4.6 Article

Can grammatical morphemes be taught? Evidence of gestures influencing second language procedural learning in middle childhood

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280543

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that using gestures as a teaching tool can help learners grasp grammatical morphemes. This study finds that using gestures to teach grammatical morphemes leads to a decrease in response time during task completion, suggesting that gestures can enhance learners' procedural learning.
What kind of practice makes perfect when children learn to use grammatical morphemes in a second language? Gestures are communicative hand and arm movements which teachers naturally employ as a teaching tool in the classroom. Gesture theory has proposed that gestures package information and previous studies suggest their value for teaching specific items, such as words, as well as abstract systems, such as language. There is broad consensus that implicit learning mechanisms in children are more developed than explicit ones and that everyday use of grammar is implicit and entails developing implicit knowledge. However, while many learners have difficulties acquiring new morpho-syntactic structures, such as the plural{-s} and 3(rd) person possessive {-s} in English, research on gesture and syntax in middle childhood remains rare. The present study (N = 19) was conducted to better understand if gestures which embody grammatical morphemes during instruction can contribute to procedural learning. Using a novel task, the gesture speeded fragment completion task, our behavioral results show a decrease in mean response times after instruction in the test condition utilizing syntactically specific gestures. This increase in procedural learning suggests that learners in this age group can benefit from embodied instruction in the classroom which visually differentiates between grammatical morphemes which differ in meaning but sound the same.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据