Exploring Students’ Use of Gestures to Create Scientific Models during Geological Field Trips and Modeling Activities

This study contributes to the literature by shedding light on students’ learning by exam - ining and comparing students’ gestures in two educational context s: geological field trips and classroom-based modeling activitie s. This study engaged 10 middle-school students in two different geological field trips and two classroom-based modeling activities and employed a hermeneutic approach to understand students’ use of ges - tures in both setting s. Using multimodal interaction analysis ( MIA ) students’ gestures were explored to understand how students created and conveyed meaning using verbal and nonverbal interaction s. The study found students’ gestures conveyed sci - entific content and differing social roles in the two settings. The results suggest the fre - quency and type of gestures used in each setting may be complementary to students’ development of accurate model s. This study presents new classification criteria and


Introduction
An essential characteristic of geoscience education is learning geological content through field trips. Learning in geological field trips can be divided into indoor and outdoor learning environments (Orion, 1993). Another feature of geoscience education is that learning activities provide students opportunities to develop spatial and temporal knowledge related to geology (Bolacha et al., 2011). Conducting research on students' geoscience learning experiences in both indoor and outdoor environments can provide insights into how students are making sense of geoscience knowledge and have a positive effect on their learning (Mogk & Goodwin, 2012;Cheek et al., 2017). Especially, outdoor learning has been credited with supporting students to gain geoscience knowledge in more authentic and meaningful ways (Lepore et al., 2023;Marques et al., 2003).
Research has shown that it can be difficult to communicate spatial and temporal understanding in geoscience solely through verbal communication (Alibali, 2005) and that gestures can be a useful way to activate communication and explain geological concepts (Atit et al., 2013;Atit et al., 2014;Chatterjee, 2008) for both experts and novices (Atit et al., 2015). Several studies have found that gestures can be valuable tools for students to communicate and represent geological features and processes that they observe in the natural environment (Kastens et al., 2008;Liben et al., 2010;Herrera & Riggs, 2013). At the same time, research has found that scientific models and modeling can be an appropriate teaching strategy applicable to geoscience learning (Torres & Vasconcelos, 2016) and geological reasoning as students develop spatial and temporal understanding about geological changes that have taken place over time (Moutinho et al., 2016;Torres & Vasconcelos, 2016). In this study, we explore aspects of students' geoscience learning by analyzing their use of gestures while applying scientific modeling strategies to understand concepts being taught in both indoor and outdoor activities related to geological field trips. In the sections that follow, we provide more background information about the research on to experience immense spatiotemporal scales have been shown to be more effective for geoscience learning than most classroom-based activities. Field trips can also support students to develop a sense of place in local environments and can promote the development of positive attitudes toward science and nature (Cheng & Tsai, 2019), which can help educators to foster learning that extends beyond mere cognitive learning outcomes. In this study, we sought to explore what gestures students make when learning in outdoor field trips and to examine how these gestures may serve as a resource for learning when engaging students in secondary activities in indoor learning environments where students were encouraged to build models of the concepts introduced to in the field trips.

