體現認知的研究發現，學生在幾何學習時若以手勢配合描摹幾何圖，比起限制手勢所獲得的學習效果好，但在非幾何的材料上卻不一定有此體現效果。目前文獻多半未檢驗體現效果的保留性，而且也未曾有研究是以學生學習過、但須補救的教材為研究材料。故本研究以受試者學過的整數加減運算為實驗一的材料，與從未學過的平行線截角性質為實驗二的材料，並以篩選測驗篩出無法掌握整數加減運算的七年級中低能力的學生，將其分為使用手勢學習的實驗組與無手勢參與的控制組。本論文先以18位七年級學生進行前導研究，並依據後測結果與受試者的學習狀況，修改了範例及練習題型與實驗進行方式。正式研究的受試者為來自雙北、桃園的四所國中52位七年級生，實驗結束後三至四個月安排延宕測驗與訪談，以記錄受試者的學習表現與相關的質性資料。結果顯示，實驗組在實驗一的表現未如預期，和控制組都未有組間差異，但在延宕測驗答對率中有四種題型組間有顯著差異。但兩組都在後測遠遷移題的認知負荷比延宕測驗高，後測與延宕測驗答對率皆高於篩選測驗。質性資料上，部分受試者在以手勢學習已知教材上展現較低的意願，且在延宕測驗時，受試者大多不使用實驗所學的體現方法做解題。實驗組在實驗二後測有部分結果符合預期。實驗組學習時間較控制組長，在後測遠遷移題答對率上比控制組高，但後測近遷移題與延宕測驗兩種題型上均無組間差異。此外，兩組延宕測驗遠遷移題的認知負荷低於後測，且延宕測驗近遷移題答對率也比後測高。質性資料上，兩組在後測與延宕測驗皆有一些受試者為了解題而旋轉、拿起圖形的紙張或描摹圖形，但延宕測驗中有描摹圖形的受試者其答對率並未高於沒有動作的同儕。綜合實驗一和二，研究者發現手勢對於受試者已學習過的整數加減運算未發揮體現效果，而在未學過的幾何教材上，融入手勢學習的效果較佳，並且手勢能有原理、原則加以引導時，體現就能發揮較大的效果。建議未來的教育工作者們在學生剛接觸教材時的教學中，能融入適當的身體參與，以發揮體現認知中以身體為基礎來學習新知識的主張。

Research on embodied cognition has found that students who use gestures to trace geometric figures while learning geometry perform better than students who restrict their use of gestures. However, this effect may not appear in non-geometric learning. No research has used delayed tests to study the retention of the embodied effect, and there has never been any embodied research on the remedial teaching studied. Therefore, Experiment 1 used tasks of adding and subtracting integers that participants have learned and will continue to use; Experiment 2 used the materials of angle relationships involving parallel lines that participants have not yet learned. The participants were low-ability seventh graders they were unable to master integer addition and subtraction on a screening test. The participants were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups that they study worked examples either with or without gestures. A pilot study was conducted with 18 seventh graders and the results were used to improves the worked examples, practices, and the procedures. The participants of the formal study were 52 seventh graders from four junior high schools in the Taipei, New Taipei, and Taoyuan County. A delayed test and interview were conducted three to four months after the end of the experiment to record qualitative data. The results showed that the experimental group did not perform as expected in Experiment 1, showing no difference from the control group, but the accuracy of the experimental group for the four question types were different from the control group in the delayed test. However, both groups demonstrated higher cognitive load on posttest far transfer questions than the delayed test, and the accuracy on the posttest and the delayed test were higher than on the pretest. In terms of the qualitative data, some participants showed only a little willingness to study material that they had already learned, and most of the participants did not use the embodying method learned in the experiment to solve the problem on the delayed test. In the experimental group, some results were as expected after Experiment 2. The learning time of the experimental group was longer than that of the control group, and their accuracy on the posttest far transfer problems was higher than that of the control group. In addition, the cognitive load associated with the delayed test far transfer problems was lower than that on the posttest, and the near transfer accuracy of the delayed test was also higher than that of the posttest in both groups. The qualitative data of the posttest and the delayed test show that some participants in both groups rotated and picked up the paper or traced the graph to understand the question. However, the participants with traced graphics in the delayed test did not have a higher accuracy than those who did not use gestures. In general, the present study found that gestures have less effects for non-geometric material that participants have learned, but have significant effects for geometric material that participants have not learned. When gestures can be led by principles, they can enhance learning for a greater effect. It is suggested that educators use appropriate physical manipulation when teaching students new things in order to elicit the embodied cognition that uses the body to learn new knowledge.

