Embodied Learning – Simple Technology and Rich Social Practices

For my topic, I chose to work with probe-ware on handheld devices.  Winn (2003) states his premise that “cognition is embodied in physical activity, that this activity is embedded in a learning environment, and that learning is the result of adaptation”.  He posits that learning is the reciprocal interaction between the external (embodiment) and the internal (cognition) embedded in the environment.  His point her is that “learning is no longer confined to what goes on in the brain”.  Our gestures, movements, and spatial positioning contribute to our understandings – for example we remember the movements and gestures of children’s songs even as adults.  Role plays, too, can be very effective in supporting long-term retention of understandings, as they help us to relate to the roles and to see value and importance in it through empathy with our given role.

In a similar vein, Niebert et al, (2012), use the examples of metaphors and analogies to support learning beyond experiences and cognition.  A metaphor or analogy properly used allows students to relate complicated concepts to their everyday life.  I see this as a sort of mental role-play.  Rather than acting it out, our brains visualize how the concept works through understanding the analogy.  Niebert et al write “it takes more than making a connection to everyday life to communicate science fruitfully. We show that good instructional metaphors and analogies need embodied sources. These embodied sources are everyday experiences conceptualized in, for example, schemata such as containers, paths, balances, and up and down”, (2012).  They use the theory of experientialism to boldly claim “thinking about and understanding science without metaphors and analogies is not possible” as support for the need for embodiment for students to relate to concepts that they can not physically experience.

Zucker et al, (2008), wrote the the use of probe ware with PDAs in the classroom resulted in “substantial learning gains” compared to instruction without them.  They reported on a TEEMSS II project (technology enhanced elementary and middle school science) where hand held probes were used to collect, share and analyse date effectively while actively engaging the students.  Roschelle, (2003), agrees, but also recognizes a number of significant challenges to the effective use of hand-held mobile devices in the classroom.  He argues that for them to be used effectively, the teachers need to grow in their TPCK base.  Technology can very easily be ineffective or even disruptive to learning, but also has great potential.  He presents 3 case studies to demonstrate that “simple, well-honed technology and rich, pedagogically developed social practices” can greatly increase understandings while not allowing technology to control the students or driving up significant costs.  The 3 case studies put forward are: classroom response systems, participatory simulations, and collaborative data gathering.  All three use a specific, uniform technology to perform a simple well-defined function that the students can engage and interact with.  The teaching and learning are supported by the tech, but occur outside of it through designing of experiments, critiquing, analysis of results, discussion of patterns, and explanation of responses.  I find this approach very helpful, as the teacher can still direct the learning but in an engaging and effective way.

1. Roschelle indicated that one of the biggest challenges to handheld devices and probe ware is the lack of uniformity and compatibility in available technology: devices and apps. I found this to be a problem in my class last year when I experimented with BYOD.  How can we as teachers support effective use of student-owned devices when there is such diversity of incompatible platforms and apps, and without mandating a particular one?
2. If, as Winn claims, “cognition is embedded in physical activity”, in your opinion, does the use of tech and personal devices support or counteract this claim?
3. The TELEs we looked at prior all involved learning being immersed in a tech environment, but Roschelle and Zucker see the use of tech as being embedded in the social practice of learning. Which of these models is better from a pedagogical viewpoint?

• Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.21026

• Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272. 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00028.x
• Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from:http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf
• Zucker, A., Tinker, R., Staudt, C., Mansfield, A., & Metcalf, S. (2008). Learning science in grades 3-8 using probeware and computers: Findings from the TEEMSS II Project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 42-48. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=28816389&site=ehost-live