Scientific Models and Modeling in Geoscience Education
A scientific model is a tool that enables individuals to explain and make predictions via abstractions to emphasize real-world characteristics or natural phenomena (Justi & Gilbert, 2002). Scientific modeling is essential in geoscience education as scientific models are needed for communicating and explaining geological natural phenomena and complex systems and processes (Gilbert & Justi, 2016). Models of natural phenomena, systems, and processes comprise concrete explanations that link abstract concepts and theories to explain processes and objects in the world (Gilbert et al., 1998;Oh & Oh, 2011;Treagust et al., 2002). In geology, analogies and models have long been used to explain forces and natural phenomena (Frodeman, 1995;Jee et al., 2010) Researchers have found that co-constructing scientific models by developing, revising, and evaluating their own mental models to explain natural phenomena is an effective process for having students (re)construct scientific knowledge and engage in collaborative problem-solving (Gilbert et al., 1998;Justi & Gilbert, 2002). Thus, scientific models and modeling processes, as practices of inquiry, are considered useful pedagogies for students' science learning (Schwarz et al., 2009).
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (National Research Council, 2013) emphasize that developing models based on observational evidence is an important way for students to connect natural phenomena and theory empirically. In this way, scientific models mediate communication. In Korea, where this study takes place, the national science curriculum (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2015) draws from the NGSS standards to highlight the importance of having students use models to demonstrate scientific knowledge and logicespecially in the area of geoscience. For example, geoscientific models are used to explain how various natural phenomena, such as tsunamis and earthquakes, form and impact the earth. Geoscientific models can enable students to better ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10061 understand challenging concepts that require students to grapple with various spatiotemporal phenomena in nature. For students who are learning about geological content during field excursions and who need to draw from those experiences to reinforce their learning when back in the classroom setting, gestures can serve as an important resource.
We posit that gaining an understanding of how gestures inform student knowledge construction when building geoscientific models can enhance pedagogical strategies and improve science learning outcomes. To this end, our study investigates the potential for gestures as learning resources that can be transferred from one activity to another. Specifically, we examined gestures generated as nonverbal communicators in outdoor field trips and their subsequent use during modeling activities in the classroom. Our investigation aimed to shed light on the meaning of different kinds of interactions that take place during different learning activities by examining students' gestures in both outdoor and indoor classes.
This inquiry was framed by three questions: 1.
What types of gestures do students employ during outdoor field trips and indoor classes? 2. What are the characteristics of the gestures students use to communicate during outdoor and indoor classes? 3. What is the relationship between students' gestures and the modeling process? 3

Multimodal Interaction Analysis (MIA): Methodological Framework
This study used multimodal interaction analysis (MIA) as a methodological framework to examine students' interactions in both outdoor field trips and indoor classes. MIA emphasizes that all interactions involve multiple modes, including speech, gestures, gaze, head movement, facial expression, clothing, environment, music, and proxemics (Kress & Van, 2001). MIA enables researchers to extract semantic meaning from these modes by dividing actions into different levels. The smallest unit of meaning in MIA is an action, which can be categorized as either a lower-level action or a higher-level action. A lower-level action is the smallest pragmatic meaning unit of spoken language, such as an utterance. When external expressions and simple gestures are combined, they can form one higher-level action to convey meaning. A high-level action is a combination of lower-level actions that compose meaningful interaction components. Thus, a unit of analysis can be either a single lower-level action or a series of lower-level actions that combine to form a single higher-level action. For example, smiling and nodding of the head in an up-and-down motion may be considered lower-level actions, but when combined with spoken language, they constitute a higher-level action.
In this study, MIA was used as a methodological framework, together with hermeneutics, to examine students' speech, external expressions, and gestures in order to categorize and make sense of how students use gestures to convey meaning during geological field trips and modeling activities. The study also aimed to consider how gestures made during outdoor field trips may serve as resources for conveying meaning during indoor geo-modeling activities. Multimodal transcription was used as a convention to represent, analyze, and compare students' multimodal interactions during these activities (Norris, 2011).

Hermeneutics to Explore the Meaning of Student Gestures during Modeling Activities
The study also employed a hermeneutic theoretical perspective to interpret the purpose of students' gestures. Hermeneutics is an approach to explaining human behavior that aims to understand the meaning of subjects' verbal language and underlying nonverbal cues, such as gestures (Fuster-Gullen, 2019). This study uses hermeneutics to examine how students use gestures to communicate and convey geological information to teachers and peers and to co-construct scientific knowledge during outdoor field trips and indoor geo-modeling activities with peers. Although previous studies have found a hermeneutic perspective useful for understanding students' gestures in the context of geological field trips Van Boening & Riggs, 2020), this study expands on earlier work by exploring the role of gestures that were formed during outdoor field trip activities in indoor activities when students engage in geoscientific modeling activities.

Study Participants and Research Context
This study was conducted at a Korean public university that hosts a Science Education Gifted Institute for school-age children, which provides various lessons and educational content. Ten students participated in a special course offered by the institute, including six Grade 8 students (3 boys and 3 girls) and four Grade 9 students (2 boys and 2 girls). All the participants were highachieving and voluntarily agreed to take part in the study with the consent of both their parents and the university. The first author acted as the instructor who designed and conducted the outdoor geological field trips and indoor modeling activities, while other researchers provided support during both the outdoor and indoor classes.