中文部分
陳毅峰（2013）：國一新生在暑期輔導之學習成效－從整數四則運算的錯誤類型去探討（未發表）。國立中興大學應用數學系所碩士論文。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/phshzu
英文部分
Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., Ginns, P., Howard, S. J., Leahy, W., & Paas, F. (2015). Giving learning a helping hand: finger tracing of temperature graphs on an iPad. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 427-443.
Alibali, M. W. (2005). Gesture in spatial cognition: Expressing, communicating, and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5(4), 307-331.
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners' and teachers' gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247-286.
Alibali, M. W., Kita, S., & Young, A. J. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and cognitive Cognitive processesProcesses, 15(6), 593-613.
Altiparmak, K., & Özdoğan, E. (2010). A study on the teaching of the concept of negative numbers. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(1), 31-47.
Andres, M., Seron, X., & Olivier, E. (2007). Contribution of hand motor circuits to counting. Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(4), 563-576.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.
Barbieri, C., & Booth, J. L. (2016). Support for struggling students in algebra: Contributions of incorrect worked examples. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 36-44.
Bokosmaty, S., Sweller, J., & Kalyuga, S. (2015). Learning geometry problem solving by studying worked examples: Effects of learner guidance and expertise. American Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 307-333.
Bossé, M. J., Lynch-Davis, K., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Chandler, K. (2016). Using integer manipulatives: Representational determinism. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 1-20.
Carroll, W. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Educational Psychology, 86(3), 360-367.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Ginns, P. (2019). Embodied cognition, science education, and visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 175–205). Cham: Springer.
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347-362.
Cosman, J. D., & Vecera, S. P. (2010). Attention affects visual perceptual processing near the hand. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1254-1258.
Du, X., & Zhang, Q. (2019). Tracing worked examples: Effects on learning in geometry. Educational Psychology, 39(2), 169-187.
Fuadiah, N. F., & Suryadi, D. (2017). Some difficulties in understanding negative numbers faced by students: A qualitative study applied at secondary schools in indonesia. International Education Studies, 10(1), 24-38.
Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179-195.
Ginns, P., Hu, F. T., Byrne, E., & Bobis, J. (2016). Learning by tracing worked examples. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 160-169.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). From action to abstraction: Gesture as a mechanism of change. Developmental Review, 38, 167-184.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516-522.
Hativa, N., & Cohen, D. (1995). Self learning of negative number concepts by lower division elementary students through solving computer-provided numerical problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28(4), 401-431.
Hu, F. T., Ginns, P., & Bobis, J. (2015). Getting the point: Tracing worked examples enhances learning. Learning and Instruction, 35, 85-93.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579-588.
Macken, L., & Ginns, P. (2014). Pointing and tracing gestures may enhance anatomy and physiology learning. Medical Teacher, 36(7), 596-601.
Marstaller, L., & Burianová, H. (2013). Individual differences in the gesture effect on working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(3), 496-500.
Mavilidi, M. F., Okely, A., Chandler, P., Domazet, S. L., & Paas, F. (2018). Immediate and delayed effects of integrating physical activity into preschool children’s learning of numeracy skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 502-519.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215-248.
Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173-199.
Newton, N. (2003). Representation in theories of embodied cognition. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 7(1), 181-194.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122-133.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27-45.
Ping, R., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 602-619.
Pouw, W. T., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51-72.
Retnowati, E., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2010). Worked example effects in individual and group work settings. Educational Psychology, 30(3), 349-367.
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive Offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676-688.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836-852.
Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 258-266.
Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Salden, R., & Aleven, V. (2011). Effects of different ratios of worked solution steps and problem solving opportunities on cognitive load and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 58-62.
Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed instructional theory for integer addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 428-464.
Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, 165-169.
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P. L., Kalyuga, S., & Chandler, P. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychology, 38(1), 23-31.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.
Takir, A., & Aksu, M. (2012). The effect of an instruction designed by cognitive load theory principles on 7th grade students’ achievement in algebra topics and cognitive load. Creative Education, 3(2), 232-240.
Tang, M., Ginns, P., & Jacobson, M. J. (2019). Tracing enhances recall and transfer of knowledge of the water cycle. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 439-455.
Teppo, A., & van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2014). Visual representations as objects of analysis: The number line as an example. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(1), 45-58.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830-846.
Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 212-218.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 83-98.
Walkington, C., Woods, D., Nathan, M. J., Chelule, G., & Wang, M. (2019). Does restricting hand gestures impair mathematical reasoning? Learning and Instruction, 64, 1-15.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625-636.
Yeo, L. M., & Tzeng, Y. T. (2019). Cognitive Effect of Tracing Gesture in the Learning from Mathematics Worked Examples. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(4), 733-751.