- When discussing your practice, describe a topic that you teach that you think would benefit from an embodied learning approach and explain why.
- E-Portfolio: How could you use what is developed in these studies to design learning experiences for younger learners that incorporate perception/motion activity and digital technologies? What would younger children learn through this TELE (technology-enhanced learning experience)?
The notion that your body influences your mind is the central premise of Winn, W. (2003) article and that learning occurs when people adapt to their environment. Winn, W. (2003) claimed that “we must think of the learner as embedded in the learning environment and physically active in it, so that cognition can be thought of as embodied as well as cerebral activity” (p. 3). Additionally, Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013) research showed conceptual development and comprehension are enhanced with the creation and manipulation through engaging and interacting with your physical surroundings. Moreover, they found that Mixed Reality (MR) technologies, virtual environments, are “well suited for facilitating embodied learning because they combine physical activity with salient and compelling representational supports” (p. 447).
Personally, I have seen a rapid shift in the classroom where students can connect with abstracts concepts in virtual and online learning environments. Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010) noted that participatory simulations “enables students to see the world around them in new ways and engage with realistic issues in a context with which students already connected” (p. 86).
I am lucky to be part of my school division’s STEAM Cohort (mostly elementary teachers) which incorporates art (A) with the standards of science, technology, engineering and math. We recently changed a typical paper-and-pencil animal research project to be more immersive and embodied by incorporating Mixed Reality and Learning-for-Use environment (motivate, construct & reflect).
Design Challenge: Can you create an animal that would help you SURVIVE?
Note: Station 1 uses the Animal VR cards. The cards provide the opportunity for the students bring the animals to “live” and by connecting the animals with other cards (food, predators or prey). As Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010) concluded these embodied environments has the “potential to engage students by seeing information in context and providing a platform through which they creatively explore content by designing and exploring scenarios through the lens of games” (p. 93).
The TPACK framework is useful in learning because it supports active and collaborative blended learning. Typically, most MR applications for primary students have embodied learning environments which provide few opportunities to collaborate with peers. In other words, they mostly include single user applications.
- How can primary students be better supported to work with their peers in an embodied environment?
- How is it possible for primary students mix virtual/augmented realities? Is it essential to manipulate realities at a young age?
Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010). Augmenting your own reality: Student authoring of science‐based augmented reality games. New directions for youth development, 2010(128), 85-94.
Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.
Hi Mary,
I like your Design Challenge and think that it incorporates many of the elements that we have been discussing thus far in this course. It is very interactive, open-ended and has a tech integrated in a meaningful way. Will be interesting to see what the students come up with!
I had a similar question to yours about young children being using MR. Last year I did a lot of research and inquiring into forest school and Regio Emelia for our pre-school teachers and think that it is so important for young children to interact with the environment around them. From my observations in my school, when tech is introduced to students at a young age they stop interacting with others as they haven’t had the chance to build their communication skills and collaborate – these things are done through play. I would like to see more features of play-based learning in lower primary and introduce MR once students have reached a developmental age where they can authentically use tech to collaborate. Still unsure of when that is though 🙂
Thanks for your post!
Sarah
Hello Sarah,
I appreciate your honesty and perspective. You highlighted that technology is integrated in a meaningful way, that is something I struggle with at the primary level. Other than just being a last minute add-on.
I was intrigued by your example of the Forest School. It reminded me of the Australian School I taught at. The school had a rain forest protected pathway, which included information plaques along the way. I think it would have been great to QR code those to enhance the learning. Recently, the school built a music playground, where kinesthetically the students can interact with music playground equipment. Both are great examples of embodied learning environments.
Thank you for your reply.
~Mary
Hi Mary.
Thanks for your insightful post. One thing that came to mind reading your post was the developmental stages of Piaget. Young students have not yet developed the ability to empathize with others. While VR may help with this in certain immersive situations where they have first person type scenarios, I agree with Sarah that it is far more helpful to have an active social environment such as through play rather than engaging with tech. Students will have a lot of opportunity throughout their lives to be immersed with tech, so I would much prefer them to work on social interaction and engagement at the younger ages. There is still ample opportunity for embodied learning, PBL and constructivist methodologies without relying heavily on tech, not to say that it couldn’t be used in a limited and collaborative way. The best tech to use would be ones that encourage movement (such as probe ware, sensors that read movement like KINECT), or interactive software like Minecraft that can support multiplayers in collaboration.
Dave
Hello Dave,
Thank you for bringing up Piaget’s development stages, and I would concur they are applicable when working with younger students. I like that you brought up interactive software, like Minecraft! I am not expert using this but I have introduced Minecraft with my Building Unit. Such interactive applications provide the opportunity to embed the learning and lends itself to be collaborative. I hope “Jan Lewis” chimes in to give her expertise using Minecraft in an elementary setting.
~Mary
Hey Mary,
I think you ask a good questions about AR/VR at a young age. In trying to implement different technologies with grade 2+3 classes, I’ve really struggled to find apps that have true educational value. There are a ton of ‘neat’ apps out there that can do very cool AR type things, yet I have a hard time justifying them pedagogically.
I think it is entirely possible for them to use this technology, yet I’m with you in that it might be developmentally more appropriate for them to manipulate the tangible world first.