3.3.1
Modeling Activities Field trips were designed to help students co-construct scientific models for two geoscience phenomena: the formation of granite outcrops and the formation of rivers. The field trips followed a modeling-based learning cycle, which includes four steps: data and observations, model construction, model development (evaluation or validation of the model's representative, interpretive, and predictive power), and identification of the phenomenon (Constantinou et al., 2019;Nicolaou et al., 2009). The students constructed both individual and group models, and they used the group models to create target models, which they then used to identify the phenomenon (the mountain and river formation). The target models were used to assess the accuracy of the students' final model construction. The aim of this study was to examine the underlying meaning of students' gestures and understand their modeling process in each step of the modeling-based learning cycle, including model creation, evaluation, revision, and development of their modeling activity.

3.3.2
Granite Mountain and the Target Model During the first outdoor field trip, students visited Granite Mountain (pseudonym), which is a representative site featuring Mesozoic granite. They worked in small groups to develop models explaining how the mountain was formed. The students collected observational evidence by observing minerals (quartz, feldspar, biotite), rocks (granite, gneiss), and joints to develop their model. The target model required the students to describe the formation of granite from underground magma and know that Granite Mountain was created when igneous rock formed from magma cooling underground through the process of solidification. Students needed to be able to identify examples and discuss the elevation (uplift) of the granite to form the mountain we see today. Finally, the target model required students to identify and describe the effects of weathering erosion on Granite Mountain over long periods of time.

3.3.3
The Lava Flow River and the Target Model During the second outdoor field trip, students visited a UNESCO-designated geopark featuring Lava Flow River (pseudonym), which was created after a continuous volcanic episode caused flowing lava to form the current day riverbed. The park features pillow lava and several joint structures caused by volcanic eruption. Here, the students observed igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. The target model required the students to explain how the Lava Flow River was formed and needed to incorporate the understanding that the river resulted from lava flow from multiple volcanic eruptions over time. The target model required students to also identify and describe various volcano-caused topographies that are visible along the river side today.

3.4
Data Collection Data were collected during two outdoor field trips and during two subsequent modeling activities conducted in a classroom in which students were asked to apply what they learned from their field trip to explain and co-construct models to about the formation of granite outcrop (Granite Mountain) and of rivers (Lava Flow River). The first author conducted interviews with students on both field trips and indoor classes.

3.4.1
Geological Field Trips Two outdoor geological field trip programs were employed to help students identify and develop the two target scientific models (Choi et al., 2018;. During the first field trip, students were guided to designated outcrop locations, where they were asked to categorize the rocks they observed as either igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary. They were then asked to sketch and describe their observations, including any notable geological structures or mineral features. The students were expected to use their field notes to convey information about their observations and inferences regarding how the mountain and river formed. The participants' activities were recorded using video and audio-based data during all aspects of the two geological field trips.

3.4.2
Modeling-Based Activities in Indoor Class: Creation of Scientific Model Data were collected through two outdoor field trips and two modeling activities conducted in the classroom. During the modeling activities, students were asked to use their observational evidence from the field trips to explain the formation of the Granite Mountain and Lava Flow River by constructing scientific models. Initially, each student independently wrote field notes and created personal models of observations. Next, students worked in small groups to create each model, following steps two, three, and four of the modeling-based learning cycle. The researchers recorded videos of the modeling classes and collected the students' individual and group model drawings.

3.4.3
Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with students to confirm their individual ideas about the formation process and to provide opportunities for them to use gestures to convey meaning via interactions. During the interviews, students were asked to verbally explain how the Granite Mountain and Lava Flow River were formed. Afterwards, they were asked to describe the drawings their group developed to depict the mountain and river formation process. If students used unfamiliar words or gestures, the interviewer asked them to clarify and explain their meaning in detail. Each interview lasted approximately 15 minutes and was video-and audio-recorded.

