• Mijung KimEmail author
  • Wolff-Michael Roth
  • Jennifer Thom


There is mounting research evidence that contests the metaphysical perspective of knowing as mental process detached from the physical world. Yet education, especially in its teaching and learning practices, continues to treat knowledge as something that is necessarily and solely expressed in ideal verbal form. This study is part of a funded project that investigates the role of the body in knowing and learning mathematics. Based on a 3-week (15 1-h lessons) video study of 1-s grade mathematics classroom (N = 24), we identify 4 claims: (a) gestures support children’s thinking and knowing, (b) gestures co-emerge with peers’ gestures in interactive situations, (c) gestures cope with the abstractness of concepts, and (d) children’s bodies exhibit geometrical knowledge. We conclude that children think and learn through their bodies. Our study suggests to educators that conventional images of knowledge as being static and abstract in nature need to be rethought so that it not only takes into account verbal and written languages and text but also recognizes the necessary ways in which children’s knowledge is embodied in and expressed through their bodies.


embodiment of learning geometrical knowledge gestures 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alibali, M. W., Bassok, M., Solomon, K. O., Syc, S. E. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science, 10, 327–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–907). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  4. Beattie, G. & Coughlan, J. (1998). Do iconic gestures have a functional role in lexical access? An experimental study of the effects of repeating a verbal message on gesture production. Semiotica, 119, 221–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook, S. W. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: Do children use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, B. & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, L. (2009). Gestures and conceptual integration in mathematical talk. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldin-Meadow, S., Wein, D. & Chang, C. (1992). Assessing knowledge through gestures: Using children’s hands to read their minds. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2004). Gesture’s role in the learning process. Theory in Practice, 43(4), 314–321.Google Scholar
  10. Hadar, U. & Butterworth, B. (1997). Iconic gestures, imagery, and word retrieval in speech. Semiotica, 115, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heidegger, M. (1982). Gesamtausgabe Band 54: Parmenides [Works vol 54: Parmenides]. Frankfurt, Germany: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, J. & Wilburn, D. (2005). The embodiment of learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(5), 745–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iverson, J. M. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1998). Why people gesture when they speak. Nature, 396, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kant, I. (1956). Werke Band II: Kritik der reinen Vernunft [Works vol. 3: Critique of pure reason]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Insel.Google Scholar
  16. Koschmann, T. & LeBaron, C. (2002). Learner articulation as interactional achievement: Studying the conversation of gesture. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Maine de Biran, P. (1952). Mémoire sur la décomposition de la pensée [Thesis on the decomposition of thought]. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/2002). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Le visible et l’invisible [The visible and the invisible]. Paris, France: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  21. Mulligan, J., Mitchelmore, M. & Prescott, A. (2005). Case studies of children’s development of structure in early mathematics: A two-year longitudinal study. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 4 (pp. 1–8). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: PME.Google Scholar
  22. Nemirovsky, R. & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Núñez, R., Edwards, L. & Matos, J. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situated and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1–3), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Outhred, L. & Mitchelmore, M. (2004). Students’ structuring of rectangular arrays. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME international conference, 3 (pp. 465–472). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.Google Scholar
  25. Piaget, J. (1970). Child’s conception of movement and speed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Pirie, S. & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rasmussen, C., Nemirovsky, R., Olszewski, J., Dost, K. & Johnson, J. (2004). On forms of knowing: The role of bodily activity and tools in mathematical learning. Educational studies in Mathematics, 57(3), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roth, W.-M. (2003). From epistemic (ergotic) actions to scientific discourse: Do gestures obtain a bridging function? Pragmatics & Cognition, 11, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M. (2007). Communication as situated, embodied practice. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, R. Frank & R. Dirven (Eds.), Body, language and mind (pp. 431–456). Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M. (2009). Mathematical representation at the interface of body and culture. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, W.-M. (2010). Geometry as objective science in elementary school classrooms: Mathematics in the flesh. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Roth, W.-M. & Thom, J. (2009a). Bodily experience and mathematical conceptions: From classical views to a phenomenological reconceptualization. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth, W.-M. & Thom, J. S. (2009b). The emergence of 3D geometry from children’s (teacher-guided) classification tasks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 45–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sfard, A. (2007). Thinking and communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2009). The corporeal turn: An interdisciplinary reader. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Singer, M. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Children learn when their teacher’s gestures and speech differ. Psychological Science, 16(2), 85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steffe, L. (2002). A new hypothesis concerning children’s fractional knowledge. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(2), 267–307.Google Scholar
  41. Steffe, L. (2003). Fractional commensurate, composition, and adding schemes learning trajectories of Jason and Laura: Grade 5. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(2), 237–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Varela, F., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4. In R. Rieber (Ed.), The history of the development of the higher mental functions. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations