children with good cognitive flexibility seem to be better at pre-reading skills like letter recognition and letter-sound knowledge (Blair & Razza, 2007; Bierman et al., 2008), however, the evidence in relation to reading itself is more mixed. Nevertheless, an interesting line of research has been established by Cartwright (2002), who argues that cognitive flexibility is particularly important for reading comprehension because of the need to simultaneously decode the words and understand the meaning of text.

Cartwright presented evidence for this view by measuring the cognitive flexibility of English-speaking children between 2^nd and 4^th grade using a matrix classification task and relating this to reading comprehension. In the first task, children had to sort pictures of objects into a 2x2 matrix on the basis of visual features (i.e. colour) or meaning (i.e.  object category). In the second task, written words rather than pictures had to be sorted and the sorting criteria were more reading specific as they involved sound (i.e. initial sound) and meaning (i.e. object category). Results showed that both matrix classification tasks predicted reading comprehension over and above the usual predictors like age and decoding skills. However, the reading-specific matrix classification task involving written words was the stronger predictor of reading comprehension.

Although these results seemed very promising, we felt that there was a need to explore the findings further, given that several other studies had failed to find a relation between cognitive flexibility and reading. We also wanted to modify the matrix classification task to keep the sorting criteria constant (i.e. sound and meaning) and to compare general flexibility in sorting pictures versus reading-specific flexibility in sorting written words (Fig. 1). We also wanted to investigate how these two types of flexibility relate not only to reading comprehension but also to single word reading.

 

                                            

 

 

 

 Fig 1. Correct classification for the general and reading-specific matrix classification tasks (adapted from Cartwright (2012)) 

French children in second grade who were 7½ years old took part. This was a strong test of the relationship between cognitive flexibility and reading. The initial phase of learning to read in French is slightly easier than in English since French has a more consistent relation between word spellings and sound; in other words, the regular spellings of French may mean that less cognitive flexibility is needed for learning to read in French than in English.

As it turned out, cognitive flexibility was related to reading in French. Cognitive flexibility as measured by having to sort simultaneously by sound and meaning predicted reading comprehension over and above traditional predictors (e.g. decoding, word reading). Moreover, cognitive flexibility also predicted single word reading over and above other predictors such as decoding skill. In both cases, reading-specific flexibility in sorting written words was more strongly related to reading than flexibility in sorting pictures.

Finally, while more research is still needed, the implications of our findings are that games and activities aimed at improving cognitive flexibility may show benefits for early reading progress. Practice at switching between key components of written words like sound and meaning may improve children’s flexibility in relation to this information and enhance reading comprehension. The benefits of these activities may not be restricted to reading just as cognitive flexibility developed in other areas of the curriculum may also feedback to reading.

 

References

Berninger, V. W., and Nagy, W. E. (2008). “Flexibility in word reading: Multiple levels of representations, complex mappings, partial similarities and cross-modal connections,” in Literacy Processes: Cognitive Flexibility in Learning and Teaching, ed. K. B. Cartwright (New York: The Guilford Press).

Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., and Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Dev. Psychopathol. 20, 821–843. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000394

Blair, C., and Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Dev. 78, 647–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x

Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: the relation of reading-specific multiple classification skill to reading comprehension in elementary school children. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 56–63. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.56

Cartwright K. B. (2012). Insights from cognitive neuroscience: the importance of executive function for early reading development and education. Early Educ. Dev. 23 24–36 10.1080/10409289.2011.615025

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Yeniad, N., Malda, M., Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., and Pieper, S. (2013). Shifting ability predicts math and reading performance in children: a meta-analytical study. Learn. Individ. Differ. 23, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.004

 

 

Academic Bio

Dr Lynne Duncan is a senior lecturer in Psychology at the University of Dundee.

Her research focuses on language and reading development. Bilingual language and literacy is a particular interest, as are developmental language disorders. This work has entailed cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies of children and adults in collaboration with colleagues in other European countries.

 

 

 

 

The research presented here was carried out jointly with:

Professor Pascale Colé and Professor Agnès Blaye

Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, UMR-7290, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

 

 

 

 

 

What motivates children to read?