3.5
Data Analysis This study used multiple forms of transcription data to analyze gestures used during outdoor field trips and modeling activities in a science classroom. The goal was to identify the meaning and purpose of these gestures through an inductive analysis process. The researcher used the MIA method, which involved coding gestures based on McNeill's (1992) classification system. The gestures were categorized as either social-functional or communicating scientific content, and further analyzed into deictic, imageable, and depictive categories (as described by McNeill, 1992;. Deictic gestures communicate simple movements for pointing at objects or in a direction. Imageable gestures are movements used to visualize images that are difficult or impossible to observe, while depictive gestures are used to visualize currently visible images. We then examined the mid-stroke scenes of these gestures to identify their function in conveying scientific content or having a social function in communication. The gestures were further divided into three units: gesture onset, mid-stroke, and retraction. We focused on mid-stroke scenes to identify the function of the gesture, which could convey scientific content or have a social function in the communication process. We further divided each of these categories into smaller categories using Norris's (2004) method, which describes the goals underlying gestures. Social function gestures could be divided into nine different categories, including Explanation, Opinion, Concurrence, Refutation, Asking, Alternative, Evidence, Turn topic, and Repetition. Gestures used to communicate scientific content could be divided into three categories: Visua li zation, Temporal and Spatial, and Elaboration. These categories enabled researchers to characterize students' meanings and intentions and understand the process of model co-construction in the indoor classroom and the use of experiences gained during outdoor field trip learning.
Next we conducted MIA analysis by interpreting gestures within their context and using three modes of analysis: spoken language, gestures, and proxemics. Spoken language was analyzed in units bracketed by inhaling, while proxemics described the speaker's physical space and distance from others or objects. To interpret gestures, we used the term "proxemics" to describe the speaker's physical space and distance from others or objects. We analyzed the physical distance between the speaker and the object or surrounding environment during the mid-stroke of the gesture. We collected scenes (n = 465) that described students' interactions with gestures. This included all gestures, whether accompanied by spoken language or not, during both indoor and outdoor activities. Finally, we investigated students' use of gestures in a modeling-based learning cycle, including model creation, evaluation, revision, and recreation, to gain a deeper understanding of the role of gestures in the modeling process. By analyzing students' gestures for their meaning and goals within the modeling-based learning cycle, we aimed to gain a deeper understanding of these interactions.
The researchers in this study all have expertise in geoscience education. The first author was responsible for creating the curriculum for the geological field trips, and all authors contributed to designing the study, establishing validity for the analysis process, and conducting the analysis. To ensure reliability, the researchers used triangulation, which involved gathering data from multiple sources, and member checking through interviews. The first author developed a set of gesture schemes, defined the types of gestures, and analyzed their characteristics for communication purposes. In addition, the first author wrote field notes on student participation, affective characteristics, and individual peculiarities during both outdoor and indoor classes. All the data were coded by the first author using MIA methods, and the other authors compared and quantified the coding to establish the reliability of the analysis. Whenever discrepancies arose during the analysis, the researchers discussed and reached an agreement to ensure the analysis process's reliability.

What Types of Gestures Are Employed during Outdoor and Indoor Classes?
The first research question aimed to determine the types of gestures that students use during outdoor field trip learning activities. Analysis of student gestures in outdoor and indoor classroom learning contexts revealed that three types of gestures were used: deictic, imageable, and depictive gestures. Deictic gestures were the most commonly used in both learning contexts, representing approximately 29% of gestures used outdoors and 32% of gestures used indoors. Imageable gestures were the second most common, representing approximately 7.5% of gestures used outdoors and 13.5% of gestures used indoors. Depictive gestures were the least frequently used, representing approximately 5.3% of gestures used outdoors and 12.5% of gestures used indoors. Specific examples of each gesture type in each context are provided in Tables 1 and 2. ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10061  In the outdoor learning context, the most commonly used gestures were deictic gestures, which are used to communicate simple movements by pointing at objects or in a direction (McNeill, 1992). Deictic gestures were used to point at minerals, rocks, geological structures (bedding), topography, and other objects. Imageable gestures were used to express past events or invisible current realities, such as the process of how the river and the mountain were formed by volcanic eruptions and lava flow. These gestures allowed students to visualize events that happened in the past but cannot be seen today. Depictive gestures were used to visualize images that are currently visible, such as specific objects observed in the field trips, field note observations, and the location of the river and the mountain.
We observed a high frequency of deictic gestures in both outdoor and indoor classes. Students tended to use deictic gestures to point at hands such as minerals, rocks, geological structures (bedding), topography, etc. in the outdoor classes. In indoor settings, gestures were able to convey more diversified information, such as place, object, and outdoor observations. Imageable gestures were the second most frequently used in both environments, allowing students to express their opinions using gestures in the context of geological reasoning about the past that cannot be observed with the naked eye. Depictive gestures were the least frequently used in both environments, used to describe geographical features or topography that can be currently observed. Finally, depictive gestures were used to visualize images that are currently visible . Students employed depictive gestures to externally express specific objects to each other or share current geological information. Depictive gestures were used to express descriptions of objects observed in the field trips, to describe field note observations, and to delineate the location of the river and the mountain as seen in the outdoor field trips in the classroom so the students could use the indoor space to discuss mountain and river formation while engaging in modeling activities.
In summary, although students used the same gestures in both outdoor and indoor environments, there were differences in the frequency and purpose of use. Gestures were used to represent observations and the process of inference in outdoor classes, while they were used as a representation for more in-depth reasoning activities in the classroom environment. The classification of gestures provides a deeper understanding of their meaning in the context of learning environments.

