The embodied cognition framework holds that cognition is grounded in action (Glenberg, 2010). This perspective impliesthat actions can influence learning. Actions may also influence the gestures made when later recalling the concept learned.According to the Gesture-as-Simulated-Action hypothesis, gestures derive from action simulations that underlie thinkingand speaking (Hostetter & Alibali, 2008). When concepts are learned through action, those same actions may be activatedwhen recalling that concept. Thus, learners actions may leave a legacy in their gestures. Moreover, gestures are a form ofaction, and as such, gestures may directly influence learning.This study investigated childrens (N=94) learning about mathematical equivalence both without actions (control), andusing mathematical manipulatives that afforded differing actions (stacking blocks, a pan balance, and buckets and bean-bagsin which children simulated a balance scale with their bodies). Working with the manipulatives did not enhancelearning relative to control, but gestures differed.

Genetic inheritance is a fundamental biological concept that is critical to understanding more advanced biological concepts. Diagrams are frequently used to aid learning in biology, though their presentation varies greatly. We examined teachers’ expectations about how different types of diagrams would influence learning outcomes. We chose representative diagrams based on our previous analysis of inheritance diagrams, focusing on features like detailedness, label usage, and diagram type (pedigree vs Punnett square). Science teachers (K-12) were asked to rate how well their students would learn from the presented diagrams in an online survey. Overall, teachers rated the diagrams highly. Most teachers believed Punnett squares would be more beneficial to students than pedigrees. Diagrams with labels and greater detail were also rated higher. We will discuss how these findings relate to previous research on diagram-based learning in science and the prevalence of preferred diagrams in educational materials.

Prior work has shown that many undergraduate students have misconceptions about genetic inheritance, even after they take genetics courses. Visual representations, such as pedigree diagrams, are commonly used in genetics instruction, and they help students quickly visualize the phenotypes of multiple generations. In Study 1, we examined whether presenting a pedigree diagram of a wolf’s eye color in a rich and realistic manner (i.e., with rich perceptual images that resemble real animals) or in an abstract manner (i.e., with circles and squares representing animals) would help undergraduates learn from a brief, online lesson on inheritance of the wolf’s eye color, and whether they would transfer what they learned when reasoning about eye color in other species (near transfer) and other traits in other species (mid- and far transfer). Counter to our hypothesis, students transferred more with the rich diagram. In Study 2, we compared the rich diagram from Study 1 to a perceptually bland diagram (i.e., with color and textural features removed). There were no differences in students’ learning or transfer between the diagrams. These results suggest that realistic elements that are attention grabbing and easily interpretable by students can be beneficial for transfer in online lessons.

Within-species variability is a fundamental biological concept, essential in understanding advanced concepts like evolution. Students formally encounter variability in their study of genetics in 4th grade; however, children’s cognitive biases can constrain their learning of variability. Diagrams are often used to facilitate learning of biological concepts, so it is important to understand how genetic inheritance diagrams depict variability. We analyzed 647 diagrams collected from textbooks and websites to examine how much variation diagrams present. We coded (1) depictions of within-species variability, and (2) other perceptual features implicated in learning (e.g., concreteness, richness). Preliminary findings indicate that many diagrams depict some within-species variability. Additionally, most diagrams used abstract representations of organisms and traits, which research suggests may be less optimal for younger students’ learning but may encourage transfer in older students. We will discuss how diagram features may reinforce children’s cognitive biases and may influence students’ learning of inheritance and variability.

Do children think of genetic inheritance as deterministic or probabilistic? In two novel tasks, children viewed the eye colors of animal parents and judged and selected possible phenotypes of offspring. Across three studies (N = 353, 162 girls, 172 boys, 2 non-binary; 17 did not report gender) with predominantly White U.S. participants collected in 2019-2021, 4- to 12-year-old children showed a probabilistic understanding of genetic inheritance, and they accepted and expected variability in the genetic inheritance of eye color. Children did not show a mother bias but they did show two novel biases: perceptual similarity and sex-matching. These results held for unfamiliar animals and several physical traits (e.g., eye color, ear size, and fin type), and persisted after a lesson.

Do adults think about genetic inheritance as a deterministic or probabilistic process? Do adults display systematic biases when reasoning about genetic inheritance? Knowing how adults think about genetic inheritance is valuable, both for understanding the developmental end point of these concepts and for identifying biases that persist even after formal education. In two studies, we examined adults' reasoning about genetic inheritance for familiar animals (Study 1) and unfamiliar animals (Study 2). First, participants were presented with animals that varied in eye color and were asked to judge whether each could be the offspring of a particular set of animal parents that had either the same or different eye colors. The potential offspring had eye colors that were either identical to the parents, blended the parents' eye colors, or differed from the parents. Next, participants predicted how six offspring of the animal parents would look. Participants judged a variety of choices as possible-not only the ones resembling the parents-suggesting that they thought genetic inheritance was a probabilistic process. Additionally, many participants thought that female offspring would look more like their mothers and male offspring would look more like their fathers. Thus, systemic biases in reasoning about inheritance persist into adulthood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).