Co-speech gestures can enhance a listener’s understanding of a spoken message, yet children show a greater benefit of gesture than adults (Hostetter, 2011). We explore whether this effect may be driven by language proficiency, and in turn, by differences in how children visually attend to gesture when they are processing narratives in their stronger vs. weaker language. Bilingual children were shown narratives with scripted gesture in their stronger and weaker languages, while their visual attention was monitored. Memory for narratives was then assessed. Our findings suggest language proficiency does affect the degree to which children benefit from co-speech gesture – children showed a greater boost from co-speech gesture when processing narrative in their weaker language. Results also suggest that greater attention to gesture when processing ones’ weaker language may underlie this effect.

When speakers gesture, their gestures shape their thoughts, but how this happens remains unclear. What kinds of feedback from gesture—visual, proprioceptive, or both— drive these cognitive effects? Here we address this question using a test bed previously employed to explore gesture’s cognitive effects (Beilock & Goldin-Meadow, 2010). Participants solved the Tower of Hanoi puzzle, explained their solutions in speech and gesture, and solved the puzzle a second time. Previous studies using this paradigm have demonstrated that the gestures participants produce during the explanation phase affect their ability to solve the problem the second time. Unlike these prior studies, however, participants in the present study were blocked from seeing their hands while they gestured. Despite this absence of visual feedback, our results replicate previous studies in which visual feedback was available. These findings suggest that gesture may shape thought through proprioceptive feedback alone.

Inclusion of gesture – meaningful movements of the hands –during mathematics instruction is beneficial for teachingnaïve learners novel concepts, and it can affect a learner’sallocation of visual attention. Yet, it is unknown how childrenwith pre-existing knowledge of a math concept approachinstruction that includes gesture. Here, we examine howchildren’s prior knowledge and either the presence or absenceof gesture during instruction drive patterns in visual attentionduring a lesson. We find that prior knowledge does determinevisual attention patterns, independent of type of instruction(i.e. with or without gesture). These findings further ourunderstanding of the attentional mechanisms of gesture andhave implications for real-world classrooms, where levels ofprior knowledge are often mixed.

To learn from others, children rely on cues (e.g., familiarity) toinfer who will provide useful information. We extend thisresearch to ask whether children will use an informant’sinclination to gesture as a marker of whether they are a goodperson to learn from. Children (N=459, ages 4-12 years)watched videos in which actresses made statementsaccompanied by meaningful iconic gestures, beat gestures, orno gestures. After each trial, children were asked “Who do youthink would be a good teacher?” (good teacher- experimentalcondition) or “Who do you think would be a good friend?”(good friend-control condition). Results show children dobelieve that someone who produces iconic gesture would makea good teacher over someone who does not, but this is only laterin childhood and only if a child has the propensity to seegesture as meaningful. The same effects were not found in thegood-friend condition.

Teaching a new concept with gestures – hand movements thataccompany speech – facilitates learning above-and-beyondinstruction through speech alone (e.g., Singer & Goldin-Meadow, 2005). However, the mechanisms underlying thisphenomenon are still being explored. Here, we use eyetracking to explore one mechanism – gesture’s ability todirect visual attention. We examine how children allocatetheir visual attention during a mathematical equivalencelesson that either contains gesture or does not. We show thatgesture instruction improves posttest performance, andadditionally that gesture does change how children visuallyattend to instruction: children look more to the problem beingexplained, and less to the instructor. However lookingpatterns alone cannot explain gesture’s effect, as posttestperformance is not predicted by any of our looking-timemeasures. These findings suggest that gesture does guidevisual attention, but that attention alone cannot account for itsfacilitative learning effects.