What Are the Characteristics of the Gestures the Students' Use to Communicate during Outdoor and Indoor Class?
The second research question sought to explore the use of second-meaning gestures for social and scientific communication. Social role gestures were categorized into nine types, including Explanation, Opinion, Concurrence, Refutation, Asking, Alternative, Evidence, Turn topic, and Repetition, while scientific role gestures were classified into three categories, including Visualization, Tempo ral and Spatial, and Elaboration. Table 3 presents a summary of the functions of gestures that demonstrate social roles in the outdoor environment. For example, the "Turn topic" gesture  Evidence gestures give support to student ideas.

B, Student 2:
We can see a lot of granite here. When we look at the sand, we see quartz and feldspar.

Student points at a mineral and a picture of a mineral.
ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10061 Table 3 Gesture functions: Social role in the outdoor class (cont.)
Turn-topic gestures show movements that catch other students' attention.

C, Student 2:
Hey, look at this, Student starts speaking after getting attention with finger movement.

Repetition (deictic type) (N=10).
Repetition gestures show the same movement again to express something.

B, Student 4:
Here, the bright and dark points appear repeatedly.

Student points at a dark part and a light section repeatedly.
classroom. The "Visualization" gesture was used to show an image between two layers of unconformity. The gestures showed how students identified time periods, such as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, by differentiating between the two layers and describing temporal flows in the educational context (e.g., weathering and erosion). Overall, students used both social and scientific role gestures in both outdoor field trips and indoor classroom modeling activities. Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide examples of the classes of gestures used by students based on social and scientific roles as well as outdoor and indoor learning environments. The results showed that in the outdoor learning environment, students used gestures with a social role more frequently than gestures that communicated scientific roles. During outdoor field trips, students used gestures within nine aspects of social roles to communicate with each other more often than they used gestures to communicate scientific roles. However, in the indoor classroom learning environments, when students were tasked to co-construct models to demonstrate their understanding of mountain and river formation, they used more gestures to communicate scientific roles than to convey social roles. These gestures communicated the students' observations from the outdoors and conveyed their thought processes while they engaged in scientific reasoning.
The more frequent results of social functions in outdoor environments suggest that the instructor did not explain scientific content during geological 10.1163/23641177-bja10061 | ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34  Table 4 Gesture functions: Social role in the indoor class (cont.) was used during outdoor classes when students visited outcrops with the teacher to observe scientific content (such as minerals and rocks, characteristics of joint structures, etc.). In this process, students shared information with each other, such as exchanging ideas on their observations. The "Turn topic" gesture was used to draw attention and indicate that the group needs to change the topic. It involved using hand movements to refer to the observed content (e.g., a rock). Gestures were frequently used to concentrate on the scientific content observed outdoors. Table 4 presents a summary of the functions of gestures that show social roles in the indoor classroom. Here, the "Turn topic" gesture was used in the process of creating a group model. It aimed to attract the attention of other members when a student insisted on their opinion or added content. Table 5 presents examples of gestures that allowed students to represent scientific functions in the outdoor environment. The "Visualization" gesture was used to express scientific content that students observed by hand. For instance, students drew the boundary of the unconformity by hand to visualize their ideas and complement their spoken language. Table 6 shows examples of gestures that allowed students to represent scientific functions in the Gesture function, type, and frequency

Spoken language Proxemics
Content description (Mid-stroke) Gestures to give support to student ideas.
A, Student 1: Quartz and feldspar here. It's a mineral in granite.