Researchers interested in studying children’s reading motivation often focus on the multidimensional nature of it – that is, the many different reasons that children choose to read or not read.  In a previous blog post “Speaking up for reading motivation” I highlighted the importance of understanding children’s affective responses towards reading (e.g., their motivations for reading, confidence in reading and attitudes towards reading), as a way of identifying ways to improve their reading skills, but also to promote greater independent reading and positive reading experiences.

In the research literature, there are a number of different theoretical frameworks used to examine children’s reading motivation; however the intrinsic-extrinsic framework is one of the better known.  This theory focuses on the distinction between intrinsic (i.e., internal) and extrinsic (i.e., external) reasons for reading (e.g., see McGeown, Norgate & Warhurst, 2012; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).  For example, a child may be motivated to read because they are curious to learn more about a specific topic, or because they enjoy the experience of getting ‘involved’ in fictional stories and ‘getting to know’ these fictional characters.  These reasons would be regarded as intrinsic motivators.  On the other hand, a child may be motivated to read to obtain good reading grades, or to receive praise from the parents/teachers for their reading skills/effort.  Both of these would be regarded as extrinsic motivators.

Of course, children are motivated to read for a variety of reasons (both intrinsic and extrinsic), at different times and in different contexts.  Nevertheless, researchers have found that intrinsic reading motivation tends to be more closely and consistently related to reading attainment than extrinsic reading motivation (e.g., Becker, McElvany & Krotenbruck, 2010; McGeown et al., 2012; Wang & Guthrie, 2004); suggesting that efforts made to foster motivation should focus on intrinsic motivators (if the aim is to improve reading skills).

I think it is important that teachers are aware of the multi-dimensional nature of reading motivation – that is, the many reasons that children choose to read, as this provides knowledge and increased awareness of opportunities to better support students.  For example, by better understanding children’s specific motivations, teachers may be better placed to direct children towards specific book types that meet their needs/desires.  Indeed, children’s reading motivation has implications for their reading choices.  For example, in a recent research project (McGeown et al., in press), we found that children’s reading motivations predicted their reading choices.  In a study with 791 pupils, we found that those reporting higher levels of motivation to read in order to learn, reported reading more factual books, those motivated out of a desire to become involved in stories/characters, reported more fiction book reading, while those motivated out of a desire to achieve good grades reported more school book reading.

References:

Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 773-785.

McGeown, S. P, Norgate, R., & Warhurst, A.  (2012) Exploring intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation among very good and very poor readers. Educational Research, 54, 209-322.

McGeown, S. P., Osborne, C., Warhurst, A., Norgate, R., & Duncan, L. G.  (in press).  Understanding children’s reading activities: Reading motivation, skill and child characteristics as predictors, Journal of Research in Reading.

Wang, J.H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004) Modelling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension

between U.S and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly 39, 162–186.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 89, 420–32

Can a smart phone game really make kids more active at school?

Physical inactivity is a global pandemic, the most pressing public health challenge of the 21^st century[1].  A key goal of recent guidelines issued by the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom is to increase the amount of regular physical activity undertaken by children[2]. Currently, the target of one hour of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day is often not achieved; for example, a recent study found that only 51% of English children aged between 7 and 8 meet this target[3]. We as educators can play a part in solving the problem by providing children with fun ways to be active at school, and reducing the time we expect them to sit still. If schools re-organised the structure of the day to include 60 minutes of fun physical activity for the children (including breaking up bouts of sitting through the day) it would reduce health inequalities, improve mental and physical health, and improve attainment”[4]. This post is about a project I ran recently where we explored how technology might help.

On the face of it, technology might look as if it is part of the problem, not the solution. You might argue that children spend enough time slumped in front of screens playing games. But what if the games required the player to be physically active? A new class of serious games – exergames – are built on this concept. The most commonly known games are for console platforms such as Kinect or Wii Fit, but it is also possible to use smart phones to play location-based games. Here the game uses the phone’s GPS information to update where the player’s character is in the game world. In our game, FitQuest, kids run round the playground collecting invisible coins, or escaping from virtual wolves. Game objects such as wolves and coins appear only on the phone screen in the game world. The user’s movements in real space map to the game world; if the user moves over a game world location where a coin is stored, they get a reward. FitQuest was originally developed as part of Andrew Macvean’s PhD research at Heriot-Watt University.

