“Learning is considered to arise from the reciprocal interaction between external, embodied, activity and internal, cerebral, activity, the whole being embedded in the environment in which it occurs.” (Winn, 2003, p.22)
The premise of embodiment relies on constructivist ideas of learning. Students learn to use their body to process and demonstrate conceptual understanding. The research about embodiment also resonates with other notable theories such as the social-communicative learning. Here, the context in which the learning occurs serves as a decisive factor for concept attainment.
Let’s explore the ways in which the use of embodiment principals will support the learning of logic and coding in the application Lightbot.
Coding: Lightbot
- Makes learning concepts concrete, tangible and accessible
Some theorists believe that “the body is a public resource for thinking, learning, and joint activity” (Stevens, 2012, p.338). More specifically, like artificial manipulatives, the body acts as a medium of processing information. Stevens quotes William (2012) and claims that “the “bodily basis of the conceptual system we use to think mathematically” (p. 217).” (Stevens, 2012, p.342) Adding muscle memory tags can also enhance information retrieval rate.
In the coding application Lightbot, users are asked to solve puzzles of command to direct a robot to light a light bulb in a specific space. Using hand gestures will also users to indicate the specific direction in which the robot will move hence supporting the problem solving process.
- Embodiment allows for and utilizes learning from the first person perspective
The idea of embodiment expect learners to internalize and re-represent heard or seen concepts. They are commanding their body parts to materialize thoughts and communicate understanding. Moreover, it is possible that learners are mobilizing mirror neurons (i.e. to copy the agent and or the object) to re-represent and internalize explanation. This implies that the use of body parts to enable first hand experience hence increasing opportunities for direct experience. Kim, Roth & Thom (2011) alludes to the idea re-represent with body and that it is similar to utilizing slow motion to take a closer look at concepts and to reduce misconceptions.
In the case of solving puzzles in Lightbot, learners have to impersonate the robot to problem solve from their avatar’s point of view. Thus, the only way to solve the puzzle is to follow through imaging oneself as the robot.
- Providing social learning opportunities to make concepts more explicit
In one study, it was found that almost all gestures were used for social interactions. More specifically, “[t]he body participates in abstracting the ideas unfolded in the interaction imaginatively and spontaneously.”(Kim, Roth & Thom, 2011, p.224) Naturally, body parts are accessible tools for social negotiation. When young learners lack the vocabulary to share ideas, body parts serve as convenient tools to express meaning. Embodiment theorists then claim that verbalizing alone is insufficient to create learning pathways.
With more challenging Lightbot puzzles, students will have to work together to help how they solve it. Here, the use of gestures and other body parts to share expertises.
Wonderings
How can the use of embodiment reduce misconceptions?
How can VR and AR technology support learning in coding?
How does immersive technology support the concept of embodiment?
References
Kim, M., Roth, W. M., & Thom, J. (2011). Children’s gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 207-238. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9240-5
Stevens, R. (2012). The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 337-346. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.614326
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, 2004, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf
VR is a great way for students to be embodied in immersive learning so that they are able to experience situations not possible in the real world. If designed well, these types of activities help to reduce misconceptions because the students can not only see the results but also see and experience the process as it happens. Technology that supports physical movements helps to engage students and increase retention. Much research has gone in using VR and gaming to support learning. I wonder, aside from educational software, is there merit in the gaming experience itself? My kids have a Xbox with Kinect – a sensor that responds to their movements. This type of tech reminds me a lot of the embodied learning theory – but is there merit on its own, or is particular content needed to create educational value?
Dear David,
I like the new direction this comment is heading. Perhaps, with the emergent trend of game-based learning models, it is remediating the definition of education. If educational value are based on content, then perhaps games will only have value when they foster knowledge retention. However, if soft-skills such as critical analysis and or communication skills are of value, then certainly, games have educational value. Consider tower-defence games: they may be teaching collaboration, resource management and forward planning. Can these skills be applied to education? Most likely; then do they have educational value?
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments!
Alice
Alice,
Great application of the theories this week, as always! I am always impressed and intimidated by your posts, as they demonstrate such a masterful example of the topics.
When thinking about embodiment in learning, I feel one of the strongest ways it reduced misconceptions is by “breaking the wall” that many times exists between theories and actions. The use of technology to embody the concepts allows students to check and test their own mental constructions against what the established science or concept is already saying. By doing this, the technology acts as a two-way mirror: In one side, it reflects the theories. On the other side, it reflects the students’ own constructions and makes them physical. This type of learning could be invaluable, especially for kinesthetic and visual learners.
For these reasons, VR, AR, simulations, and more all provide great resources for teachers as they attempt to reach the most amount of students with every lesson.
-Jonathan-
Jonathan,
Thank you for your feedback. I always appreciate your comments and the new directions they bring.
Your analogy of digital tools as a two way mirror is quite fitting. Often we assume that it only reflects students’ knowledge and competency. However, the tools may have flaws. The usability of the tools should be critically assessed. One potential danger is when tools are made too user-friendly, do users lose their ability to critically assess and consequently learn less?
Alice
I love Lightbot. It really is such a great and engaging tool to teach students problem solving, directionality, counting and more in addition to the concepts of computational thinking and coding. I was thinking about your question “How can VR and AR technology support learning in coding?”. Just imagine if Lightbot could be AR enabled?! I think that students in many ways still struggle with shape and directional concepts when they are trapped on a two dimensional screen. If students could program their Lightbots as a layer in their three dimensional world it completely changes their understanding and misconceptions about shape and space. Seeing an abstract concept like coding come to life changes the depth of your understanding. In many ways Tim Bell tried to accomplish this physical understanding of the coding world with his program CS Unplugged https://csunplugged.org/en/ (CS meaning Computer Science) where students learn the concept of problem solving, logic, variables and loops all without a computer. I imagine taking the physical enactment of code and allowing AR to give a deeper experience of the concepts.
Dear Trish,
Thank you for sharing your resource! I find that many of the newer technology is really about perspective taking. Technological tools allow for first person and eagle eye perspective. These input data allows users to make better choices and more sensible critical judgements. Students can then literally ‘walk-through’ the steps. Will this be the next popular trend in programming?
Alice