Student points at a mineral and a picture of a mineral.
Turn topic (deictic type) (N=2).
Movements that catch other students' attention.
B, Student 1: Hey, hey, hey, please look at this.
Same movements used to express something.

A, Student 2:
Here are the volcanoes, again. Draw a volcanic eruption.

Student points at a dark part and a bright part again
10.1163/23641177-bja10061 | ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34 field trips in a teacher-centered manner. Instead, students used various tools to interact with each other and convey scientific information. Additionally, the findings indicate that interactions may occur in both spoken language and non-verbal elements, such as linguistic aspects, eye contact, and attitudes. Moreover, social functional aspects were activated through gestures during mutual communication. The results presented in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 highlight the importance of both environments in the context of functional aspects of gestures, emphasizing the need for qualitative exploration of gesture use, in addition to numerical analyses.

What Are the Relationships between Students' Gestures and the Modeling Process?
The preceding research questions examined students' gestures in both outdoor and indoor classes. The third question aims to investigate the correlation between students' gestures and the modeling process. Specifically, this study focuses on two target models: (a) the formation of a granite mountain and (b) the formation of a river through repeated volcanic eruptions. The students developed their group models using the modeling-based learning cycle Table 6 Gesture functions: Scientific role in the indoor class

Gesture Description
Spoken language Proxemics Content description (Mid-stroke)
A, Student 2: Deposition and weathering have been repeated and piled up here. And there is a time difference between the top and bottom layer boundaries.

Visualizing an unconformity plane between up and down layers
Temporal and Spatial (N=37) Commonly utilized for deictic, imageable, and depictive gestures to delineate scale.

B, Student 2:
There is volcanic eruption and uplift on the Cenozoic.
Describing the geological concept of uplift from volcanic matter in Cenozoic level.

B, Student 4:
There were many round shaped volcanic rocks as we observed on the outside.

Showing origin of volcanic rocks from volcanic eruption.
10.1163/23641177-bja10061 | ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34 Table 7 A deictic gesture in the model creation in Group B

Gesture description
Spoken language Proxemics Content description (Mid-stroke)

Temporal and Spatial
Gesture distinguishes areas of geological eras B, Student 2: Here, we write the Mesozoic era Shows area of geologic eras while writing term "Mesozoic" (Constantinou, 2019), employing gestures during the data and observation, model construction, and model development stages to identify the phenomena. The students used all gesture types, including deictic, imageable, and depictive gestures, during the data and observation phase to convey information and communicate scientific ideas.
This study compares two group cases to explore the relationship between students' gestures and the modeling process. The modeling-based learning cycle involves data and observation, model creation, model development (model evaluation and revision to elucidate phenomena), and the identification of phenomena. Since data and observation were conducted outdoors, this research problem focuses more directly on the stages of model creation, modification, and evaluation related to target model formation in a classroom environment. The study describes the relationship between the results of the entire modeling process and gestures.
In Group B, Table 7 provides an example of a deictic gesture during model creation. In this scene, the student used hand movements to express the geologic time scale, differentiating between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. Table 8 shows an example of a gesture during model evaluation, where the student used depictive gestures to visualize and represent geological structures, such as unconformity planes, by separating the upper and lower parts of the unconformity that they observed outdoors. The students then employed time-scale evidence to develop their ideas, which led to agreement. Table 9 provides an example of an imageable gesture during model revision, where a student described a new terrain by gathering and unfolding their fingers spontaneously, suggesting that repeated volcanic eruptions caused the terrain to widen over time. This gesture was helpful in generating new hypotheses during model revision.
In Group C, Table 10 shows that a deictic gesture was used during model creation. When students had questions about scientific reasoning, students used a deictic gesture to ask what the question was. During model creation, the teacher used deictic gestures to indicate uncertainty about the drawing. Table 11 describes another deictic gesture used in the evaluation stage to ask whether the model was appropriate or not. This deictic gesture focused on what was drawn to indicate if the model fit or not.
In the revision stage, Table 12 was used to repeatedly refer to adding metamorphic rocks as a deictic gesture. It was emphasized that students should revise the model to include metamorphic rocks. The repeated use of this gesture conveyed the idea of including metamorphic rocks. Table 9 An imageable gesture in model revision in Group B