 

We have tried FitQuest in six primary schools and two secondary schools now, usually in PE lessons. We now have a good understanding of how children respond to it, the sorts of goals they set for themselves, the social interactions which typically occur, and how teachers feel that the game fits with the classroom setting.

In terms of methodology, we have used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methods. In the early stages we did some learner centred technology design with the children so that they could give us feedback on initial design. Andrew then ran two in-depth pilot studies which he analysed as a series of case studies which helped us refine the next version of the software. They also shed some light on how children with different levels of self-efficacy (their confidence in their ability to exercise) responded to the games.

We wanted to follow up our initial findings with a more robust study design, so we conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial. Our hypotheses were that the motivational factor of games, along with the goal setting features would have a positive impact on the children’s self-efficacy (confidence to take part in physical activity) and their physical activity habits in the playground. In the intervention group the primary 7 class of 5 schools used FitQuest for an hour a week for 5 weeks. By contrast, the 5 control group schools took part in their normal PE class. In the weeks immediately before and after the intervention, each child filled in a self-efficacy questionnaire, and wore an accelerometer to count their steps during school time. This objective data enabled us to run a multi-level analysis to find out whether using FitQuest would have an impact on the outcome variables (self-efficacy and step count) once the pre-test results were factored in. As we were using a realist approach in our trial[5], we did not merely want to know whether FitQuest worked or not, but why, and for whom. We gathered this additional contextual information from observations and interviews with children and teachers.

It turned out that by the objective measures, FitQuest did not have an impact on self-efficacy or step count. The contextual data goes some way to explaining this result, which is just as well because it is highly frustrating! For a start, the children only had an opportunity to play the game for around 35% of the time we recommended: it’s as if they were only given the “wee half” of an aspirin tablet instead of the full dose. Anyone familiar with schools can guess the endless reasons why sessions were cancelled: rain, play rehearsals, sports competitions, school trips, teacher absence. It is hard to draw conclusions about what might have happened if they had used it for closer to the recommended time, but based on the qualitative work here’s my best guess. Children able to set appropriate goals to improve their own performance probably would have benefited most, and this would be most likely to occur in schools where the teacher played an active interest in the children’s scores and related the game to goal setting in the PE curriculum. The game by itself appears to have a novelty effect – if the initial fun factor wears off and it is not replaced by a purpose such as improving scores, the player will lose interest. Social interactions were very important to the children, so a multi-player version of the game is on our to-do list. For some children, competition can be off putting. Those who feel self-conscious while running, or those who have fixed mind-sets and poor performance relative to their peers might feel alienated by the competitive aspect of the leader-board.

As is often the case in research, even relatively robust methods reveal more questions rather than definitive answers. I believe that exergames and technology in general can play a part in promoting health behaviour change, such as increasing physical activity. It can potentially motivate users through intrinsic enjoyment of play, and through personalised detailed feedback. But we need to learn how to get better at designing it first.

Of course, you don’t need technology to increase physical activity in your class, fun as it may be. Technology would only ever be part of a solution. Walking is free – why not take your class outside for a 20 minute walk today?

Judy Robertson is Professor of Digital Learning at University of Edinburgh. She designs and evaluates children’s technology in schools. She is particularly interested in serious games for learning or for health.

References:

[1] Blair, S. N. (2009). Physical inactivity: the biggest public health problem of the 21st century. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(1), 1–2.

[2] Department of Health Physical Activity and Health Improvement. (2011). Start Active , Stay Active: A report on physical activity for health from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers. London. Retrieved from http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_128209

[3] Griffiths, L. J., Cortina-Borja, M., Sera, F., Pouliou, T., Geraci, M., Rich, C., … Dezateux, C. (2013). How active are our children? Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. BMJ Open, 3, e002893. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002893

[4] A. Singh, L. Uijtdewilligen, J. W. R. Twisk, W. van Mechelen, M. J. M. Chinapaw.Physical Activity and Performance at School: A Systematic Review of the Literature Including a Methodological Quality Assessment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 2012; 166 (1): 49 DOI:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.716

[5] Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., & Morton, M. (2012). Realist randomised controlled trials: a new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Science & …, 75, 2299–2306. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612006399