Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- 14 Video Games and Learning
- 15 Embodiment and Embodied Design
- 16 Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
- 17 Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
- 18 Mobile Learning
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
15 - Embodiment and Embodied Design
from Part III - Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- 14 Video Games and Learning
- 15 Embodiment and Embodied Design
- 16 Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
- 17 Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
- 18 Mobile Learning
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter reviews research showing that much learning involves physical movement and gesture – thinking and learning are embodied in the physical world and involve interactions with physical objects. Even abstract subjects such as math are better learned when the body is enlisted in the learning activity. Students often have trouble with STEM content because of pedagogy that removes the body from the learning experience. In fact, in many cases expert knowledge itself is embodied, more than is generally realized, and deeper learning requires embodied design. Embodied learning leads to deeper knowledge because the learner has to coordinate two cognitive and motor knowledge; manipulating symbolic notation is often quite similar to moving objects in space. The chapter discusses how to overcome challenges in designing activities, materials, and scaffolding.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 301 - 320Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abrahamson, D. (2009). Embodied design: Constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 27–47. Electronic supplementary material at http://edrl.berkeley.edu/publications/journals/ESM/Abrahamson-ESM/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2012). Mathematical Imagery Trainer – Proportion (MIT-P) iPhone/iPad application (Terasoft): iTunes. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/mathematical-imagery-trainer/id563185943Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: An elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.07.002Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (Chair & Organizer). (2018). Moving forward: In search of synergy across diverse views on the role of physical movement in design for STEM education [symposium]. In Kay, J. & Luckin, R. (Eds.), “Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count,” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2018) (Vol. 2, pp. 1243–1250). London, England: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D. (2019). A new world: Educational research on the sensorimotor roots of mathematical reasoning. In Shvarts, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Russian chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) & Yandex (pp. 48–68). Moscow, Russia: Yandex.Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Flood, V. J., Miele, J. A., & Siu, Y.-T. (2019). Enactivism and ethnomethodological conversation analysis as tools for expanding Universal Design for Learning: The case of visually impaired mathematics students. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(2), 291–303. doi:10.1007/s11858-018-0998-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Lee, R. G., Negrete, A. G., & Gutiérrez, J. F. (2014). Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(1), 79–93. doi:10.1007/s11858-013-0521-7Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., Nathan, M. J., Williams-Pierce, C., et al. (2020). The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning [Original research]. In Ramanathan, S. (Guest Ed.), Future of STEM education: Multiple perspectives from researchers [Special issue]. Frontiers in Education, 5(147). doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00147Google Scholar
Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370Google Scholar
Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Bevans, A. (2013). Balancing justice: Exploring embodied metaphor and whole body interaction for an abstract domain. In England, D. & Bryan-Kinns, N. (Eds.), Whole body interaction [Special issue]. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(4), 388–409.Google Scholar
Bamberger, J., & diSessa, A. A. (2003). Music as embodied mathematics: A study of a mutually informing affinity. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(2), 123–160.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.Google Scholar
Becvar Weddle, L. A., & Hollan, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding embodied practices in professional education. Mind, Culture & Activity, 17(2), 119–148.Google Scholar
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.Google Scholar
Bernstein, N. A. (1996). On dexterity and its development. In Latash, M. L. & Turvey, M. T. (Eds.), Dexterity and its development (pp. 3–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–253.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1927).Google Scholar
Diénès, Z. P. (1971). An example of the passage from the concrete to the manipulation of formal systems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3/4), 337–352.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2008). A note from the editor. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 427–429.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1999). The challenge of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of embodiment for cognitive science. In Weiss, G. & Haber, H. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature and culture (pp. 103–120). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duijzer, A. C. G., Shayan, S., Bakker, A., Van der Schaaf, M. F., & Abrahamson, D. (2017). Touchscreen tablets: Coordinating action and perception for mathematical cognition. In Tarasuik, J., Strouse, G., & Kaufman, J. (Eds.), Touchscreen tablets touching children’s lives [Special issue]. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(144). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00144Google Scholar
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Flood, V. J. (2018). Multimodal revoicing as an interactional mechanism for connecting scientific and everyday concepts. Human Development, 61(3), 145–173. doi:10.1159/000488693Google Scholar
Flood, V. J., Amar, F. G., Nemirovsky, R., Harrer, B. W., Bruce, M. R., & Wittmann, M. C. (2015). Paying attention to gesture when students talk chemistry: Interactional resources for responsive teaching. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 11–22.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: Learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 664–674.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2009). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 265–284.Google Scholar
Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.). (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. New York, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., Miyake, Y., & Binks, M. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2011). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. NeuroReport, 7, 2325–2330.Google Scholar
Jasmin, K., & Casasanto, D. (2012). The QWERTY effect: How typing shapes the meanings of words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 499–504.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgement and choice. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. In Marshall, P., Antle, A. N., Hoven, E. v.d., & Rogers, Y. (Eds.), The theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design (Special issue). ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1), 3:1–30.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., Kuuti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 333–347.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. L. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., & Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.Google Scholar
Lindgren, R., Wallon, R. C., Brown, D. E., Mathayas, N., & Kimball, N. (2016). “Show me” what you mean: Learning and design implications of eliciting gesture in student explanations. In Looi, C.-K., Polman, J., Cress, U., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), “Transforming learning, empowering learners,” Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2016) (pp. 1014–1017). Singapore: National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind (Claremont, C. M., Trans.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (Original work published 1949).Google Scholar
Nemirovsky, R., & Borba, M. C. (2004). PME Special Issue: Bodily activity and imagination in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 303–321.Google Scholar
Nemirovsky, R., Ferrara, F., Ferrari, G., & Adamuz-Povedano, N. (2020). Body motion, early algebra, and the colours of abstraction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104, 261–283. doi:10.1007/s10649–020-09955-2Google Scholar
Núñez, R. E., Edwards, L. D., & Matos, J. F. (1999). Embodied cognition as grounding for situatedness and context in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 45–65.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1968). Genetic epistemology (Duckworth, E., Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (Weaver, H., Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1966).Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2010). Designing for mathematical abstraction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(2), 81–97.Google Scholar
Roth, W.-M. (2009). The emergence of 3D geometry from children’s (teacher-guided) classification tasks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 45–99.Google Scholar
Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligences with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9.Google Scholar
Sfard, A., & McClain, K. (Eds.). (2002). Analyzing tools: Perspectives on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning (Special Issue). Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2 & 3).Google Scholar
Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2019). Dual-eye-tracking Vygotsky: A microgenetic account of a teaching/learning collaboration in an embodied-interaction technological tutorial for mathematics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, 100316. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.05.003Google Scholar
Singer, M., Radinsky, J., & Goldman, S. R. (2008). The role of gesture in meaning construction. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 365–386.Google Scholar
Sklar, A. Y., Levy, N., Goldstein, A., Mandel, R., Maril, A., & Hassin, R. R. (2012). Reading and doing arithmetic nonconsciously. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(48), 19614–19619.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. P., Austin, A., & Schutte, A. R. (2012). Contributions of dynamic systems theory to cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 27(4), 401–418.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Rompay, T., Hekkert, P., & Muller, W. (2005). The bodily basis of product experience. Design Studies, 26(4), 359–377.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (Silverman, R. H., Trans.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC. (Original work published 1926).Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–204). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by