Gesture description
Spoken language Proxemics Content description (Mid-stroke)

Visualization
Portrayal of a new terrain by using fingers to show eruptions B, Student 3: Here, the bright and dark points appear repeatedly  Points at the metamorphic rock while describing how to revise the model Table 11 A deictic gesture in model evaluation in Group C

Gesture description
Spoken language Proxemics Content description (Mid-stroke)

Asking
Pointing at initial model and asking question.

C, Student 4:
By the way, hmm … this model was right?
Points at the initial model and questions whether it fits well or not. Secondly, this study explores the relationship between modeling and the gestures used by students. In Group B, the scientific gestures used during model creation, evaluation, and modification phases included visualization, temporal and spatial, and elaboration gestures. As shown in Table 13, all gestures were employed to construct, model, and develop ideas, but deictic gestures were the most frequently used. Group B's Hantan-river model explained that repeated volcanic eruptions caused the river formation and their model fit the target model.  On the other hand, Group C's model did not explain the "repeat volcanic eruption," and it only depicted the volcanic eruption once. The scientific gestures used by Group C students were relatively less frequent than those used by Group B, and the frequency of their deictic gestures was at least 80% of all the gestures they used, as shown in Table 14. Moreover, only explanations, asking, and concurrence gestures served the social function during the model creation stage. As a result, Group C's model was not consistent with the target model ASIA-PACIFIC SCIENCE EDUCATION (2023) 1-34 | 10.1163/23641177-bja10061 when only certain kinds of gesture functions were used during modeling-based learning cycles. Thus, using all types of gestures to communicate or convey scientific ideas may have been useful for developing their group model. That is, if they had used all gesture types throughout the modeling-based learning cycle, their group model would have fit the target model. Therefore, we may interpret that the more frequently students employed various gestures, the more they interacted during the modeling activity to identify the phenomenon in the target model in this study.
In terms of the consistency between the final model and the target model of the two groups, it was found that the final model of Group B was in line with the target model. During Group B's modeling process, deictic gestures were utilized to convey the scale of a geologic era, whereas depictive gestures were employed to visualize and express the geological structure. Moreover, imaginable gestures were utilized to depict the repeated volcanic eruptions in the model modification phase. These findings suggest that students' gestures played a complementary role in enhancing the meaning and improving the target model in the modeling-based learning cycle.

Summary and Conclusion
This study examines middle-school students' use of gestures in geological field trips and modeling activities to explore how Granite Mountain and Lava Flow River were formed. While prior research on gestures has focused on students with extensive geological backgrounds (Herrera & Riggs, 2013;Liben et al., 2010), this study examines participants with little geological knowledge to investigate gestures as a cognitive tool in learning environments. McNeill's Identifying the phenomenon -A volcanic eruption created the river in three steps -First, there were sediments, granite, and metamorphic rocks -Second, volcanic lava flowed at the current location of the river -Finally, as it eroded, the terrain was created gesture scheme (1992) is used to analyze students' gestures, but this scheme has limitations when it comes to explaining scientific concepts, especially in field trip learning environments. However, this study examines students' gestures in both outdoor and indoor learning environments, including field excursions and modeling activities, which may help overcome gesture classification limitations, especially with regards to communication about spatiotemporal information central to geoscience education.
The study identifies three types of gestures used in field excursions and modeling activities, and finds that students frequently use all three types of gestures in modeling activities. This increased use of gestures leads to more interaction in evaluating and revising models, resulting in final group models that are more consistent with target models. When students only use deictic gestures, the final models are less suitable for the target models, suggesting that using all types of gestures during modeling activities helps co-construct geological knowledge.
The study also finds that students use gestures to convey geological information and interact in the modeling process, augmenting student interactions to develop group models. The more students employ nonverbal interactions, the more likely they are to help in the modeling process to create sophisticated models that meet their target models. Using all types of gestures during modeling activities plays a functional communication role, benefiting both social and scientific functions and contributing to the development of target models.
Overall, this study shows a complementary relationship between students' use of gestures and the final model. Further research can explore how students' gestures influence their modeling activity in the modeling process to gain insights into nonverbal interaction and benefit geoscience educators.

Limitations
First, although this study had a smaller sample size compared to previous studies, we attempted to overcome this limitation by conducting two surveys: one based on two outdoor classes and another on two indoor classes. Larger participant numbers could have improved the reliability of the data analysis and interpretation. Second, all participants in this study were middle school students attending a gifted science education institute hosted at a local university, and a random sample of novice students attending different middle schools was not used. Randomly obtaining participants from public middle schools, rather than a gifted science education program, may have resulted in different findings. Third, it was challenging for to capture data for all students at the same time at the same locations during outdoor classes. We were unable to capture all the students in one location as we were collecting data using one camera per group. To mitigate this problem, the researcher intervened when each group of students participated in focused observation activities to capture students' gestures and talk on video. Although data were collected with one camera per person, a more comprehensive study may have been produced with more in-depth data collection. Fourth, not all semi-structured interviews conducted after outdoor and indoor classes were recorded on video. The goal of the interviews was for the researcher to confirm students' gestures when clarification was needed (member checking). However, by using voice recordings of the participants, we were able to proceed with member checking by confirming students' class activities and movements. Video data added during the interview would have helped enrich the analysis. Under richer data collection conditions, the use and characteristics of gestures in all areas, from individual models to group models, could have been analyzed in-depth to provide a more comprehensive understanding.

Implication and Discussion
Geoscience is a multidisciplinary approach to studying the Earth, which is why examining students' gestures in Earth science education is expected to be multidisciplinary and academic. Therefore, geoscience educators may need to have a better understanding of the empirical use of gestures to suit the characteristics of geoscience. Gestures can help us understand the goal of creating profound meaning through students' interactions to communicate or convey information in educational learning and practice environments. Future studies that explore students' gestures may integrate other fields of study, such as cognitive science and psychology, to provide a more comprehensive perspective. The differences found in students' gestures between outdoor and classroom settings provide considerable insight for geoscience educators. Orion (1989) noted that a student's cognitive, psychological, and geographic experiences during outdoor and indoor classes were representative of influential novelty learning spaces. This study contributes to findings about the importance of students' use of gestures in novelty spaces, including geoscience field trips and geoscience laboratory spaces, that can have important implications for educators. Understanding students' use of gestures could offer educators new pedagogical approaches to more effectively represent and express spatial and temporal concepts in geoscience (Alles & Riggs, 2011;Herrera & Riggs, 2013;Kastens et al., 2008;Roth, 2001).
interactions to develop understanding about their science learning and communication patterns while engaged in geoscience education programs. His research aims to analyse students' gestures in geoscience education programs to suggest improved pedagogical strategies that can support students' geoscience learning.
Chan-Jong Kim is Professor Emeritus in Earth Science Education at Seoul National University in Seoul Republic of Korea. He received his bachelor's degree in Earth Science Education and master's degree in Geological Sciences from Seoul National University in the Republic of Korea. He also holds a doctoral degree in Science Education from the University of Texas at Austin in the United States. His research focuses on scientific modeling as an approach to scientific exploration and learning in a variety of subjects, contents, and contexts and on development and application of various methods for the analysis of collective talk with learning of science. He is particularly interested in education for diverse learners in Korean K-12 on global environmental risks such as climate change.

Seung-Urn Choe is Professor Emeritus in Earth Science Education at Seoul
National University in Seoul, Republic of Korea. He holds a bachelor's and master's degree from the Department of Astronomy, Seoul National University. He also holds a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from the University of Minnesota in the United States. With a focus on scientific modeling, he developed and applied a variety of educational programs that enable students to socially construct scientific models. His research covers a variety of topics, including analysis of students' scientific argumentations and interactions on socio-scientific issues such as climate change, understanding of cognitive processes of scientifically gifted students, and improving students' scientific creativity.